33D CONG....2D SESS.

State sovereignty. I heard long years ago a Virginia Representative in the other House complain that a sovereign State, and that old Virginia too, was not allowed more than five minutes to express her views. I hear to-day the Senator from Ohio proclaim the sovereignty-the absolute, unconditional sovereignty of Ohio. I heard him proclaim that he was in favor of the resolutions of 1798, which I suppose from the view he is now taking, insist that all the States of this Union are absolute, unconditional, unrestricted, unlimited sovereignties. Sir, I totally and wholly dissent from that. We are for certain purposes a consolidated Union; for other purposes there are reserved sovereignties and rights.

Allow me to suppose a thing that could possibly never exist; that I should be in possession myself, as a prince, as a stadtholder of all the political powers of Virginia. Suppose, in my sovereign right, I should proclaim to the world that the sovereign prince of Virginia proclaimed or decreed so and so, and a quizzical man should come to me and say: "You claim to be sovereign; you have all the rights vested in you that Virginia has now." I reply, "Yes, certainly; I am a sovereign prince. "Well, when are you going to declare war? A nation has offered you an indignity, or insulted you." "When am I going to declare war! I cannot declare war at all." "What! and you a sovereign! Is not that one of the attributes of sovereignty?"! "Well; I cannot declare war at any rate?" If at war, he might say to me: "When are you going to make peace?" "I can never make peace.' "When are you going to raise an army?" "I can never raise an army.' "When are you going to raise a navy?" "I can never raise a navy."" When are you going to do the pitiful business of carrying the mail?" "Oh, never; I have no such power at all." "When are you going to determine in your courts of law all the rights of the citizens arising under foreign treaties, foreign contracts, foreign alliances?" "Oh, never, never; I have no such power." "Well, are you not a pretty sovereign prince!" [Laughter.]

་་

Sir, it is the greatest and the grossest fallacy that ever existed. There is no such thing; no, I will not say there is no such thing, for there is a sovereignty in a most limited, shadowy, flickering, remaining form in the States, and none other. I always prefer, Mr. President, that we should have the truth, whether it is wholesome or unwhole-made it a constitutional provision, and that we some. What are the attributes of sovereignty in a nation? The greatest and most glaring is that of levying taxes in the first place, in all their forms, directly and indirectly. Because you have a right in the different States to levy taxes directly upon the people do you say you have a sovereignty? Where is the right that pertains to every Sovereign to levy foreign taxes, or taxes upon foreign importation? Sir, it does not exist in the States; you have no such power; you have surrendered it and yielded it up to another Government. Where, ask you, is that next highest attribute of sovereignty, to declare war, and compel your citizens to bare their breasts to the bayonet or the bullet of the enemy, and lend their lives to be sacrificed for the good of the whole. You have no such sovereignty; it does not exist; you have surrendered it here. So with a dozen other instances which I might refer to. Where are your emblems of sovereignty? Where is your national flag of the State? Where is the sovereignty|| of the seas that belongs to you? You have sur rendered it here; yet you say you are a sovereign! You have a right to punish a man if he stabs another, if he steals his money, or if he knocks him down with his fist or a cudgel, or if he blackens his eye; you have a right to punish him, and that is about the extent of your sovereignty. Show me the emblems of your sovereignty, and the right to exercise them, and then I will admit it, and not before. It does not exist, Mr. President.

SENATE.

ing, noon, and night, that "God out of his mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to everlasting life, and others to everlasting damnation; and all for the glory of God." This I believe, and that it applies as well to nations and races of men as to individuals. I am not going to deliver you a discourse upon theology, but I take great pleasure in saying that these precepts were early instilled, and the twig being so bent in early life, the tree continues so inclined. I as firmly believe as I do that I exist, that so far as the disposition of races is apparent, nature designed that certain races of men should come upon earth, and that for a time they should inhabit it; that upon this quarter such an one should exist, and upon that another, and that they might either be improved to some extent, or supplanted by a better race; but that if you attempt to make one race out of another, it is as impossible, as I have said it would be to change the meanest of animals into the noblest.

Mr. President, I have no lamentation over these things. The decrees of nature are beyond my control. I lament not the disappearance of the red man who formerly trod the very ground on which we now are. It is the order of nature that he should give way before us. It is the order of nature that we should occupy it still. No, sir; I have no such disposition. If I should see in God's decrees, the doom of my own race written and the end of its duration fixed, I would stand up and say: "Rest, mortal rest, on God's decree, And, thankful, own his power." Let the races have their run. Let them in their turn be swept from the face of the earth. As well might I repine at the deluge that the Almighty brought upon the earth. As well, Mr. President, might I complain of Divine wisdom for having written the significant language on the walls of the palace of Belshazzar. As well might I complain because a Daniel was found to interpret it; but, though all those things be written in much plainer language than the hieroglyphics and the marks of the shadow finger upon the wall; though they would not take, it would seem to me, a Daniel to interpret them, we are loth to admit the unmistakable destiny of the races of men on the earth or in our own country. As well might I complain of the downfall of Babylon and Nineveh, of Sodom and Gomorrah. As well might I complain of the downfall of the Jews and Jerusalem. As well might I complain of the overthrow of Tyre and of Sidon. As well might I complain or mourn over the obliteration, and bondage, and almost the subversion of Rome. All these things have happened, and if we allowed ourselves to reflect upon the cause, we should not be at a loss to know what has produced them. Different races of men coming in contact, sir; that was all. In some instances the attempt was made to amalgamate and unite them, which always did, and always will prove an abortive and fallacious thing. In other cases, different races came into contact, and the stronger overpowered and annihilated the other. Such, sir, is the true solution of the question.

Mr. President, what destroyed Rome? That is a question that you have heard asked and discussed in your schools and your colleges, in Fourth of July orations, and perhaps in the Senate of the United States. A thousand answers have been

Then all the essentials of sovereignty for national purposes are delegated here, and exist here, and nowhere else. Talk, then, to me no more of it. Now, Mr. President, it is possible, that before You might as well say that your city corporations I conclude, I shall enunciate some unpleasant and are sovereign because they can compel the con- disagreeable doctrines, but I beg Senators to construction of a jail, or because they can enforce sole themselves with the reflection that I shall not local penalties, as to say that the States are sov- be long here to repeat them. Sir, I have no lamereign. They were sovereign, I know, but they entations to make over the dispensations of Proviyielded and surrendered that sovereignty, and theydence. I was taught early in my catechism, morn

next question? Let me remind Senators, carrying out the view which I have presented, that distinct classes of persons cannot live upon terms of equality together, in the same country and under the same Government; that Rome, in her course of supposed or seeming oppression-for I do not hold that that which appears to be oppressive is always socollected together different races under its Government. Was it oppressive or wrong that the Jews were held in bondage four hundred years? To human vision it would appear so; and by human wisdom it would have been pronounced wrong; but God, for higher purposes, and higher designs, ordered it so, that they might be restored to the promised land, with more prospects and certainty of perpetuity. Rome had pursued a long course of conquest, both north and south. She had crossed the Mediterranean; she had extended her power from the Atlantic ocean to the Red sea, not to go any further, upon the whole borders of Africa, north of the mountains of Atlas, upon which

33D CONG....2D SESS.

vince my judgment that it were otherwise, I say that in two hundred years after Liberia and the coasts of western Africa shall cease to receive, from among us, their supply of civilized bloodsemi-civilized-civilized as far as it is capable of civilization-in two hundred years or less from the time all commerce with them shall cease, and we no longer supply them with cultivated and tutored African blood, to keep up the information among them, they will be utterly degenerated to their former condition of African barbarism. The constant quarrels and revolutions in Mexico are entirely owing to the contact and attempted equality of the races. The minor in numbers are seeking to govern the major; and in five hundred years, unless large and fresh supplies of European blood goes into that country, the European race will become extinct, and Mexico will return to her ancient Indian condition.

Sir, we have a difference existing among some of the States. To make the story short, in some we have no slaves; in others we have slaves. A provision exists among us that the slave of one State shall be surrendered to his owner when he escapes into another State. You have passed a law making it the duty of your judges and mar shals to effect that surrender; and you have acted wisely. You have not only acted with a view to peace and harmony among yourselves, but you have acted most kindly towards the negro. I solemnly affirm that while I hate slavery, and would not myself own a slave, yet, in my judgment, you do a most charitable, kind, and philanthropic deed for the negro by returning him to his master. If all the negroes of the South should

Sir, if I am right, your attempts at placing the African upon an equality with the European are vain and fallacious. He who has considered these things can come to no other conclusion, however reluctant he may be to utter it, or however certain he may be that he is digging his political grave. Where are the evidences that the African is not naturally inferior? What advantages had northern Europe over Africa for attaining civilization, and progressing in the arts and sciences? Do not those men know, who are acquainted with theo-to-day leave their masters, and flee, like so many logical history, that the Africans had among them Caucasian or white bishops of the Christian church long before the Europeans; that churches were established in Africa among the negroes, and your holy religion was preached by its ministers; that for a brief time it flourished, but that it was like the comet; it was like the will-o'-the-wisp; it was like the candle, when, for a short time, it gives light about it, but goes out of its own accord. Thus it was with Christianity among the Africans, and thus it has been with every attempt to civilize them. Thus will fail every effort to elevate to our position the man who has not our mental organization, who has not our volume of brain and its various proportions. For the time, for your life and mine, the experiment may have the appearance of promise and prosperity; but just as surely as time advances, so surely will the races return to their original condition.

Sir, some one might pertly ask how we have attained this condition? I simply reply, this was always our condition. I defy any man to point to the authentic history which shows that time or period when our race was not as civilized and as cultivated as now. Go back, if you will, to the time of the Jews, or to the earliest period of which you have any reliable record, and you will find them then as learned and intelligent as now. Turn to the earliest writings of Moses, long anterior to Solomon, and to David; read the language of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as there recorded. It is declared to-day, by the best linguists, to be the most perfect composition in the world. Go, if you will, to the erection of Babylon, or to Nineveh, where Layard has recently been laboring in research; go, if you will, to Jerusalem; and I ask if, in arts or sciences, in sculpture or engraving there is anything now to compare with what then existed? Our race, from the earliest history which we possess, has always been civilized. You may speak of the wilds of Scandinavia, if you will. It is true the country was not greatly improved; but the people were highly cultivated, as is shown by their architecture, their arts and sciences. It is true, as you may say, that we have learned a few things since that time. We have learned to propel upon water the steamboat, and upon land the railroad car; we have learned to whisper to our friends by the wire that carries the lightning; but I am not quite certain that we, of this day, have not lost a thousand valuable acquirements known to the ancients-the Jews, the Babylonians, and the Ninevites. But, sir, look at the negro race. When or where were they civilized? Their only civilization has been gained by contact with us, and that polish will remain as long as that contact continues-no longer. It will rust and decay; the race will return to its native sloth and degradation. I do not deem it necessary to point to passing historical events, such as the liberation of the negro in the islands of the South, in Jamaica. It is a matter totally unimportant. I argue upon the

army-worms, to the North, I ask, would it be philanthropic to leave them to starve, to be chilled by the inclement blast of the North, and to gain there a scanty subsistence from a scanty employment; or would philanthropy and humanity be better shown by returning the wanderers to their homes, where the climate, the soil, and the people are accommodated to them, and where they can be most happy?

What

We have passed a law imposing upon our judges and marshals the duty of carrying out this constitutional compact, this agreement between the North and the South. What then? It is alleged that your judges, or marshals, or their assistants, have not performed their duty under the law, or that they have performed an excess of duty; that they have done what they ought not to have done in executing the law, and are subject to pains and penalties in consequence. reason is there that this Government, which imposed that law and that obligation upon them, shall not provide for them a court in which the wrong alleged to have been committed shall be heard, adjudicated, and redressed? Sir, it is our solemn duty to provide that court. I regret to say, that I fear the disposition of others to talk even longer than I have talked, may prevent the accomplishment of that desirable object during

this session.

Mr. President, in what I have said I may have given utterance to some words and ideas not palatable to all my friends in the Senate, or to all those who have listened; but I would to God every one of my countrymen understood this question as I think I understand it; and though his heart might sicken at the idea of slavery, though he might prefer rather to have lost his existence than that Great Britain, or New England-England old or New-should have transplanted that people here; though he might loathe slavery, and believe it a curse to his race; though he might think it will produce no lasting good to mankind, yet, if he understood this subject as I think I understand it, he would not hesitate to advise the runaway negro, as a runaway of old was advised, to return to his master. I would invoke of his master kindness, charity, humanity, and good feeling; but I would say to the negro to-day, if he asked my advice, "Sir, if you desire to live long; if you desire to have happy progeny; if you desire to be the parent of a long line of succession; if you desire, not only your own prosperity, but the perpetuity of your race, you will return to slavery, the most happy and prosperous condition which your race can attain.

Mr. President, the religion, the morality of this relation is brought into question. The shutting of the Bible, by forbidding them to read it, and the sacrifice of all hopes of Heaven, are charged to southern men. I am not their defender; they can defend themselves; I am simply vindicating my own views and my own ideas. Let me say

to that stickler for reading the Bible, that man who believes that the soul can only be saved through an understanding of the Christian religion, church militant on earth, that there is a prospect, as the result of slavery, of saving half a million of these negroes, who are free and that belong to the church, have been baptised, and have partaken of the sacrament. I defy the most squeamish and the best informed upon this subject to show me the ancestor, cousin, neighbor, or friend, who remained in Africa, of any of those who were brought to this country in slavery, that has, according to his theory, one earthly or heavenly prospect of salvation hereafter. Where is baptism in Africa? Where are your churches? I have told you that Caucasian ministers went among them long before they came among our ancestors. Yet the attempt failed; they could not inculcate their doctrines; it was a religion the Africans could not appreciate; and hence it took no lasting root.

I have heard gentlemen speak of making Christians of the Indians. You may occasionally get one to go through the form; but if you expect ever to make of him an humble Christian, who will get down on his knees every morning, and say he is a poor, miserable, naked being, I will hazard my head any day that you can no more make him a Christian like yourself, than make yourself a Heathen like him. The Christian religion is one of humiliation and abasement in which you say that you are worthless, and that everything good and great comes from a different source. That feeling the Indian never can and never will entertain, though he may go through the form to please a missionary; to suppose anything else is the veriest nonsense in the world. You talk of carrying to all the races of the world your instilutions, your religion, your arts and sciences. You can no more do it than you can give to all the races your color, form, and development. The power

does not exist.

་

33D CONG....2D SESS.

the Senators to whom he has applied such language represent on this floor the opinions of at least one million of the intelligent voters of the Republic, and that they are sustained by the action of fifteen Sovereign States. Cheered by the approving voice of the people and by the consciousness of growing power, the Senators he has tauntingly denounced will not be deterred by epithets, no matter how profusely he may apply them, from the vindication of their cherished convictions. I intend to tell you, gentlemen of the South, where we of the North stand upon this exciting and disturbing question of slavery, and what we purpose to do. I intend to deal frankly with you in regard to this question in which you and your people are so deeply interested.

Sir, I have not an unkind word to utter towards my friends from the South. God knows I have not an unkind feeling in my heart towards them or those whom they represent. I trust that I have a heart large enough to embrace in its affections the whole country, and every man that breathes the air or treads the soil of the Republic, be that man black or white. I have no war to make, and those whom I represent have no war to make upon Senators from the South or the people of the South. To me, sir, the proudest master and the lowliest bondman are alike brethren and fellow-country

men.

"Resolved, That we are opposed to slavery in every form and color, and in favor of freedom and free soil wherever man lives throughout God's heritage."

Sir, I believe, and the people of Massachusetts believe, that slavery is a violation of the holy commands to love our neighbor, and to do unto others as we would that others should do unto us. I tell you, frankly, that we of Massachusetts are unalterably opposed to African slavery in America, and we are in favor of all practicable efforts. for its entire abolition. But we do not propose to interfere with slavery in the States. We believe that slavery in the States is a local institution-present Administration: that we are not responsible for its existence, and that we have no legal authority to interfere with it in any way whatever. I am content to leave slavery to the people of the States where it exists. I recognize the Democratic doctrine of StateRights in its application to slavery as well as to other local affairs, and while I have a seat in this Chamber I shall resist all attempts to encroach upon the reserved rights of the sovereign States of the Union. I will stand side by side with my Democratic friends in vindication of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, which they endorsed at Baltimore in 1852.

I will tell you, Mr. President, just what our position is in Massachusetts. We stand upon the impregnable basis of the Constitution of the United States. We do not propose to encroach upon the rights of our southern brethren, but we claim that, under the express authority of the Constitution of the United States, we have ample power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. We of Massachusetts, and of the free States, are responsible for the existence of human slavery here in the National capital. Slavery exists here by the authority, or rather by the permission of Congress; and the people of New England, of the central States, and of the West, are as responsible for its existence as are the sons of Maryland and Virginia whose ancestors planted it here.

My friend from Connecticut [Mr. GILLETTE] referred to the shocking and brutal sight of a woman led by a man on horseback along the streets near the Capitol, with a rope fastened around her body. The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] poured out upon the Senator from Connecticut, his indignation for calling the attention of the country, and the world, to that degrading spectacle, witnessed by the wife of a New England Senator, and several other ladies. Sir, that spectacle was witnessed in North Capitol street only a few days ago, while the Representatives of the free States, who have majorities in both Houses of Congress, were in session. The laws under which that woman was dragged through the streets of the capital of the Republic, may be repealed by Congress. The people of the free States know that they are responsible for the existence of laws under which this degrading act was perpetrated. Sir, do you think the men who read God's holy word will silence the voice of conscience, and the holiest and noblest impulses of their hearts, and tamely permit this national ground to be dishonored by such scenes? Sir, we of the free States feel that

Sir, the people of Massachusetts most heartily respond to this resolution, proposed by the chairman of the National Democratic committee, and adopted by six hundred Massachusetts Democrats with shouts of applause:

"Resolved, That by common law and common sense, as well as by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, (in Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters,) the state of slavery is a mere municipal regulation, founded upon and limited to the verge of the territorial law,' that is, the limits of the State creating it.

"Resolved, therefore, That, as slavery does not exist by any municipal law in the new Territories, and Congress has no power to institute it, the local laws of any State authorizing slavery can never be transported there, nor can slavery exist there but by a local law of the Territories, sanctioned by Congress, or the legislative act of a State in its sovereign capacity."

Now, sir, we, in Massachusetts, agree with these resolutions. We believe we have the power to abolish slavery in all the Territories of the Union; that, if slavery exists there, it exists by the permission and sanction of the Federal Government, and we are responsible for it. We are in favor of its abolition wherever we are morally or legally responsible for its existence.

We of Massachusetts believe the fugitive slave act of 1850 an inhuman and unconstitutional enactment, and we are in favor of its immediate and unconditional repeal. The extradition of fugitives from labor should be left to the States, where we believe the Constitution leaves it. I assure Senators from the South that we do not propose to interfere in any way whatever with slavery in the States; but we are in favor of abolishing it wherever it exists under the jurisdiction of Congress-to banish the question from the Halls of national legislation.

I believe, conscientiously, that if slavery should be abolished by the National Government in the District of Columbia, ard in the Territories, the fugitive slave act repealed, the Federal Government relieved from all connection with, or responsibility for the existence of slavery, these angry debates banished from the Halls of Congress, and slavery left to the people of the States, that the men of the South who are opposed to the existence of that institution, would get rid of it in their own States at no distant day. I believe that if slavery is ever peacefully abolished in this country-and I certainly believe it will be-it must be abolished in this way.

SENATE.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] pronounces all the Abolitionists disunionists. If he means to include men who think as I think, and act as I act, I beg leave to say to that Senator that he mistakes us altogether.

Mr. DOUGLAS I have a letter in my possession, written from Boston, indulging in the most-I will not say fulsome-terms, of the Senator from Massachusetts, just elected, in which the chief merit urged is that upon the question of the dissolution of the Union that Senator would prove himself a man.

Mr. WILSON. All I have to say is, that I never uttered a word in my life to warrant such an assertion. Sir, I make no pretensions to any peculiar devotion to the Union over other men; but if I know myself, I would sacrifice all of life and of hope to maintain and perpetuate the Union of these States. From boyhood I have dreamed of a glorious destiny for my country. I have wished to see the flag of the Union wave in peaceful triumph over the North American continent, over a Confederacy of free Commonwealths. I have so much faith in Democratic ideas, so much confidence in the people, that I have no fears from the annexation of territory and the extension of the boundaries of the Republic.

The Senator from Illinois [Mr. DOUGLAS] has undertaken here to-night to denounce all of us of the North, whom he is pleased to call Abolitionists, as Disunionists. Now, sir, in my judgment, no part of the Confederacy is more devoted to the Union than the State I have the honor in part to represent. I believe that in my State the opinion in favor of the Union approaches unanimity. We respond, with all our hearts, to the words of Daniel Webster, uttered on this floor more than twenty years ago: "Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable !” But we mean liberty and Union. The voting anti-slavery men of Massachusetts will not be frightened from their advocacy of impartial liberty by threats, made here or elsewhere, to dissolve the Union. These menaces have no terrors for us. We know that the people will stand by the Union even if slavery should be abolished.

But the Senator from Illinois tortures our expressions of confidence in the stability of the Union into designs on our part to plot for its dissolution. Sir, the Senator has asserted what he cannot believe. That Senator understands the sentiments of the people of the northern States quite too well to mean anything like that. The State of Ohio gave seventy thousand majority, at the last election, against his Nebraska bill. Does the Senator believe the intelligent people of Ohio, who gave that majority of seventy thousand-or eighty-four thousand, as the Senator at my side [Mr. CHASE] reminds me-are enemies of this Union? He knows they would shed their blood this day quite as freely as he himself, or any other Senator, to perpetuate the Union. The great State of New York gave an almost uncounted majority in opposition to the Nebraska bill. Does the Senator believe that the intelligent freemen of New York are opposed to this Union? The State I represent on the floor of the Senate gave more than one hundred thousand majority against the Nebraska bill at the last election. I do not know one disunionist among them all. Hundreds of the men the Senator pronounces hostile to the Union have periled their lives and shed their blood in defense of the country.

Allusions have been made to the recent elections. The Senator from Illinois has been pleased to say here that, in his opinion, Know-Nothingism has swept the northern States, and not opposition to the Nebraska bill. It is not my purpose to underrate the power and influence of the organization to which he refers. I will say to that Senator, however, that the first State to vote after the introduction of the Nebraska bill was the President's own State. It was my fortune to travel more than one thousand miles in that, my native State, a few days preceding the election. I know something of the sentiments and wishes of the people, and I say that the supporters of the Administration did not dare in New Hampshire to defend the Nebraska bill. They denied it to be an issue in the canvass, and by so doing they saved themselves from utter defeat, but they were not able to secure the Legislature of the State, so as to elect their

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Senators. The State of Connecticut voted early in April. I do not believe there was then a single man, in either of these States, whom you might designate as a Know-Nothing. So far as my own State is concerned, although the Know-Nothing party as he calls it-the American party-have taken no position on the subject of slavery at all, yet the sentiment of that State approaches unanimity, and I do not know of a Nebraska man in the Legislature, and I am sure there is not a Nebraska man in the delegation of the House, and on the floor of the Senate we are a unit upon that measure. [A VOICE. "No doubt about that."] As to the organization of the American party, in some sections it has had influence in favor of freedom, in other sections it has been hostile to freedom.

Mr. DOUGLAS. The Senator says that in some sections they have been in favor of freedom, and in other sections hostile. Will he show me where they have supported a Nebraska man in any one district of America?

Mr. WILSON. I understand they elected a Nebraska man in your district, sir, (Mr. GEYER in the chair,) and defeated Colonel BENTON, who was opposed to the Nebraska bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am speaking of the free States. Have they been for Nebraska men for the Legislature, or for Congress, in any district in the free States?

Mr. WILSON. I cannot speak for districts out of my own State. I should regret to hear that any adherent of the American party supported the Nebraska bill.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Did they in your own State? Mr. WILSON. No, sir. I beg leave to tell the Senator from Illinois we cannot run any other than an anti-Nebraska man and get any votes. [Laughter.]

The Senator from Indiana [Mr. PETTIT] has made a long argument to-night to prove the inferiority of the African race. Well, sir, I have no contest with the Senator upon that question. I do not claim for that race intellectual equality; but I say to the Senator from Indiana that I know men of that race who are quite equal in mental power to either the Senator from Indiana or myself -men who are scarcely inferior, in that respect, to any Senators upon this floor. But, sir, suppose the Senator from Indiana succeeds in establishing the inferiority of that despised race, is mental inferiority a valid reason for the perpetual oppression of a race? Is the mental, moral, or physical inferiority of man a just cause of oppression in republican and Christian America? Sir, is this Democracy? Is it Christianity? Democracy cares for the poor, the lowly, the humble. Democracy demands that the panoply of just and equal laws shall shield and protect the weakest of the sons of men. Sir, these are strange doctrines to hear uttered in the Senate of republican America, whose political institutions are based upon the fundamental idea that "all men are created equal." If the African race is inferior, this proud race of ours should educate and elevate it, and not deny to those who belong to it the rights of our common humanity.

The Senator from Indiana boasts that his State imposes a fine upon the white man that gives employment to the free black man. I am not Burprised at the degredation of the colored people of Indiana, who are compelled to live under such inhuman laws, and oppressed by the public sentiment that enacts and sustains them. I thank God, sir, Massachusetts is not dishonored by such laws! In Massachusetts we have about seven thousand colored people. They have the same rights that we have; they go to our free schools, they enter into all the business and professional relations of life, they vote in our elections, and in intelligence and character are scarcely inferior to the citizens of this proud and peerless race whose superiority we have heard so vauntingly proclaimed to-night by the Senators from Tennessee [Mr. JONES] and Indiana, [Mr. PETTIT.]

Now, sir, I assure Senators from the South, that we of the free States mean to change our policy. I tell you, frankly, just how we feel and just what we propose to do. We mean to withdraw from these Halls that class of public men who have betrayed us and deceived you; men who have misrepresented us, and not dealt frankly

with you. And we intend to send men into these Halls who will truly represent us and deal justly with you. We mean, sir, to place in the councils of the nation men who, in the words of Jefferson, "have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility to every kind of oppression of the mind and body of man." Yes, sir, we mean to place in the national councils men who cannot be seduced by the blandishments, or deterred by the threats of power; men who will fearlessly maintain our principles. I assure Senators from the South that the people of the North entertain for them and their people no feelings of hostility; but they will no longer consent to be misrepresented by their own representatives, nor proscribed for their fidelity to freedom. This determination of the people of the North has manifested itself during the past few months in acts not to be misread by the country. The stern rebuke administered to faithless northern representatives, and the annihilation of old and powerful political organizations, should teach Senators that the days of waning power are upon them. This action of the people teaches the lesson, which I hope will be heeded, that political combinations can no longer be successfully made to suppress the sentiments of the people.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I should be exceedingly unwilling to disturb the course of the Senator's argument, or interrupt his speech; but, as he is giving us what certainly is very interesting to the country, an exposition of those views which he entertains, and of which he is the exponent on this floor, would the Senator be kind enough to state-that we may understand fully his views and those of his party-whether, in conformity with the principles of that party, if a Territorial organization were now superseded by a State constitution in any of the Territories of this Union, and, by that constitution, the people of the State should adopt slavery as one of their domestic institutions, it would be consistent with his principles to admit that State into the Uuion with that constitution?

Mr. WILSON. I will answer the Senator frankly. I stand here ready to answer any questions put by the Senator from Louisiana, or any other Senator. The party with which I act is a new organization. It has, so far as I know, in Massachusetts, and in all the other States, never expressed any opinions or assumed any position on the question of slavery. I cannot, therefore, speak for it. The members of that party in my own State, in their individual capacity, would be decidedly opposed to the admission of slave States into the Union.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I shall trouble the Senator with one more question, if he will permit me. I will ask that Senator if, frankly and conscientiously, he believes that, in the event of the repeal of the fugitive slave law, the State and people of Massachusetts would adopt effective measures by which fugitive slaves from the South would be captured and returned to their owners?

Mr. WILSON. I believe that if the fugitive slave act should be repealed the Commonwealth of Massachusetts will fulfill her constitutional obligations, but she will do it in her own way, so as to protect fully the rights of every man within her jurisdiction.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I fear the Senator may think that these interrogatories are unfair encroachments upon his time, and I shall not push them, if they are unpleasant to him.

Mr. WILSON. Not at all, sir; I am ready to

answer.

Mr. BENJAMIN. I should like to understand if, under his own convictions, under the principles entertained by those whom he represents, or by the population of the State of Massachusetts, he really believes that, in the event of the repeal of the fugitive slave law, a fugitive slave would be captured and restored to his southern owner, under any circumstances?

Mr. WILSON. I certainly cannot say what Massachusetts would do, under any circumstances that may happen. But I will say that, in my judgment, she would fulfill the obligations which the Constitution imposes upon her.

Mr. BENJAMIN. That is a satisfactory an

swer.

Mr. WELLER. Yes, if they would only do it; I do not believe they would. [Laughter.ĺ

SENATE.

Mr. WILSON. I have confidence in the fidelity of the people of Massachusetts to the obligations imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. RUSK. Will the honorable Senator allow me to interrupt him a moment? As he is explain. ing the opinions of a new party, which will be important for good or evil, I desire to ask him a few questions. First, does that party regard the States and their citizens as equal in rights under the Constitution?

Mr. WILSON. So far as I know the sentiments of the members of that party, they regard the sovereign States of this Union as equals under the Constitution. This is the true American doctrine; and I certainly think they will go for the equality of the citizens of all the States.

Mr. RUSK. I desire to ask him another question, although I assure him I am reluctant to interrupt him. Does that party recognize the right in Congress to exclude, either directly or indirectly, the citizens of any State from equal rights of person and property in any of the Territories of the United States?

Mr. WILSON. So far as the party with which I act in Massachusetts is concerned, it has never taken any position upon this subject; but I will say that I do not know a man in the ranks of that party who does not believe that the Congress of the United States alone has the power to legislate for those Territories, and that nobody has a right to carry a slave there and keep him in bondage without the permission of Congress. In my opinion, Congress has no right to establish slavery in the Territories, or to allow the people to establish it.

Mr. RUSK. My question is answered.

Mr. WILSON. I have spoken, Mr. President, in no spirit of unkindness towards our fellowcitizens of the South, of the sentiments, feelings, and purposes of the people of the North. I do not refer to the action of political parties. I refer to the people without distinction of party. Party combinations are not strong enough to repress the utterance, or to control the action of the people aroused at last to the vindication of their rights. If politicians here, or elsewhere, believe they can make any political combinations that shall ignore the issues forced upon the people of the free States, I tell them frankly that they will ignominiously fail. The people of the North are beginning to realize the responsibilities and duties imposed upon them by the condition of the country. They feel that the hand of proscription has been laid upon them, and they will no longer consent to be proscribed for holding opinions sanctioned by patriotism, humanity, and religion.

These sentiments and opinions are the matured convictions of my judgment, and while I have a seat in this Chamber I shall adhere to them with fidelity, and support them with firmness. I hope at all times to meet honorable Senators from the South in a spirit of kindness and conciliation; but no fear of denunciation, reproach, or ridicule, here or elsewhere, no hope of personal influence or political power, will ever deter me from the vindication of opinions which my heart and conscience approve.

Mr. WELLER. I have listened to every word that has been said by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. WILSON,] and I desire now to propound to him an inquiry, which may, by some, be considered impertinent, but which I hope he will not so consider. I am not aware that, in the course of the remarks which he has made to the Senate, he has in any way indicated the manner in which he proposes to vote. The question before the Senate is whether he is in favor of a bill which shall procure a faithful and just enforcement of the fugitive slave law, among the other laws of the United States. That is the question, and I should like to have the opinion of the Senator from Massachusetts on that; because it may guide my action in the vote which I am to give here. Will the Senator be good enough to inform us whether he proposes to vote for the bill

or not?

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I did not say how I intended to vote; and I am sure of one thing, gentlemen will certainly discover when the yeas and nays are called; but I answer the Senator now, frankly and candidly, I intend to vote