Page images
PDF
EPUB

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Arkansas-Edward Cross.

Virginia-Archibald Atkinson, Geo. C. Dromgoole, Edmund W. Hubard, William L. Goggin, John W. Jones, Thomas H. Bayly, Willoughby Newton, Samuel Chilton, William Lucas, William Taylor, Augustus A. Chapman, George W. Hopkins, and Lewis Steenrod.

Kentucky-Linn Boyd, &c.

Mr. Chairman, there are others, besides the honorable gentleman from Georgia, pledged to these principles, to whom I pay my respects on these points. I will venture to look into the record. These same Texas resolutions went from the House to the Senate for concurrence. Senators well knew that Mr. Jefferson had said:

"The Constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory, much less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union !"

Senators well knew, too, that these joint resolutions recognized a stronger power in Congress on the subject of slavery than the "Wilmot proviso!" Who, in the Senate, voted for that proviso which, in 1845, was introduced in the House by the Hon. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS? Let the Journal answer:

"YEAS-Messrs. Allen, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Bagby, Benton, Breese, Buchanan, Colquitt, Dickinson, Dix, Fairfield, Hannegan, Haywood, Henderson, Huger, Johnson, Lewis, McDuthie, Merrick, Niles, Semple, Sevier, Sturgeon, Tappan, Walker, and Woodbury”—27.

66

Some of these Senators have paid the debt of nature. Of each of such I utter from the depths of a heart of sympathy, "quiescat in pace!" Of those who, in full life and vigor, are with the gentleman from Georgia in his "grand step of progress," or who have raised the flag of " squatter Sovereignty," I only say, I hope they'll have a good time of it" in explaining their record! Mr. Chairman, my proposition in the outset was, that, whether the eighth section of the Missouri act was constitutional or unconstitutional, its repeal was wrong. It was wrong, because it was a national measure-an act to produce harmonya statute of repose-which had been acquiesced in, for the third of a century, by the people North and South, and which they did not wish to disturb.

The validity of even unconstitutional acts, thus acquiesced in for a long period of time by the parties originally in conflict, has never before been set at defiance. The precedent the gentleman calls on the free States to establish, might lead to dangerous consequences. An act to drive from the Union Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, &c, because the Territories had been acquired without authority under the Constitution, would not receive much favor from the true "friends of the Union," either North or South.

During the excitement of 1850, the Senate appointed a compromise committee of thirteen, with Mr. Clay at its head. The committee reported the measures termed the "compromise of 1850," which the gentleman subsequently supported.

Mr. STEPHENS. Do I understand the gentleman to say that I was in favor of Mr. Clay's report?

Mr. CAMPBELL. You supported the com. promise measures as they passed, which originated with that committee.

Mr. STEPHENS. I desire to say to the gentleman that I was not in favor of Mr. Clay's report; and was, moreover, opposed to the measures reported by his committee, until they were amended. The reason of my opposition was, that Mr. Clay's proposed measures did not have a guarantee as to Utah and New Mexico, that those States should come into the Union with or without slavery, just as the people should determine for themselves; and it was never until that amendment was adopted, on the 17th of June, that I was for the compromise measures, and when that amendment was inserted, my whole soul was enlisted in its support.

Mr.CAMPBELL. The gentleman's "whole soul" support did not come up to the work in 1845, when he voted to force the Wilmot proviso' upon the people of Texas, when they might wish to adopt a constitution without it. Besides, there is a wide difference in the principles as settled by the territorial acts of 1850, and the Nebraska bill, Slavery is excluded from Utah and New Mexico by the old Mexican law which you did not repeal in 1850. By the Nebraska act you claim that you

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.—Mr. Campbell.

made a "tabula rasa, 39
on which you claim the
Constitution, "proprio vigore," carries slavery
with you into those Territories.

The gentleman interrupted me at the point where
I was in the act of reading the report of the com-
promise committee of 1850, of thirteen, with Mr.
Clay at its head. I read from their report, on the
point of validity of acts of doubtful constitutional
authority, long acquiesced in by the people:-

"The committee are aware that it has been contended that the resolution of Congress annexing Texas was unconstitutional. At a former epoch of our country's history, there were those (and Mr. Jefferson, under whose auspices the treaty of Louisiana was concluded, was among them) who believed that the States formed out of Louisiana could not be received into the Union without an amendment of the Constitution. But the States of Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, and Towa, have been all, nevertheless, admitted. And who would now think of opposing the admission of Minnesota, Oregon, or other new States formed out of the ancient Province of Louisiana, upon the ground of an alleged original defect of constitutional power? In grave national transactions, while yet in their earlier or incipient stages, differences may well exist; but when once they have been decided by a constitutional majority, and are consummated, or are in a process of consummation, there can be no other safe and prudent alternative than to respect the decision already rendered, and to acquiesce in it.”

The gentleman calls me back so often to the
paths he has trodden, that I must read a word
from the record of the principles he has uttered in
regard to the power of Congress over our Territo-
ries.

In July, 1850, the gentleman said on this floor
-I heard him-here he is reported:

"I hold that when this Government gets possession of
territory, either by conquest or treaty, it is the DUTY of Con-
gress to govern it until the people are prepared to be ad-
mitted as a State into the Union, at the discretion of Con-
gress."

The honorable gentleman refers me often to his course in 1850. There is another passage in his speech of that year, which I indorse as peculiarly appropriate to the present occasion. I read it:

"We live, Mr. Chairman, in a strange world. There are many things of a strange character about us, but nothing seems stranger to me than the rapid change which sometimes takes place in men's opinions upon greut questions."

Mr. STEPHENS. One word, if the gentleman pleases. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am to-day as much opposed to what he calls "squatter sovereignty" as I was in 1850. What I understand by this term, "squatter sovereignty," is the inherent right of the people of a Territory of the United States to set up governments for themselves, independently of Congress, and without looking to this Government for permission or authority to do it. This I denied in 1850, and deny now. I said then, and now, that the government of the Territories devolved upon Congress in the first instance. It is the duty of Congress either to make laws for them, or to provide for their making laws for themselves. There is no sovereignty in the Territories, except that which flows from us; so long as they belong to this Government their powers are not original and absolute, but derivative. And those rights in the people there, to form such institutions for themselves, which I advocate, are such rights as I think it wise, proper, prudent, and republican for us to permit them to enjoy. The governments of Kansas and Nebraska, which permit the enjoyment of these rights, were provided or established by Congress. All the powers under them emanated from Congress; we granted them. This is wholly inconsistent with the idea of territorial sovereignty, or sovereignty in the people there, independent of Congress. It was against this doctrine that the speech was made from which the gentleman quotes. As to the quotation about change of opinion, I reiterate the same now; and, for illustration, the gentleman will pardon me for expressing my great surprise at hearing him to-day making a speech seemingly against the "Wilmot proviso," and in favor of the sanctity of the Missouri compromise, and quoting, with apparent approbation, the language of Mr. Clay's report, that grave national questions, which had once been settled by constitutional majorities should be acquiesced in. These sentiments did not seem to meet with the gentleman's approbation in 1850, else why did he not then acquiesce in the settlement of 1820, and go for the Missouri line?

Mr. CAMPBELL. The settlement of 1820 affected only the Territory and questions then

Ho. OF REPS.

under consideration. In 1850, we dealt with new acquisitions, and I acted upon a principle which was prominent when the Constitution was formed.

In 1850, when the gentleman made his speech, from which I have read, he was taking the honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. BAYLY] to task for his supposed heresies in regard to "BOVereignty in Territories." I am right glad to give him an opportunity to show that he is coming up to the position which I maintain on this point of the controversy. He takes opposite ground from that assumed before their constituents by his numerous Nebraska-bill coöperators, to wit: Senators CASS, DOUGLAS, SHIELDS, PUGH," et id omne genus." I leave him and his allies to reconcile these conflicting elements on a principle, to produce "conciliation and harmony," to 66 regulate their domestic affairs in their own way," with this parting quotation, which my Sunday school education in childhood prompts: "A house divided against itself cannot stand!" As to change, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has failed to showcannot show any crooked tracks in my course, by vote or speech, "here or elsewhere." record, public and private, here and before my constituents, is open to him. I planted myself, in early manhood, on the platform erected by Washington, Jefferson, and their compeers. I have only quoted, not condemned, the gentleman's vote; by way of defending my position against the fire from his own battery. The principle, both as to power and expediency, of excluding slavery from Territories by congressional action, is one which I do not "seemingly," but positively defend.

My

Mr. Chairman, other gentlemen justify their support of the Nebraska act, on the assumption that it secures a great principle of Democracy-a popular right-squatter's right-that it secures to the people of those Territories the right to govern themselves, and "regulate their domestic institutions in their own way.' "Sir, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of squatter sovereignty thus asserted. I stand now, and have always stood, where the gentleman from Georgia stood in 1850, when, following the lights of the greatest statesmen of the country, he made the declarations on this floor which I have quoted. I cannot indorse all that my good friend from Indiana [Mr. MACE] has said on this subject; I regard this new-fledged doctrine of "squatter sovereignty" as the veriest humbug of the age, and I repudiate it. It could not have originated elsewhere than in the disordered brain of some aspiring politician. I draw the distinction, sir, between that true popular sovereignty which retains to the people of all the States, through their Congress, the right to "make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory," and the "squatter sovereignty" which claims for the small number of persons who might chance to get into these Territories, either from romance, or from a spirit of speculation, or from fear of constables, sheriffs, or marshals, just before or just after the act repealing the Missouri compromise passed, such important powers over so vast a domain, covering an area larger than that of the old original thirteen States of North America. The idea strikes me as ridiculous, and I protest against it.

Why, sir, when the bill was passed, the soil there belonged to the Indians. They were the true sovereigns," Native, to the manor born"-"the red men," perhaps the real "Sams" of whom we hear so much, though "Know-Nothing." Our Government has recognized their rights by solemn treaties. If, by honest and fair purchase, or by practicing upon them again the frauds of the past, we obtain the right to occupy that soil, it will become the property of the twenty-five millions of people in the States, whose money will be paid to extinguish the Indian title, and whose money will be expended for territorial government. In the people of the States, and those to whom they delegate their powers, through the ballot-box, ought to remain the sovereignty of making, under the Constitution, "all needful rules and regulations," until State sovereignty may assert its rights. That "squatter sovereignty" that claims these great privileges and immunities, for the first few men, who go there either before or after the passage of the Nebraska act, from honest or dishonest motives, whilst they demand, from the Treasury of the Federal Government, the money to make the very

33D CONG....2D SESS.

roads upon which they travel to the ballot-box and go to mill, strikes me as an absurdity, and I so mark it to-day in this House, in the face of whatever may be the off-hand expression of public

sentiment.

But I proceed a step further. There is no soVereignty over the question of slavery, secured by the Nebraska bill, either to the people of the States or of the Territories it provides for. It is most true, sir, that the fourteenth section declares that:

"It is the true intent and meaning of this 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, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

This provision, as an isolated part of the act, looks fair at first glance. It looks like vesting sovereignty in the people there. But we must investigate the matter to ascertain whether this declaration is not a shadow rather than a substance. This Nebraska bill is, in my judgment, a cheat, sir. Its northern friends contend that slavery cannot go there now; its southern friends claim that it can. Both know that slavery could not enter under the eighth section of the Missouri act. If it is still excluded, what is gained by the repeal? Why this renewal of strife? "Cui bono?" Who is cheated? It is said by its friends in the North that the people of the Territory "are left perfectly free" to exclude it by an act of the Territorial Legislature, and this is what they call "squatter Sovereignty." Its southern friends do not so understand the bill, and hence they voted down the amendment offered by Mr. CHASE, in the Senate, and by the gentlemen from Indiana and Maine, [Messrs. MACE and FULLER,] in this House, giving to the people, in express terms, power to exclude slavery.

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.-Mr. Campbell.

the Executive, to enforce it. The beauty of our
system, in its purity, consists in the fact that each
one of these departments, though a coördinate
part, is independent of the others. If all were
concentrated in one man, whatever the name given
to it, the government would be a practical despotism.

Now, sir, in this crucible I proceed to ascertain
the real power of the people in Kansas and Ne-
braska, under this act, over the question of slavery,
and to "regulate their domestic institutions in
their own way."

Who is to execute law there? The Governor. Who selects him? Not the people, but the President, who can put him in or kick him out, at will, independently of the will of the people of the Territory. (Section 2.) Who constitute the judicial power? The judges selected by the President, (section 12;) and, for the present, "all township, district, and county officers" shall be appointed by the President's Governor. (Section 7.)

The only remaining branch of governmental power is the Legislature. Section four provides for a Council of thirteen, and a House of twenty-six members. It says: "previous to the first election the Governor shall cause a census or enumeration of the inhabitants and qualified voters of the several counties and districts of the Territory to be taken by such persons, and in such mode, as the Governor shall designate and appoint." On this "enumeration of inhabitants," (which of course includes blacks, old and young, for southern gentlemen will not take the position that "a nigger" shall not be regarded an "inhabitant,") the Governor districts the State and apportions the representation. (Section 4.) This gives the Governor great powers; the people none, to regulate their affairs. Nor can I see why the honorable gentleman from Missouri [Mr. OLIVER] should complain about emigrants from New England, whilst the negro child sent from his district, which adjoins Kansas, would weigh just as heavily in these census tables as the honorable member from Massachusetts, [Mr. GOODRICH,] who has been paraded as president of some society, would, if there; and whilst his constituent, who goes into one county with ninety-nine negroes, would count as much in the legislation as any hundred live emigrant Yankees!

Next comes the election. The President's Governor appoints the" time and place" for that, and it is to be conducted in such manner as he shall designate. When the people meet at the polls to

The southern friends of the bill hold that the people of the Territories are not left "perfectly free," by the terms of the fourteenth section, whilst in a territorial form, to exclude it, and that they are prohibited from so doing. Their acts must be subject to the Constitution." The southern doctrine claims that, into Territories which are the common domain of the States, where slavery is not expressly inhibited, they may take and hold their slaves under the Constitution, and that any territorial law excluding slavery would not be" subject to the Constitution," but in violation of a right "resulting from it," and, therefore, void. This, I understand, is the view of the gen-settle this matter of slavery, the qualified voters tleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] and hence it follows that, by his Nebraska act, he as effectually exercises congressional power to prevent the people of these Territories from excluding slavery, as the joint resolutions of 1845 prevented a part of the people of the State of Texas from introducing it. It is another case the gentleman's record furnishes, which would seem to be "tantamount to usurpation!" I ask again, who is cheated? The southern view of the Nebraska act has the advantage in this, to wit: that it seems to recognize slavery as an institution there by authority of law, as the ninth section expressly provides for writ of error in cases "involving title to slaves!”

Mr. Chairman, upon the hypothesis, (most favorable to the northern view of the question,) that, through a territorial law, the people may exclude slavery, I propose to examine whether the people are, by the machinery which the act imposes on them, left" perfectly free." I will submit it to analysis, and ascertain what per cent. of its component parts gives to the people sovereign power-how much of it is "democracy," and how much despotism!" We have heard many elegant speeches upon the popular theme of "man's power to govern himself" one of the ablest was "that speech at Romeo," by the distinguished Senator from Michigan.

What is a Democracy? Where the people govern. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. OLIVER] truly remarked, yesterday, that a mass meeting of the people, to make laws, would be impossible. There is no such Government as that on earth. Ours is a Representative Democracy-the people delegating, through the ballot-box, to their agents, their power to govern. What are the powers, or elements, of a government? They are comprised in three subdivisions: the Legislative, 40 make the law; the Judiciary, to expound it;

may cast their suffrages. But, the ballots are to
be received, the election superintended, the qual-
ifications of electors decided upon, the votes
counted, and the returns made, by such persons as
the Governor may appoint, (section 4.) And the
act does not even require that these persons shall be
sworn to the honest and faithful discharge of these
high duties, involving the destiny of an empire.
With such powers over the ballot-box of South
Carolina, a Governor might easily, if he chose,
send into this Hall, to represent her, such men as
my colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] or Garrison, and
others, more obnoxious to her people. Yet, this
is the character of the machine recently invented
and patented as "squatter sovereignty!"

|

Ho. OF REPS.

to me a bitter pill, sugar-coated, as it is, with the words" squatter sovereignty." There is not in all the Russias a province where the people have not as much power to "regulate their domestic institutions in their own way," as is guarantied to the people of Kansas and Nebraska by this act, independent of presidential power, to exclude slavery from their soil.

There is one other provision of the act that challenges attention. It is that which gives foreigners the right to vote on condition.

The fifth section provides:

"That the right of suffrage and of holding office shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and those who shall have declared on oath their intention to become

such, and shall have taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act."

In this connection I quote the constitutional provision, that Congress shall have power "to provide a uniform rule of naturalization!" Upon what principle of just popular sovereignty Congress may allow a foreigner, in a Territory, the highest right of a citizen-that of suffrage-the day he arrives on our shores from Baden, when it has declared by its acts that he must reside five years and make certain proof of attachment to our institutions before he can be a citizen, and make the rule "uniform," is not clear to my mind. I do not propose, however, to discuss this matter of naturalization now. There will, no doubt, be time for work on that subject in the future, when the question is more appropriately before us. Besides, my friend from Tennessee [Mr. TAYLOR] has given notice of a bill to reform the naturalization laws. He may be "one of 'em," of whom the disclosures speak, and it would be manifestly wrong in me, an "outsider," to trench on his ground. My only purpose is to look into the "foreign sovereignty" of this Nebraska act; and I would inquire, if it was the intention to give a foreigner who seeks liberty in this land the right of a sovereign, why did you impose on him the humiliating condition of swearing to the principles of such an act, as we show this to be?

All

To

Mr. Chairman, by way of illustrating this matter, I hope to be pardoned for relating an incident, in my personal observation, a few months since. After the Nebraska act passed, the weather was hot, and we were all jaded and wearied. Availing myself of the recess, I went to Boston to spend the fourth of July. In company with the learned Attorney General, [Mr. CUSHING,] I passed through Boston Common at sunrise of that morning. There was a scene to make the heart glad. was animation and life-the busy preparations of the city authorities to accommodate the million, upon the Common, the fluttering of the stars and stripes at every point, the roar of artillery, the clear, sweet chimes from the church bells, announced that it was Independence morning. avoid the heat, I afterwards took a steamer to cross to Nahant. Passing over the waters of that harbor, viewing a thousand national flags from shipping and house top, amid the roar of cannon from Boston Common, with Bunker Hill's monument in the distant view, (musing over the incidents that had occurred thereabout in the good Fear of accidents has stationed another guard olden time,) my attention was directed to a large over the people's will, armed with a more formi- ship which lay at anchor. We passed within an dable weapon-one which has often made its hundred yards, and I saw her decks crowded with deadly strokes upon true popular sovereignty. It human beings, her crew scouring and cleaning the is the veto power, in the sixth section, which enables vessel, and the surface of the water, for a great the President's Governor to defeat any legislative distance, strewn with old beds, bedding, chests, act in regard to slavery, or any other "domestic &c., &c. My first idea was that it formed a affair," unless passed in both branches by two part of the celebration of the fourth, and that thirds of the representatives of the people. Is it there had been a casting overboard of a sham cargo, not, Mr. Chairman, bad enough to clothe any one by way of reviving a recollection of the old Boston man with power like this, over the Representa-harbor tea party! My curiosity was soon satistives' will, and call it democracy? Is it not an outrage to give it to a Governor, appointed by the President, and beyond the control of the governed, at any time; but especially when you say that their will shall settle the question between freedom and slavery in these vast Territories? Is it not an insult to American intelligence to call such provisions "popular sovereignty," and bellow "Man's power to govern himself?"

act.

I have briefly passed over and analyzed this I denounce it as transferring the just power of the people of the States to the national Executive, already swelled with its enormous powers of Federal patronage and the veto. The transfer is

fied on inquiry. The ship, I was told, was one of those engaged in the "carrying trade" that is, she was in the employment of foreign Governments or their agents, to bring over, at a fixed rate per head, their paupers and felons. She had just arrived with a large cargo, and disease had broken out. She was on quarantine; and the crew were at work in the business of purification preparatory to another voyage. I was pointed to the hospital, to which these persons had to be sent at public expense, until the health officers pronounced them in condition to be put on shore without danger. Subsequently, a gentleman who had been aboard gave me a description of the condition of the per

33D CONG....2D SESS.

sons of some of these poor beings, which was too loathsome to be repeated. Now, sir, by the provision of the act I have quoted, each of these paupers and felons thus forced to America, if in Kansas, could be made a sovereign in ten minutes, wielding as much power, through his vote, as "Sam. Adams," who threw the tea into Boston harbor could have if there. Those who supported this bill may make Buncombe speeches in regard to their liberality to foreigners; but the wind is Bomewhat taken out of that sail amongst intelligent emigrants, who, coming here for liberty, and from choice of Governments, find they cannot vote until they degrade themselves by swearing to the principles of an act they cannot approve.

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.—Mr. Campbell.

In this connection I would put a proposition to those who voted for this bill, and through them, to their confiding constituents, who indorse it on their recommendation. If the act is a proper exponent of the true theory of self-government, why do you not advocate the engrafting upon your several State constitutions and laws just such provisions? Why not have "popular sovereignty" of the same sort in Virginia? Why not in South Carolina? In Alabama, &c., &c.? If it 18 Democracy for Kansas, why not make it Democracy for Georgia? I can understand why Senators voted for or against the provision separately, with a view to weigh down and kill the bill; but why anybody could vote for the final passage. of such a bill with such a weight, remains with me a mystery.

Aside from all considerations which I have passed over, the manner in which the bill was introduced, and passed through this House, is, of itself, sufficient reason to induce us to retrace our steps speedily. The motion of the gentleman from New York, [Mr. CUTTING,] which prevailed, and carried it to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, was a legitimate proceeding. The || various motions subsequently made to set aside other measures of importance on the Calendar, in order to reach it, were unusual, and repugnant to the general course of parliamentary proceedings. The general principles of the bill were fully discussed under the hour rule; but under that rule the details of no measure are acted upon. Hence the laws for the regulation of our proceedings have wisely provided, by the 127th rule, as follows:

"Upon bills committed to a Committee of the Whole House, the bill shall be first read throughout by the Clerk, and then again read and debated by clauses, leaving the preamble to be last considered; the body of the bill shall not be defaced nor interlined; but all amendments, noting the page and line, shall be duly entered by the Clerk on a separate paper, as the same shall be agreed to by the committee, and so reported to the House."

The Nebraska bill never was "again read and debated by clauses" in committee. Your Clerk only read the first section, under the rule, and there are thirty-seven sections to the bill. The honorable gentleman from Georgia, by what was called "a most ingenious proceeding"-one that, it was said, was suggested by my honoroble colleague, [Mr. OLDS,] who was chairman of the Committee of the Whole, but for the originating of which the gentleman from Georgia had the credit-struck out the enacting clause. Then a motion was made to report the bill from committee to the House before it was "read and debated by clauses." On this motion there was not a majority of the House voting, and the Constitution provides that "less than a majority can do no business." Yet, sir, in face of this Constitution, in violation of the letter and spirit of the law of the House, the bill was forced from the committee. The point was made to the Speaker, at the time, who, with great propriety, in my judgment, said, in substance, that he had no power, under the rules, to go behind the report of the chairman to ascertain what had been done in committee. In a few minutes, those very members who, in committee, had voted to cut the head off the bill, voted in the House to put it on again, and, under the screw of the "previous question," and the remarkable rulings of the Chair, and of the majority, we were brought to the vote on the final passage of the bill.

I

It is no time now to review the inconsistencies of those rulings. The record is here now, and the time to produce it will come hereafter. should not wonder, sir, if the day should come to prove the statement of the Charleston editor true, who said that the proceedings on the Nebraska

HO. OF REPS.

I

late elections, I answer, emphatically, No. answer as I did the charge of "faction" made by the gentleman from Georgia at the midnight close of the longest sitting ever known to Con

wrong, with all the power God has given us, to the last extremity-to the bitter end. "

act presented the worst chapter for the South that had ever been made in congressional proceedings, when the lawful rights of a minority were crushed under the iron heel of the power of numbers. Though the gentleman from Georgia, at midnightgressional Journals: "We will resist this great hour, hurled at us the charge of "faction," because we but exercised the power under the rules which he used when, in 1850, he was standardbearer in resisting a recognition of the sovereignty of California, we were no mean minority. The vote on the great question of its passage stoodyeas 113, nays 100; and this, too, when many members voted for it on the alleged ground that the measure was tendered by the free States!

Mr. Chairman, "there is a North!" These election returns prove it. That North comes back to this Hall in the next Congress to claim a redress of the wrong, and she will be backed by the fair-minded people of the South who never demanded the repeal of the Missouri compromise. She will come, I trust, with firmness, and with no disposition to remedy one wrong by perpetrating another. She will come, I hope, with a determination to vindicate and restore her rights, and yet to maintain the majesty of the law. To me, sir, it will be a proud spectacle when the unbroken delegation of twenty-one members from my native Ohio, approach that Speaker's desk to take the oath prescribed, and pledged before their sovereigns to restore that which has been so wantonly taken away.

66

I am no prophet, have no vision into the mists of futurity; yet, sir, allow me to predict that slavery never can become a fixed institution in Kansas and Nebraska-I care not who may be sent as Delegate, with power only to talk on this floor. If God's law," upon which Daniel Webster based his celebrated speech of March 7, 1850, does not keep it out, independent of human action, "popular sovereignty" will make a law to do the work. The free States will decree it; the friends of union, and peace, and harmony-the supporters of solemn compacts in the slave States will affirm the decree.

Mr. Chairman, I fear there is a spirit of disunion somewhere lurking under these propositions to carry slavery everywhere-North and South. When the free States raised their opposition to annexing Texas, very many meetings were held in the slave States. They passed threatening resolves. The following, from a meeting "numerously attended" in Alabama, I present as a speci

men:

"Resolved, That the possession of Texas is infinitely more important to us of this section of the Union than a longer annexation and friendship with the northeastern States, and if we have to yield either, it cannot and SHALL NOT BE TEXAS!"

It was then that the venerable gentleman from Missouri [Mr. BENTON] sounded the tocsin of alarm from his place in the Senate Chamber. In his speech of 1844 he said:

"DISUNION IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS LONG-CONCEALED TEXAS MACHINATION. Intrigue and speculation cooperate, but disunion is at the bottom; and I'denounce it to the American people. Under the pretext of getting Texas into the Union, the scheme is to get the South out of it. A separate confederacy, stretching from the Atlantic to California, (and hence the secret of the Rio Grande del Norte frontier,) is the cherished vision of disappointed ambition: and for this consummation every circumstance has been carefully and artfully contrived."

Texas was annexed-the free States yield ed In 1850, new demands were made, accompanied with similar threats; and on this floor the pronunciamento was declared; yield, or "let discord reign forever!" The measures passed-the mass of the people acquiesced.

In 1854, people in the slave States are seeking the acquisition of Cuba-they take our money to buy the Mesilla valley; the Sandwich Islands are demanded; and mysterious proceedings are going on at the proposed "naval depot in St. Domingo." These things look like a desire for a "separate confederacy.' In the mean time you repeal the old Missouri compromise, and declare a principle, which, if carried out consistently, must take slavery into the Territories of Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, Utah, and New Mexico. More than that, it pledges the Government, before the eye of the civilized world, to extend and strengthen African servitude. Do the people of the slave States demand this? Will the people of the free States submit? Upon the authority of their voice in the

On the other hand, in the North, men driven into a phrenzied condition by those acts, forgetting that northern avarice had much to do with the original introduction of slavery, and that it has become almost inseparably interwoven with the very fibers of society in some of the States, look to disunion as the only means of abolition. They meet on the 4th of July, and celebrate it by burning the Constitution!

Sir, I am against disunion, and would strike it down. But, if union is to carry with it the proposition to extend slavery, to commit the General Government to the principle of increasing wrong, its moral power and its value cease. The free States have taken a stand. Neither a renewal of the cry of "Disunion," nor the taunt of "Abolitionism," will drive them from it.

Let it bring to me, if it must, the taunts of fellow-members here, and the jeers of the million elsewhere; I shall remain firmly upon the ground that I have always occupied: That slavery is local, not national; that the States where it exists have a constitutional right to enjoy it, accompanied by the right to reclaim fugitives, and may themselves dispose of it in their own way, yet must support it without further aid, direct or indirect, from the balance of the Union. These, I believe, were the sentiments of Washington, of Jefferson, and of Madison. Where such men lead, I follow, with confidence, condemning equally "filibustering" in the South and "Constitution-burning" in the North.

As to the remedy. It is not now in our hands. Let some patriotic southern man, who voted for the repeal of the eighth section of the Missouri act, on the ground that the "North tendered it," come up with bold, manly, patriotic voice, and propose to restore it, as a response to northern popular demand. Until it is restored, you will have no promise of harmony in this Hall.

A word, sir, in conclusion, in reference to the present Administration. I did not come here this session to make war upon it. It is wrong to strike the fallen! The Administration has fallen! A year ago the 4th of last March, we witnessed in that broad and beautiful avenue the most magnificent pageant ever displayed in the capital of the nation. The President was elected by an overwhelming maj rity of the people's votes over the "greatest captain of the age"-one who had served most gallantly on many battle-fields! He was borne triumphantly by the masses, amidst the joyous shouts of thousands, from the wets end of Pennsylvania avenue to the eastern front of this Capitol. There, apparently in manly style, he delivered an inaugural address, which was scarcely excepted to by even those opponents who sought causes of objection. He solemnly renewed the pledge which two years before had been signed by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] to wit, "that slavery agitation in Congress and out of Congress should cease. "Thence he was ushered into the White House with the greetings of the people's glad huzzas!

Congress again met and opened its last session in harmony. The Administration threw this apple of discord among us. It pressed upon us the consideration of the Nebraska bill, and through its organs, sought to influence the Representatives of the people both through fear of punishment and hopes of reward:

It vetoed the bill passed by a Congress of its own friends, granting lands to the several States to support those stricken poor whose intellects have been taken from them by the Almighty. At the same time, under very peculiar circumstances, it approved the Minnesota bill, granting near a million of acres of these lands to a New York Wall street company. A bill, sir, which, after a base forgery had been made upon it, passed the Senate on the 28th of June. The President's signature, of immediate approval, was necessary in order to take from the pioneer people of Minnesota that immense grant, and secure it to Wall street brokers. On the 29th of June he approved it. So speaks the record:

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Thousands of voices broke upon our ears from the laborers of the interior, asking appropriations to improve their rivers and lakes-the means which God had given to bear from the arm of American industry its products to the place where Necessity demanded them. These appeals were not sectional, but national. The appropriations were voted by the President's friends in Congress-by wise constitutional lawyers, by statesmen of long experience in the Senate-under the solemnities of their oaths. The Administration, whilst asserting the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" to be its prominent characteristic, responded to the public will, "Iveto:"

It cast from high places of trust and from low ones-from the foreign court and from the village post office-men," honest, capable, and faithful,' who dared, in defiance of its dictation, to exercise, independently, the sovereign rights of American freemen; and appointed, in their stead, those who were neither fitted by birth, by education, nor by other high qualities of manhood, to fill the stations:

It repealed the Missouri compromise. Yes, sir, it tore from the record: that great act of our fathers, rendered sacred, as it had been, to the people of the North, and of the South, by the great cause of our national Union, in which it originated, and the long acquiescence of all the States. It has reopened, in violation of its solemn vows, the "bleeding wounds" which the "healing measures" of 1850 were designed to cure. It has thrown wide open the sluices of sectional strife, as the late elections and this discussion fully prove.

I repeat it, sir, in no spirit of personal unkindness to its members, this Administration has fallen-"fallen like Lucifer!" The unerring pen of History will record, in small space, an account of its works, and its achievements: It repealed the Missouri compromise, it struck at the Know-Nothings, not knowing where to strike-it captured Greytown! and went down:

"Like the snow-flake on the river,

more

A moment white-then gone forever." Looking at its incoming, its condition, and its approaching inevitable outgoing, I repeat," in pity than in anger," the words of the poet: "How are the mighty fallen! And by the people's hand! Low lie the proud! And smitten with the weapons of the poorTHEIR TALE IS TOLD; and for that they were rich, And robbed the poor; and for that they were strong, And scourged the weak; and for that they made laws Which turned the sweat of labor's brow to bloodFOR THESE, THEIR SINS, THE NATION CASTS THEM OUT.”

APPENDIX. Georgia-Agriculture.

Improved land acres

American Politics-Mr. Banks.

Value of 46,976 pounds cheese, at 15 cents,

Value of 23,449 tons hay, at $16...

Value of 132 bushels clover seed, at $6.. Value of 428 bushels other grass seed, at $2 50...

Value of 261 pounds hops, at 30 cents..... Value of 5,387 pounds flax, at 10 cents... Value of 622 bushels flax seed, at $1 75.... Value of 813 pounds silk cocoons, at.... Value of 50 pounds maple sugar, at 6 cents. Value of 1,642,000 pounds cane sugar, at 6 cents...

Value of 216,150 gallons molasses, at 25 cents Value of 734,514 pounds beeswax, at 15

cents....

Value of homemade manufactures.........

Ohio-Agriculture.

Improved land, acres.......
Unimproved land, acres...........
Cash value of farms......
Value of farming implements and ma-
chinery....

7,046 40 375,184 00 792 00

1,072 00 78 30 538 70 1,088 50

3. 00

98,520 00 54,037 50 109,877 10

1,858,968 00 $65,488,267 18

9,851,493 8,146,000 $358,758,603 00

12,750,585 00 estate....$504,726,120 00

Total value of real and personal
Value of live stock....
Value of animals slaughtered
Value of 14,487,351 bushels wheat, at $2..
Value of 425,918 bushels rye, at $1.
Value of 59,078,695 bushels Indian corn, at
90 cents..

Value of 13,472,742 bushels of oats, at 50

cents..

Value of 10,454,449 pounds of tobacco at 7

Value of 10,196,371 pounds of wool at 30

cents

44,121,741 00 7,439,243 00 28,944,702 00 425,918 00 53,170,825 50 6,736,371 00 731,811 43 3,058,911 30 60,168 00 5,057,769 00

cents...

[blocks in formation]

Value of 20,819,542 pounds of cheese at 15 cents....

Value of 1,443,142 tons bay at $16..
Value of 103,197 bushels cloversced at $6..
Value of 37,310 bushels of other grass seed
at $250..

Value of 63,731 pounds hops at 30 cents....
Value of 150 tons hemp at $1 75
Value of 446,932 pounds flax at 10 cents...
Value of 188,880 bushels flaxseed at $1 75.
Value of 1,552 pounds silk cocoons.
Value of 4,588,209 pounds maple sugar at
6 cents..

Value of 197,308 gallons molasses at 25 cents,
Value of 804,275 pounds beeswax and
honey at 15 cents.............
Value of homemade manufacturers........

Agricultural products of Ohio.... Deduct product of Georgia...

AMERICAN POLITICS.

93,995 50 354,358 00 638,060 00 695,921 00

72,310 50 214,004 00 8,612,344 75 3,122,731 30 23,090,272 00 619,182 00 92,275 00 19,119 30 26,250 00 44,693 20 329,440 00

275,292 54 49,327 00

120,641 25 1,712,196 00 .$145,838,232 51 65,488,267 18 $80,349,965 33

HO. OF REPS.

ble in the efforts made in the Territories referred to. The people of Massachusetts, so far as they engaged in the emigration movements, acted in good faith. They sent to the new Territories of Kansas and Nebraska its best men; men who were calculated to advance the prosperity of any State, to establish sound institutions, and who intended to do injustice to no section of the country. But it was not with Missouri as it was with Massachusetts. Within a few days an official letter, a kind of quasi proclamation, has been received here from Governor Reeder, in which he declares distinctly, that a public meeting, held in Kansas, for the purpose of controlling the government of that Territory, was composed of the citizens of Missouri, and not those of Kansas; and that they did not come there to act as citizens of that Territory, but for the purpose of controlling its institutions, in which, as citizens of Missouri, they had neither interest nor right. They were organized for that purpose, and they seem to desire, not only to participate in the election of a territorial Delegate, but also manifest a determination to influence the Governor in the performance of his executive duties. These are his words:

"The meeting was not of the citizens of Kansas,' as your proceedings will show, if you will produce them. It was a meeting composed mainly of citizens of Missouri, and a few of the citizens of Kansas. Your own body, whom I am now addressing, contains two undoubted resi dents of Missouri, one of whom is your chairman, who resides with his family, in the town of Liberty, Missouri, as he has done for years, and whose only attempt at a residence in Kansas consists of a card nailed to a tree, upon ground long since occupied by other settlers, who have built and lived upon the claim. The president of your meeting was Mr. John Dougherty, a resident, and large landholder in Clay County, Missouri, as he has stated to me since the meeting, and will not hesitate to state again, as he is a high-minded and honorable man, above all concealment or disguise. The gentlemen principally composing your meeting came from across the river, thronging the road from the ferry to the town, on horseback, and in wagons, in numbers variously estimated by different persons, at from two hundred to three hundred; and after the meeting was over, they returned to their homes in the State of Missouri. These are facts as notorious here as any public occurrence can be, and every man who had eyes to see, and ears to hear, is cognizant of them."

No such charge has been made, or can be made, against emigrants from Massachusetts. They neither attempted nor desired to interfere with the political affairs of any other State or Territory, except that in which they had planted themselves as settlers. They have done for those Territories exactly what the citizens of Massachusetts have done since the commencement of the history of this country-they contributed what was in their power to the settlement of new territory with intelligent, honorable, and brave men. So much their duty required of them, and so much only have they done. Those who desire to promote the prosperity of Kansas will never regret the advent of Massachusetts emigrants.

A little while ago, I desired to speak somewhat at large upon topics introduced by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS]-I shall seize an

SPEECH OF HON. NATH. P. BANKS, early opportunity to do so-but now confine my

[blocks in formation]

Value of farming implements and ma

chinery......

5,891,150

[blocks in formation]

Mr. CHAIRMAN: In the speech of the distinguished gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. BENTON,] just read by his colleague, [Mr. OLIVER,] it is stated that he, at the last session, intimated to some members of this House from the eastern States his belief that the movement for sending emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska would excite sensations in that country injurious to the cause in which the people of the East were engaged. The gentleman from Missouri, now absent, made such a declaration to me; and I wrote to some of my friends, who were interested in that movement, expressing his views, and my concurrence, in some degree, in the fears he entertained. So much stated in regard to myself, is strictly true; and I have no doubt that it is true with regard to others.

But there is another statement in which I do not

concur; and that is, that the State of Massachusetts, and the State of Missouri, are equally culpa

attention, as seems to be expected of me, to the remarks of the honorable gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. BARRY,] who has just taken his seat.

I had not anticipated a debate upon the subject he introduced, and am not altogether prepared to participate therein. I may say, however, that it admits of, if it does not call for, more thorough investigation than he has given it. Indeed, it embodies the great questions of government; it touches the fundamental rights of the people of this Union; it goes to the heart of every nationality on the face of the earth, and it is well worthy our attention. I do not regret that my friend has introduced it. I have listened to his remarks with pleasure, and with many of his conclusions, taking his point of view, I might concur. But the principles which lie at the basis of political associations, and the rights of parties interested in them, are so various and so profound that, in the investigation of this matter, I can well entertain different views, and arrive at conclusions differing from those which he has stated.

And, first, let me comment on the proposition, not first in the order of his remarks, but which lies at the foundation of his opinions-that a man in the United States is bound to promulgate his political views. I take issue with him on that question. We are a people occupying an inde

33D CONG....2D Sess.

pendent section of the earth, with a Government of our own. It is a Government which springs from the people, republican in its nature; in which the interests, rights, opinions, and commands of the people constitute, not only the guiding, but original power, and no man who discharges his duty as a member of the social compact, who executes his will, and, according to the forms of law, impresses his convictions upon the political institutions under which he lives, is accountable for his actions or opinions to any other man. He is not even accountable to the Government. He is accountable to God alone. Acting in his capacity as an original member of that compact, not as a Representative, mark you, Mr. Chairman, he is entitled to that degree of privacy which is necessary to secure his natural, indefeasible, and absolute right-the free expression of his opinion. How far he will modify that opinion and his action, by communion with other minds, he has a right to determine for himself. When a citizen of the United States is called upon to vote for President, for a member of the House of Representatives, or for any other officer of delegated trusts, or in framing the organic laws under which he lives, he is not only entitled to vote, uncontrolled, unawed by individual or governmental influence, but he has the right to give his vote in profound secrecy. And that Government which shapes its material influences or statutes, so as to trammel or control a citizen in the exercise of this, his private, but absolute right, which seeks to wring from him publicity of his views or action, strikes at the basis of republican institutions, and ought to be swept from the face of the earth.

Sir, the right of opinion is the right upon which we stand. God gives to us the power to, form opinions, the Government secures to us the right to act upon those opinions, and to no individual, organization, or society, attaches the right to control us in the exercise of these high prerogatives. So far, then, I take issue with the honorable gentleman from Mississippi. I claim the right to form my own opinions. The Constitution and Government under which I live, secures me the right to express them, and privacy, or if it please the gentleman better, secrecy, may be convenient or necessary for me in the exercise of that privilege. The gentleman from Mississippi asserts it to be a duty to promulgate and publish opinions entertained. If so, it must be for the purpose of influencing others, or that the individual shall be subject to the influences of others, or of government. Any influence except that which legitimately springs from the action of reason upon reason is wrong, and no wrong can be a duty. If privacy of opinion be a right, its expression must be a voluntary, and not a compulsory act.

Mr. BARRY. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question?"

Mr. BANKS. If it is pertinent to the subject upon which I am speaking, most certainly.

Mr. BARRY. It is a pertinent question. I desire to know whether an association has the right to control the vote of a member of that association?

Mr. BANKS. I will come to that presently. Mr. BARRY. And I desire to know further, whether the New York Council has the right to make members of that council tell for whom they voted?

Mr. BANKS. I will answer the gentleman's question presently. I was proceeding to say, that I have the right to form my own opinions. The Constitution and Government under which I live give me the right to express my opinions as I please. They give me the right to vote by ballot

the ballot is a secret institution; and that secret institution enables me to cast my vote in secrecy, unknown to any, and uninfluenced by fear of any

man.

In considering a public wrong it is very well for us, in the first place, to consider the power which perpetrates the wrong; because, by studying the motives and interests which actuate the perpetration, we can form a better idea of the wrong itself. The gentleman from Mississippi has Etated very clearly and, I doubt not, very conscientiously, that the association to which he alluded is wrong. Sir, what is that association? Who are its members? The people of the United States. . What is the nature of this association of the people NEW SERIES.-No. 4.

American Politics-Mr. Banks.

of the United States which holds its meetings in secret? It is not an institution or association limited by numbers; but it seeks numerical strength. It seeks, by its numbers, to control the elections of the country. It is, therefore, popular in its nature; and, so far as its secrecy is concerned, it is enough to say, that any association of men, wherever they are, who undertake to control the Government of a country by its numerical votes, has an element of popularity in its nature which makes secrecy impossible. And, so far as that is concerned, I will say to the gentleman, that I think he may relieve himself from fear of any considerable public danger.

As to the Councils of New York, sir, as I am not a member, and know nothing of their action or organization, I do not propose to enter into their defense. But I will say that they, undoubtedly, have the same right to control their members that other parties have-and that the exact limit to which their influence shall extend is always to be determined by the individual member who is its subject, and he has always an unlimited right of resistance or absolute secession. The connection of an American citizen with any party is voluntary. He makes it and he ends it. The beginning and the end being his own work, it is his fault if, between these extremes, his rights or privileges are in any degree impaired.

Sir, the gentleman from Mississippi alluded to the class of people who compose that organization, and I have no doubt he has stated the facts correctly, for he has evidently given the subject some consideration. Who are the people who compose this organization? He says that in one section men belong to it who have been connected with the Whig party, and in another men belong to it who have been connected with the Democratic party. All this is, no doubt, very true and reasonable. These men have left their old partisan organizations for reasons satisfactory to themselves, and which neither you nor I have the right to question. I have no doubt that every member of this association in Mississippi has his reasons for becoming such, and I have no doubt that the same is true in Massachusetts. I can very well conceive that there may be different views of the necessities under which men act. I can conceive that there may be reasons why a body of men, a large body of men-if you please, a majority of the citizens of any or every State in the Union, should leave the political organizations with which they have heretofore been connected, and form new organizations for themselves. There may be necessities which drive men to such political action and which justify them in it.

And now, a word as to such necessities. I speak of them by way of illustration, and not to cast any aspersion, or to make any complaint. But, there are influences which have been exercised upon the citizens of this country, not in consonance with the spirit of our institutions, and which, not only call for, but which justify the resistance of political organizations. The United States Bank controversy was of this character, and there are others, of immediate as well as pressing concern, and to them I propose for a moment, to address myself.

Sir, political power, what is it? It should be the independent and intelligent action of the citizens of a State. But men will be influenced by other men, and properly enough. Moral and intellectual superiority, the wisdom that varied attainments and experience convey, will always have their influence upon men. This is in accordance with our nature. It may also happen that political power and influence may be the product of wealth. Indeed, wealth may sometimes take such a form as to control the entire political action of a State, and secure an influence that learning or experience rarely confers on men. In my own State we have our share, it may be, perhaps, more than an equal share of the wealth of the country. We have agricultural wealth and commercial wealth. We have manufacturing wealth and mechanical wealth-all the product of the industry and enterprise of our citizens. This is, indeed, a public blessing.

But, sir, wealth is far more efficient in promoting general prosperity, when generally distributed, than when it aggregates in few hands. It is better when in the hands of natural than artificial per

|

Ho. OF REPS.

sons; and it contributes in a greater degree to the general happiness of a people, when it assumes the permanent form of real property, rather than the unstable, inconstant form of personal estate. Sir, I disclaim hostility to the institutions of wealth in any form. I will go as far to foster and enlarge its legitimate interests as any man. But, I mean especially to deny its right to govern, or any claim made in behalf of its right to construct or direct the machinery of Government.

Let me illustrate the views I have presented by a reference to some of the causes which have led to the great political changes that have occurred in the State I have the honor, in part, to represent. Look at the city of New York, for instance, with its immense population, having increased from less than one thousand, in 1654, to nearly three fourths of a million in 1854-a period of two hundred years-and with a wealth corresponding to its position and population, dispersed through all its veins. The city of New York, with half a million people in 1850, had less personal estate than Boston, with a population of one hundred and thirty-six thousand. The State of New York, with a population of more than three millions, had $50,000,000 less personal property than Massachusetts, with less than one million people.*

This remarkable difference may be in part accounted for by the fact that Massachusetts has given existence to something like twenty-five hundred business or trading corporations, whose aggregated capital would exceed $430,000,000; while the entire valuation of the real and personal property of the State did not exceed, in 1850, $600,000,000. In addition to the subtle influences of this peculiar species of property, which is affected by the minutest and constant changes of life, whose delicate organization is elated or depressed by every form of legislation, every movement of public or private bodies, and, indeed, by vague rumors of the street, it has the unceasing attention of those immediately interested therein, and the watchful care of ten or twelve thousand officers or agents, acting in various capacities, paid by salaries running from the cost of bare subsistence to six and ten thousand dollars a year, who are naturally intent upon advancing the interests upon which their own prosperity depends. Such influences are sleepless, as well as powerful; and from the nature of the case, in a greater or less degree, they assume a political character. It has, also, a vigorous, and almost irresistible influence upon the public press -an agent of power as subtle and vivacious, as irrepressible and energetic as the stock exchange itself. I mean the power of public opinion. Where such elements constitute a principal basis upon which successful political organizations are erected, they become irresistible. The barriers which, under other circumstances, are effectual to check and control legislation, and government, and political action-the independence of individual opinion, municipal organizations and interests, associations formed to perpetuate local or individual rights-are all swept away. It requires nerve to meet constant checks of business, to face denunciations of the press, to withstand the taunts of political associates, the tyranny of conventions, and the flattering appeals of power-more than to brave death, when one has once inhaled the hot breath of battle. It fills every avenue of a State with its power, and remorselessly it hurls down whoever dares oppose its decrees.

I might name men of lofty elevation, great men, who have experienced the truth of what I say, in my own State. This country has produced few men superior in the majesty of intellect to Robert Rantoul, jr., who died a few years since, in the service of his country, as a Repre sentative of the district for which, in part, I hold my seat. He was a man of rare attainments, and of almost limitless intellectual power. His mind had the grasp of Hamilton's and the analysis of Calhoun. His habits were stamped with the simplicity of childhood, and his mild spirit with

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »