14 in other States and communities to do the same. All our American systems rest upon this principle; yet they are opposed to it. Meh in Massachusetts, New York, and Ohio, are not content with looking after the well-being of their own States, but they wish to set themselves up as supervisors, legislators, and rulers of the people in other places beyond their jurisdiction. And these are the men who are so constantly prating about the slave power—its aggressions, its insolence, and its dictation. When, sir—when did the slave power ever assume such insolence, put on such arrogance, use such dictation, or claim such prerogatives, as this class of men do in this instance? When did southern statesmen ever seek to impose their institutions upon any other State or Territory? I know it is said that they , have endeavored to extend slavery by Congress. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Cumback] the other day said the object of the Kansas bill was to make Kansas a slave State by act of Congress. No such thing, sir. The object of the Kansas! bill was neither to make it a slave State nor a free State; but, after taking off the restriction of 1820, ,to leave that matter without any interference, dictation, or control on the part of Congress to the people there to settle for themselves, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. The object is clearly set forth in the bill itself. Here are its words: “That the Constitution and all laws of the United States, which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect in the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the ‘Act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union,’ approved March 6,1820, which, being inconsistent With the principle of non intervention by Congress1 with slavery in the States and Territories, as recogltized by the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, is hereby declared inoperative and void ; it being 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.” The difference between southern statesmen and northern Free-Soilers upon this subject is, that the former are willing, and ever havetbeen, to leave the question of the domestic institutions in the new States to the people to settle for themselves; while the latter are seeking.to mold and fashion them according to their peculiar prejudices. All that the South asked in the annexation of Texas, and all the guarantee she got was, simply, that the people in certain States, hereafter to be formed out of Texas, might come into the Union either with or without slavery, as the people may determine for themselves. This is what Free-Soilers call an aggression of the slave power.' We at the Soutli consider it nothing but the es-1 tablishment of the great principle of self-government which was the. germ of the American Revolution. Free-Soilers hold the position towards the Territories and new States, vfhich Lord North and his ministry in the British Parliament did, towards the colonies. He and they, in adhering to their policy of governing the colonies in all cases whatsoever, severed one empire. It may be that their imitators on this comment, by pursuing a similar policy, may sever a far more glorious, prosperous, and happy Confederacy of States. Southern statesmen on this question occupy the grounds of the old Whigs, the old Democrats, and the old Republicans, of the days of the Revolution. They say it is not only unjust, but anti-republican, for the Representatives on this floor from the various States of the Union, to attempt, arbitrarily, to impose laws and institutions upon the people of. the distant Territories, who have no representation by votes upon this floor. When I addressed this House some time agoj I called attention to some remarks made by Mr. John Quincy Adams, at Pittsburg, in November, 1843, upon the subject of abolishing slavery-in this District. These remarks are pertinent to the present question. His anti-slavery sentiments were quite as strong, perhaps, as those of any man now present; but he was opposed to the abolition of slavery in this District by Congress, because it was anti-republican. These are his words: “As to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, I have said that I was opposed to i t—not because I have any doubts of the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District, for 1 have none. But 1 regard it as a violation of republican principles to enact laws at the petition of one people which are to operate upon another j>eople against their consent.” Mr. Adams said it was a “ violation of republican principles to enact laws at the petition of one people which are to operate upon another people against their consent;” and for the same reason I say to you, who have assumed the title of Republicans, you violate every principle consecrated by the name you bear, by attempting to force institutions upon the people of Kansas against their consent. If a majority there see flt to assign the negro the same condition he occupies in the southern States, let them do it. If a inajority of them shall prefer that he shall be an outcast amongst them, without the franchise of a freeman, or the protection of a master, as he is in many States of the Union—a vagabond, in a worse condition than that of Cain—for he had a mark on him that no man should hurt him—let them so determine. This is our position. Mr. STANTON. Does the gentleman hold that the Territorial Legislatures have power to exclude slavery? Mr. STEPHENS. I say that, if Congress has the power, so has the Territorial Legislature. The gentleman, I believe, holds that Congress has the power, I do not; and consequently I do not hold tliat the Territorial Legislatures can rightfully exclude slavery. I hold that the public domain being public property, purchased by the common blood and common treasure of all, should be left free and open for settlement and colonization equally by the citizens of albthe States alike until । they come to form their State constitution; but 1
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=