be any novelty, it will be in the modeof

Mr. President and fellow citizens of New York: -

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall makeofthem.Ifthereshall presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in “The New-York Times,” Senator Douglas said: between Republicans and that wing of the

“Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, thanwedonow.”

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: “What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?” ernment first went into operation,) and

What is the frame of government under which welive? ho framed that part of the present The answer must be: “The ConstitutionABE’S of the United States.” That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which thepresentgov e nation at that time. Their names, twelve subsequently framed amendments,ABE’S the first ten of which were framed in1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine” who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathersw Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment ofthewhol being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. I take these “thirty-nine,” for theAPPETIZERS present, as being “our fathers who framed the Government under which welive.” What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood “just as well, and even better than we donow?”

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? d that better understanding? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what thetextdeclaresour fathers understood “better than we.”Abe’s Sampler Platter Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,” or any chicken of them, ever strips, acted fried upon this portabella question; and ifmushrooms, they did, how they and acted mozzarella upon it - how theyexpresse sticks, with In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question ofprohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of theyour “thirty-nine” favorite who dippingafterward framed sauce. the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin,and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anythingd else,the properlyConstitution, forbade were the inFederal that Congress, Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M’Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper tovoteforit.

In 1787, still before the Constitution,Cheese but Curdswhile the Convention was in session framing it, and whileNaked the Northwestern Bone-In Territory Wings still was the only territory owned by the UnitedStates,thesame question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the “thirty-nine” who afterward signe and voted on the question. They wereMade William with Blount Wisconsin and William Few;cheese and they curds both voted for the prohibitionNaked - thusjumbo showing wings, that, in theirflashhence understanding, it fried, is not recorded no line thatdividing the local fromfederal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now wellknown as the Ordinance of ‘87. that are lightly breaded and served offered plain or covered with buffalo, the Northwestern Territory. The bill forthis The question of federal control of slaverywith in thechipotle territories, ranch. seems not to have been directly before the ConventionBBQ, whichteriyaki, framed the or original bourbon Constitution; and sauce. “thirty-nine,” or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question. -nine fathers who framed the original Fried Portabella Mushrooms Choice of 6 or 10 wings. In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of ‘87, including the prohibition ofslaveryin act was reported by one of the “thirty-nine,”Breaded, Thomas flash-fried Fitzsimmons, portabellathen a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word ofopposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage.Potato In this Skins Congress there were sixteen ofthethirty ohibit slavery in the federal territory; else Constitution. They were John Langdon,mushrooms Nicholas Gilman, served Wm. S. Johnson, with Roger a zesty Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. Flash-fried potato boats filled with chipotle ranch dip. This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution,cheese andproperly bacon forbade crumbles,Congress topr served both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. Onion Rings with a side of sour cream. Again, George Washington, another of the “thirty-nine,” was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill;ederal thus Government completing should its validity not prohibit as a law, andthusshowing that, in his understanding, no line dividingFried local golden from federal brown authority, and nor served anything within the Constitution,Nacho forbade Plate the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory. erritory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they No great while after the adoption ofchipotle the original ranch. Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal GovernmentTortilla the chipscountry nowlayered constituting with the cheese State of Tennessee; and a few years laterGeorgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States thattheF slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these sauce,circumstances, shredded Congress, onlettuce, taking charge choppedin of thesethe Constitution,countries, did properlynot absolutely forbade prohibit slavery within them. But theyMozzarella did interfere with Sticks it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized theT prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, tomatoes,and giving freedom jalape to slavesños, so sourbought. cream,This act passed both branches of Congresswithout yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the “thirty-nine” Fried who golden framed thebrown original and Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, votedforit. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividingsalsa local fromand federal your authority, choice or ofanythingpart, seasoned was an old and comparatively large the Federal Government to controlserved as to slavery with in federalmarinara territory. sauce. Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but beef or shredded pork. therein made, in relation to slaves, was: In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from aforeign nation. In 1804, Congress gaveAbe’s a territorial Cheese organization Fries to that part of it which now constitutes the StateMake of Louisiana.chicken New nachos Orleans, lyingfor withinthat city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, inthe they did interfere with it - take controlA heaping of it - in pilea more of marked seasoned and extensive way than they did in thean case upcharge.of Mississippi. The substance of theprovision First. That no slave should be imported into the territory fries, from foreignsmothered parts. with tor of the law, and freedom to the slave. Deep Fried Green Beans Second. That no slave should be carriedmelted into it cheesewho had been and imported bacon into crumbles, the United States since the first day of May,1798. Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case Savory gourmet battered green, it violated either the line properly Third. That no slave should be carriedserved into it, withexcept bychipotle the owner, ranch and for dip. his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upontheviola beans, deep fried golden brown and This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and general question. Two of the “thirty- of Mississippi, it is probableChicken they both voted & Cheesefor it. They Quesadillawould not have allowed it to pass without recordingserved their withopposition chipotle to it, if, ranchin theirwhile understandingon Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution. ity, nor anything in the Constitution, A flour tortilla stuffed with seasoned the side. nt reason for opposing such prohibition In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases ofthe nine” - Rufus King and Charles Pinckneychicken, - were memberscheese, of thatand Congress. served Mr. with King steadily sour voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal author was violated by Congress prohibitingcream slavery and in federal salsa territory; on the while side. Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was somesufficie in that case. d be thirty of them. But this would be

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine,” or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been abletodiscover. y way.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - therewoul counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of thosee “thirty-nine” of the “thirty-nine” - so acting upon whom it I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted uponitinan ity, or anything in the Constitution

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers “who framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they “understood just as well, and even better than we do now;” and twenty-one of them - a clear majority ofthewhol as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal author they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus thetood twenty-one in the acted; way; orand, they as actions may, without speak louderthan words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder. t the Constitution can conscientiously e which he deems constitutional, if, at Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they actedause, uponin their the understanding,question. But forany whatproper reasons theysovotedisnot known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, s any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworntosuppor vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measur ol of slavery in the federal territories. But the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having donesobec s, had it been manifested at all. division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal contr y-nine” even, on any other phase of the there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeer of slavery generally, it would appear to twenty-three did. Among that sixteen For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by anyperson,however distinguished, known other to thanhave been the otherwise, thirty-nine unless fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any ofthe“thirt general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted justasthe were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was notonenow nderstood that no proper division of local it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. “better than we.”

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly u ment, a mode was provided for amending from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while edall and the adopted rest probably since. Those had thewho same now understanding. insist Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood thequestion rstand, that all fix upon provisions in which provides that no person shall be But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the originalinstru it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the Government under which we live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articlesfram that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and,asIunde these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth alreadyamendment, mentioned, enforcing the deprived of “life, liberty or property without due process of law;” while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” “are reserved to the States respectively, ortothepeople.” territory the nation then owned. act to enforce the Ordinance, the Now, it so happens thatSTEAKS these amendments were framed by the first Congress& which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress whichSIDE passedtheact prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at thesametime within the session, had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery inallthe framed that part of “the Government The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of ‘87; so that, during the whole pendency ofthe Constitutional amendments were also pending. the same time, are absolutely The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre- eminently ourt fathers who those who did the two things, alleged under which we live,”BAR-B-QUE which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories. CHOICES Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carrieddments tomaturityat thereto, taken together, do inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from thehow samemouth,tha that any one of them ever, in his to be inconsistent, understoodEntrees whether include they really weretwo inconsistent of your better favorite than we - better sides. than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? ederal GovernmentCole to controlSlaw as to slavery in the ntury, (and I might almost say prior to It is surely safe to assume thatShare the thirty-nine a meal framers for of anthe original upcharge. Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framedtheamen of the Constitution, forbade the Federal certainly include those who may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” And so assuming, I defy Countryany mantos r which we live,”Style but with them all other whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade theF them. federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the presentceGreen Beans the beginning ofAbe’s the last half Ribeye of the present Steak century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority,To oranypart do so, would be to discard all the Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only “our fathers who framed the Government unde rs in any case, we should do so upon living men within the centuryThis in mouth-watering which it was framed, 12 among oz whomof Angus to search, Beefand theyis shall not be able to find the evidence of a Frenchse whereofsingle managreeingwith we ourselvesFries declare they Now, and here, let me guard richa little in against classic being beefmisunderstood. flavor...we I do not meanchar-grill to say weyours are bound to follow implicitly in whatever ourCottage fathers did. Cheese lights of current experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions andederal policy Government of ourfathe to control as to slavery in the evidence so conclusive, and argumentto order. so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a ca ead others, who have less access to understood the question better than we. s substitutingTater Totsfalsehood and deception nd applied principles, in other cases, which If any man at Petitethis day sincerely Filet believes Mignon that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, ederalforbids theF Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But Vegetablehe has no principles righttomisl Medleybetter than they did themselves; history, and less leisure to 6study oz it,aged into steak,the false belief tender that “our and fathers full who of framedflavor, the Government under which we live” were of the same opinion -thu for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live,” useda ought to have led them tochar-broiled understand that a toproper a divisionjuicy ofperfection. local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids theF Potatothan we do Saladnow,” speak as they spoke, and federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their ked, as an evil not to be extended, but to and especially should8 oz he notBourbon shirk that responsibility Glazed by asserting Flatiron that they Steak “understood the question just as well, andSide even better, House than wedonow.” Salads those fathersor Soup gave it, be, not grudgingly, But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and evenbetter, act as they acted upon it.Tender, This is all boneless Republicans steak,ask - all grilledRepublicans desireto order. - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be againmar be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantee Applesauce but fully and fairly, maintained. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will becontent. inferior to any other people. Still, 8 oz Hide-Out Steak s or murderers, but nothing like it to And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people. Grilled Vegetablesto be attended to. Indeed, such This sirloin steak is aged for a fabulous flavor. , or not, be prevailed upon to pause and I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and Mashedjustice earyou arenot us Potatoes deny or justify. when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearingtopirate “Black Republicans.”Cowboy In all your Steak contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnationGarlic of “Black Republicanism”Mashed Potatoes as the firstthing may be condemnation of us seemsRich, to be juicy,an indispensable and veryprerequisite flavorful. - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all.Now,canyou get votes in your section, we should to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, andsubstituted then be patient depending long enoughtoh ve ceased to on be thesectional, for we shall get no votes in your section, is a fact of your You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?special Why, principlethat of ourthe or party practice.day has no If existencewe do repel in your section-gets no votes in yourBBQ section. Combo The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle,g of beginto our principle. If our principle, put in thereby cease to be sectional.Pulled You cannot pork escape and this a chickenconclusion; andbreast yet, drizzled are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soonfindthatweha nd denounced as such. Meet us, then, on votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue.Baked The factthatweget side. Do Potato you accept the challenge? No! making, and not of ours.with And if BBQ there be Sauce. fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you byindorse somewrong it again and again, upon their you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussionAdd oftherightorwron sour cream practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justlyopposeda the question ofBBQ whether Ribs our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that something may forbe said onour rea nWashington upcharge. gave that warning, he had, Then you really believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live” thought so clearly right as toadoptit,and official oaths, is in factHot so clearly off thewrong char-broiler as to demand your and condemnation drizzled without with aour moment’s consideration. Make it Loaded for Some of you delight spicyto flaunt BBQ in our Sauce. faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight yearsbefo as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory,an upcharge. which act embodied the policy oftheGovernmentupon that subject up to and Choiceat the very of amoment full he or penned half that slab. warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States. Entree Additions & Extras Bearing thisPork in mind, Chop and seeing Dinnerthat sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us,not oradherence in our handsto the against old and you?tried, Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend ittoyou, together with his exampleTwo pointing pieces toof the 5 rightoz center-cut application ofit. smoked pork Add a catfish fillet to what that substitute shall be. You are oreign slave trade; some for a Congressional But you say you chop,are conservative plain - oreminently BBQ. conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or Addsomething grilled of the shrimp sort. What is conservatism? Isit against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers a man who among framed you the is inGovernment favor of underfederal whichwelive;”while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as rious plans can show a precedent or an divided on newPulled propositions Pork and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policyAdd of the breaded fathers. chicken Some of you strips,are forrevivingthef ructiveness against us, are based on the Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary;some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple”A hearty that portion“if one man of would a southern-style enslave another, no third pulled man should object,” fantasticallybutterfly called shrimp,“Popular Sovereignty;”or char-broiled but never prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Governmentchicken breastunder which we live.” Not oneofallyourva advocate in the centurypork, within served which withour Government a side originated. of sweet Consider, and spicythen, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your chargeordest the precepts and policy of the old times. most clear and stable foundations.BBQ sauce. Add sautéed mushrooms & onions Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thenceAdd comes bleu the greatercheese prominence crumbles of the question. Would you have that question reducedtoits former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old havetimes, readopt tried and failed to make the proof.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper’sAdd Ferry! sour John creamBrown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusablefornot designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertionafteryou You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. the blame upon us, you could get an ast, your charge was a slander, and he was Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarationsrence necessarily whatever with lead to suchyour results.slaves, Wedonot orwith believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made by “our fathers who framed the Government we live,” under declare which weour live.” belief Youthat never slavery dealt fairlybyus is in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief that,y bycharging would not, in fact, generally know advantage Theof us Illinois in those elections.Department The elections of Public came, andHealth your expectationsadvises that were eatingnot quite rawfulfilled. or under Every Republicancooked meat, man poultry,knew that, eggs as to or himself atle seafoodack Republicanism; poses a and then, to give not muchhealth inclined riskby it toto everyone, cast his vote but inespecially your favor. Republicanto the elderly, doctrines young and declarations children areunder accompanied the age with of 4,a continualpregnant protest women against and anyinterfe other highly you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with “our fathers, who framed the Government underwhich wrong; but susceptiblethe slaves do notindividuals hear us declare with even compromised this. For anything immune we say systems. or do, the Thorough slaves would cookingscarcely knowof such there animalis a Republican foods party. reduces I believethe -eight the years risk. ago, in which, at least three it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathywithBl point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves. be attained. The slaves have no means of be supplied, the indispensable connecting Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty times as many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by Black Republicanism.” In thepresent state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, norcan trains. ld scarcely be devised and communicated in Hayti was not an exception to it, but only about twenty were admitted to the s from the kitchen, and open or stealthy Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprisingcou n of slaves, as I think, can happen in this to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In thatcase, secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisoning assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrectioer at the prospect held up.” country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation,peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature mustshudd

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as toefused the topower participate. of emancipation, In fact, itI speakwas oftheslaveholding so States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall neveroccuronany American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which theslavesr absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little elsethanhis own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. Thecannot eagerness destroy to that cast judgmentblame on andold England intheone case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. rmed into order in the face of your heaviest CHICKEN & SEAFOODnnel? What would that other channel And how much would it avail you,CHICKEN if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper’s Book,& and the like,SEAFOOD break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified tosomeextent,but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes.You feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army whichhasbeenfo fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcingEntrees the sentiment include which two created of it yourout of the favorite peaceful channel sides. of the ballot-box, intosomeothercha probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation? some right, plainly written down in the

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denialShare of your aConstitutional meal rights. for an upcharge. federal territories, and to hold them there That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to depriveyouof Constitution. But we areMarinated proposing no such thing.Chicken Breast Southern Fried Chicken

When you make these declarations,A boneless,you have a specific skinless and well-understood chicken breastallusion to an assumed ConstitutionalA four-piece right ofdinner, yours, to take hand-breaded slaves intothe all points in dispute between you and as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a righthasany existence in the Constitution, evenserved by implication. broiled, BBQ, teriyaki, or and cooked to order...breast, wing,

Your purpose, then, plainly stated,bourbon is that style.you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed toleg, construe and andthigh enforce (no the substitutions) Constitutionright asyouplease,on to take. slaves into the federal us. You will rule or ruin in all events. ajority of the Judges, and they not quite Additional chicken breast for hat it was mainly based upon a mistaken This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided8 oz the Salmondisputed Constitutional Fillet question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer’sdistinction between dictum and decision, thean Court upcharge. have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I Char-grilledmean it was made in with a divided a lemon Court, byabarem butter agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning,andtat is, not mingled with anything else - statement of fact - theChicken statement inMonterey the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly andsauce expressly or glazed affirmed with in the Constitution.” a bourbon sauce.

An inspection of the ConstitutionA boneless will show chickenthat the right breast of property covered in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it. Bear in neithermind, thethe Judges word do “slave” not pledge nor “slavery”their judicial is opinionthat to such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is “distinctlyButterflied and expressly” Shrimp affirmed there - “distinctly,” th that instrument the slave is alluded “expressly,” that is, in words meaningwith just Swiss that, without cheese, the grilledaid of any peppersinference, and susceptible of no other meaning. as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, Six fried, butterflied shrimprpose to served exclude from the Constitution the If they had only pledged their judicialand onions,opinion that bacon such right crumbles is affirmed and in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to showthat be found in the Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language alludingwith to Cocktailthe things slave, Sauce. or slavery; and that whereverin to, he is called a “person;” - anddiced wherever tomatoes. his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which maybedue,”- it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves andCatfish slavery, instead Filetof speaking of them, was employed onpu idea that there could be propertyAdditional in man. Monterey breast for reconsider the conclusion based upon it? 7-9 oz filet served grilled or fried with To show all this, is easy andan certain. upcharge. me Constitutional question in our favor, our seasoned corn flour. was made, and, so far as any evidence is When this obvious mistakeBreaded of the Judges Chicken shall be Strips brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement,and And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which Catfishwe live” - the Platter men who made the Constitution - decidedthissa submitted to as a conclusive and final long ago - decided it without division amongChicken themselves, whenstrips making flash-fried, the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it you say, the great crime of having left, without basing it upon anyoffered mistaken plainstatement or of in facts. your favorite B.A. whole catfish...farm-raised, and then you will be a murderer!” Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unlesscatf ishsuch rolleda court decision in our seasonedas yourse isis, shallbeatonce my own; and the threat of death to rule of political action? But sauce:you will buffalo, not abide the BBQ, election or of bourbon.a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union;andthen, destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters throughcorn his f teeth,lour. “Stand and deliver, or Ishallkillyou et us Republicans do our part to have it To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than myvot us calmly consider their demands, and me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. us, let us determine, if we can, what

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one withanother.L so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us,let yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, becauseweknow we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. in any attempt to disturb them.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do letalling them alone. it right. This, And we knowthis by mustexperience, be done isno easy task. We have been so trying to convince themLIGHTER from the very beginning of our organization, butFARE with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purposeto let them alone; but this has had no tendencyLIGHTER to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, FARE is the fact that they have never detected amanofus all their troubles proceed from us. These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join theminc thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ newt you sedition please aboutlaw mustslavery.” be enacted But andenforced, we do suppressing all declarationsGrilled that Breastslavery is wrong, of Chicken whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits,Stir orFry in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive we cease saying.slaves with greedy pleasure. We mustpull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believethat A char-grilled, boneless chicken Choose between chicken, shrimp,very, with or more solemn emphasis, than I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and saywha be left to resist the demand. let them alone - have never disturbedbreast them over - so athat, bed after of all, rice it iswith what we say, which dissatisfies steakthem. Theytossed will continue and fried to accuse in us rice of doing, until pilaf, as a legal right, and a social blessing. I am also aware they havevegetable not, as yet, inmedley terms, demanded (no substitutions) the overthrow of our. Free-State Constitutions.teriyaki Yet those sauce, Constitutions and adeclare vegetable the wrong ofsla do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded,ions against andnothing it, are themselves wrong, and It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demandingmedley. what they Served do, and for with the reason your they choice do, theyupon of can its voluntarilyextension - itsstop enlargement. nowhere shortofthis consummation. Holding,Char-broiled as they do, that slaverySalmon is morally Filet right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognitionit ofit, right, and our thinking it wrong, is salad or cup of soup. right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, Nor can we justifiably withholdServed this, over on aany bed ground of save rice our convictionwith that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitut this? should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist All they ask, we could readilyvegetable grant, if medleywe thought slavery(no substitutions)right; all we ask, they. could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking the nation; but can we, while our the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, asbeing can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can wedo for some middle ground between the t which all true men do care - such as Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in - such as invocations to Washington, votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlesslyand effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such asgroping right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of “don’t care” on aeons questionabou to ourselves. L ET US HA V E FAIT H Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteousMr. to repentance President and fellow citizens of New York: imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor ofdung be any novelty, it will be in the modeof T HAT R IGHT MAK E S MIGHT, AN D IN T HAT FAIT H, L ET US, TO T HE EN D, DA RE TO DO O UR D UT Y A S W E UN D E RSTAN D IT. -

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall makeofthem.Ifthereshall presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation. In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in “The New-York Times,” Senator Douglas said: between Republicans and that wing of the

“Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, thanwedonow.”

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: “What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?” ernment first went into operation,) and

What is the frame of government under which welive? ho framed that part of the present The answer must be: “The Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which thepresentgov e nation at that time. Their names, twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine” who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathersw Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment ofthewhol being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these “thirty-nine,” for the present, as being “our fathers who framed the Government under which welive.” What is the question which, according toa the text, thosetaste fathers understood “just as well, and ofeven better than we donow?” italy It is this: Does the proper division of locala from federaltaste authority, or anything in the Constitution, of forbid our Federalitaly Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? d that better understanding? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what thetextdeclaresour fathers understood “better than we.” Served with a garden salad or cup of today’s soup and garlic bread. Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, everShare acted upona mealthis question; for andan if theyupcharge. did, how they acted upon it - how theyexpresse In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question ofprohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the “thirty-nine” who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin,and Hugh Williamson votedSpaghetti for the prohibition, Roma thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividingPasta local Primavera from federal authority, nor anythingd else,the properlyConstitution, forbade were the inFederal that Congress, Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four - James M’Henry - voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper tovoteforit. A bowl of hot spaghetti pasta ladled with A homemade alfredo sauce with a blend In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the UnitedStates,thesame question of prohibiting slavery ourin theItalian territory meat again camesauce. before the Congress of the Confederation; and oftwo two more ofcheeses the “thirty-nine” tossed who with afterward signe broccoli, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition - thus showing that, in theirhence understanding, it is not recorded no line thatdividing the local fromfederal authority, nor anything else, properlyTopped forbids with the Federalcheese Government and baked to control for as to slavery in Federal territory.cauliflower, This time Italianthe prohibition beans, became acarrots, law, being part of what is now wellknown as the Ordinance of ‘87. an upcharge. zucchini, yellow squash,the and Northwestern red pepper Territory. The bill forthis The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and “thirty-nine,” or anyFettuccine of them, while engaged Alfredo on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.on a bed of fettuccine. -nine fathers who framed the original In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the OrdinanceAdd char-grilled of ‘87, including chicken the prohibition ofslaveryin breast or grilled act was reported by one ofA the homemade “thirty-nine,” alfredo Thomas Fitzsimmons, sauce withthen a membera blend of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word ofopposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage.shrimp In this Congressfor an there upcharge. were sixteen ofthethirty ohibit slavery in the federal territory; else Constitution. They were John ofLangdon, two cheeses Nicholas Gilman, give itWm. anS. Johnson, intensely Roger Sherman, rich Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett,flavor, George Read, tossed Pierce inButler, a steaming Daniel Carroll, bed James Madison. Spicy Penne Pasta This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress topr both their fidelity to correctof principle,fettuccine. and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrainedA bowl them fullto oppose of penne the prohibition. pasta in a zesty

Again, George Washington, another of the “thirty-nine,” was then President of the United States, and,homemade as such approved cream and signed sauce the bill; ederaltopped thus Government completing with should its validity not prohibit as a law, andthusshowing that, in his understanding,Chicken no line Fettuccinedividing local from federal Alfredo authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory. diced tomatoes anderritory shredded of Mississippi. parmesan. In the act of organization, they No great while after the adoptionOur ofhomemade the original Constitution, alfredo sauce North Carolina served ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years laterGeorgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it Wewas made kick a condition this one by the up ceding a notch! States thattheF slavery in the ceded territory.with Besides char-grilled this, slavery chicken was then actually breast in on the aceded bed country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking chargein of thesethe Constitution,countries, did properlynot absolutely forbade prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent.Add In 1798, char-grilled Congress organized chicken theT breast or grilled prohibited the bringing ofof slaves fettuccine. into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congresswithout yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the “thirty-nine” who framed the original Constitution.shrimp They were John for Langdon,an upcharge. George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, votedforit. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anythingpart, was an old and comparatively large the Federal GovernmentShrimp to control Fettuccine as to slavery in Alfredofederal territory. Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but therein made, in relation to slaves, was: In 1803, the Federal GovernmentOur homemadepurchased the Louisiana alfredo country. sauce Our formerand territorial broiled acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from aforeign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying withinthat city. There were other considerableshrimp towns servedand settlements, on a and bed slavery of fettuccine.was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, inthe they did interfere with it - take control of it - in a more marked and extensive way than they Entreedid in the Additionscase of Mississippi. & The Extras substance of theprovision First. That no slaveShrimp should be imported Scampi into the territory from foreign parts. tor of the law, and freedom to the slave. Add grilled shrimp Second. That no slave shouldBroiled be carried shrimp into it who sautéed had been imported with into lots the of United States since the first day of May,1798. Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case Add butterflied shrimp , it violated either the line properly Third. That no slave shouldgarlic be carried sauce into it, and except a by touch the owner, of lemonand for juicehis own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upontheviola Add char-grilled chicken breast This act also was passedin without white yeas wine and nays. and In butter the Congress served which overpassed it, a there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and general question. Two of the “thirty- of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in theirwhile understanding Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted dividing local from federalsmall authority, bed or anyof provisionpasta. of the Constitution. ity, nor anything in the Constitution, nt reason for opposing such prohibition In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases ofthe nine” - Rufus KingChicken and Charles Pinckney Parmesan - were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, against slavery prohibitionA and breaded, against all deep-friedcompromises. By chickenthis, Mr. breast King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal author was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was somesufficie in that case. ladled with our marinara sauce and d be thirty of them. But this would be The cases I have mentionedbaked, are the and only served acts of thebeside “thirty-nine,” your choiceor of any ofof them, upon the direct issue, which I have been abletodiscover. y way. To enumerate the personspasta who thus topped acted, as with being fouralfredo in 1784, or two marinara. in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - therewoul counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of thosee “thirty-nine” of the “thirty-nine” - so acting upon whom it I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted uponitinan ity, or anything in the Constitution

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers “who framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they “understood just as well, and even better than we do now;” and twenty-one of them - a clear majority ofthewhol as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal author they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus thetood twenty-one in the acted; way; orand, they as actions may, without speak louderthan words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder. t the Constitution can conscientiously e which he deems constitutional, if, at Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they actedause, uponin their the understanding,question. But forany whatproper reasons theysovotedisnot known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority,HOMEMADE or some provision or principle of the Constitution, s any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficientHOMEMADE grounds of expediency. No one who has sworntosuppor vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measur ol of slavery in the federal territories. But the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having donesobec s, had it been manifested at all. division of local from federal authority, or anythingCream in the Constitution, of Tomato forbade theSoup Federal orGovernment Soup to of control the as Dayto slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have Bowldiscovered, or have Cup left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal contr y-nine” even, on any other phase of the there is much reason to believe that their understanding uponAdd that aquestion Salad would for not an have upcharge.appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeer of slavery generally, it would appear to SOUPtwenty-three did. Among that sixteen For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by anyperson,howeverSOUP distinguished, known other to thanhave been the otherwise, thirty-nine unless fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any ofthe“thirt general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have nderstoodacted justasthe that no proper division of local were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was notonenow it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. “better than we.”

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly u from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood thequestion ment, a mode was provided for amending ed and adopted since. Those who now insist rstand, that all fix upon provisions in which provides that no person shall be But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the originalinstru it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the Government under which we live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articlesfram that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and,asIunde these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth alreadyamendment, mentioned, enforcing the deprived of “life, liberty or property without due process of law;” while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” “are reserved to the States respectively, ortothepeople.” territory the nation then owned. act to enforce the Ordinance, the Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress which passedtheact prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session, and at thesametime GARDEN FRESH SALADSframed that part of “the Government within the session, had underGARDEN consideration, and in progress toward maturity, theseFRESH Constitutional amendments, and this SALADSact prohibiting slavery inallthe The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of ‘87; so that, during the whole pendency ofthe Constitutional amendments were also pending. Abe’s Chicken Salad Taco Salad the same time, are absolutely The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre- eminently ourt fathers who those who did the two things, alleged under which we live,” whichServed is now with claimed grilled as forbidding or breaded the Federal chicken Government to control slavery inA the crisp federal territories. fried flour tortilla bowl filled with Is it not a little presumptuousover in anychopped one at thissalad day greens, to affirm bacon that the two things which that Congresssalad deliberately greens, framed, your and choice carrieddments tomaturityat of thereto, seasoned taken together, do inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from thehow samemouth,tha that any one of them ever, in his to be inconsistent, understoodcrumbles, whether they reallydiced were tomatoes, inconsistent redbetter onion than we and- better than he who affirmsground that beef they are or inconsistent? chicken,ederal Government shredded to control cheese, as to slavery in the ntury, (and I might almost say prior to It is surely safe to assumeshredded that the thirty-nine cheddar framers cheese, of the originalserved Constitution, with and the seventy-sixdiced members tomatoes, of the Congress onions, which framedtheamen salsaof the andConstitution, sour forbade the Federal certainly include those who may be fairly called “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” And so assuming, I defy any mantos r which we live,” but with them all other whole life, declared that, inyour his understanding, choice of anydressing. proper division of local from federal authority, or any partcream, of the andConstitution, topped forbade theF with jalape them. ños. federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the presentce the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority,To oranypart do so, would be to discard all the Government to controlBlack as to and slavery Blue in the federalSalad territories. To those who now so declare, I give,Abe’s not only Chef “our fathers Salad who framed the Government unde rs in any case, we should do so upon living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a se whereofsingle managreeingwith we ourselves declare they Crisp romaine lettuce topped with This meat lover’s salad is served with Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. lights of current experiencechar-broiled - to reject all progress sliced - all sirloin, improvement. bleu What cheese I do say is, that if we wouldham, supplant turkey, the opinions Swiss andederal policy andGovernment of American ourfathe to control cheeses, as to slavery in the evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a ca ead others, who have less access to understood the question bettercrumbles, than we. tomato slices, red onion and topped with egg and tomatos substituting slices, falsehood and deception nd applied principles, in other cases, which If any man at this dayyour sincerely choice believes thatof adressing. proper division of local from federal authority, or any partand of theserved Constitution, with ederal forbids theF a side Government of your to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no principles righttomisl better than they did themselves; history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that “our fathers who framed the Government underfavorite which we dressing.live” were of the same opinion -thu for truthful evidenceCaesar and fair argument. Salad If any man at this day sincerely believes “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live,” useda ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids theF than we do now,” speak as they spoke, and federal territories, he is rightA bowl to say fullso. Butof he crisp should, romaine at the same lettucetime, brave tossed the responsibility Side of declaring Caesar that, in Saladhis opinion, he understands their ked, as an evil not to be extended, but to and especially should he notwith shirk parmesan that responsibility cheese, by asserting seasoned that they “understood croutons the question just as well, and even better, than we donow.” s those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, But enough! Let all who believe that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,Dinner understood Salad this question just as well, and evenbetter, act as they acted upon it.and This red is allonion Republicans in our ask Caesar- all Republicans dressing. desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be againmar be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantee but fully and fairly, maintained.Add grilled For this chicken, Republicans contend,sirloin, and shrimp, with this, or so far as I know or believe, they will becontent. inferior to any other people. Still, s or murderers, but nothing like it to And now, if they wouldsalmon listen - as for I supposean upcharge. they will not - I would address a few words to the Southern people. to be attended to. Indeed, such , or not, be prevailed upon to pause and I would say to them: - You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice earyou arenot us deny or justify. when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearingtopirate “Black Republicans.” In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of “Black Republicanism” as the firstthing condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all.Now,canyou get votes in your section, we should to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enoughtoh ve ceased to be sectional, for we shall get no votes in your section, is a fact of your You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You producewraps your proof; and what is it? Why, principlethat our or party practice. has no If existencewe do repel in your section-gets wrapsg of our principle. If our principle, put in no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case wewraps should, without change of principle, beginto thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soonfindthatweha nd denounced as such. Meet us, then, on votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is,Your that your choice proof does ofnot flourtouch the issue.or The factthatweget wheatside. Do you tortilla accept the challenge? No! making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains until you show that we repel you byindorse somewrong it again and again, upon their you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion oftherightorwron practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle,wrap, and andwe with it,served are sectional, with and yourare justlyopposeda choice of the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possibleside that or something chips may & be salsa.said onour re Washington gave that warning, he had, Then you reallyhorseshoes believe that the principle which “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live” thought so clearly right as toadoptit,and official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment’s consideration. Chicken Salad Some of you delightAn to open-faced flaunt in our faces sandwich the warning against topped sectional parties with given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight yearsbefo as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition Chickenof slavery saladin the Northwestern with lettuce Territory, and which tomato. act embodied the policy oftheGovernmentupon that subject up to and at the very momentfries he andpenned thatsmothered warning; and about in one our year after he penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States. B.L.T Bearing this in mind, and seeinghomemade that sectionalism cheese has since arisen sauce. upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us,not oradherence in our handsto the against old and you?tried, Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or uponBacon, you who repudiate lettuce, it? We respecttomato, that andwarning mayo. of Washington, and we commend ittoyou, together with his example pointingChoose to the right your application meat: ofit. to what that substitute shall be. You are oreign slave trade; some for a Congressional But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive,Philly or Cheesesomething of the sort. What is conservatism? Isit against the new and untried? Steak We stick Burgerto, contend for, - Hamthe identical - Baconold policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by “our fathers a man who among framed you the is inGovernment favor of underfederal whichwelive;”while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting somethingPhilly new. meat,True, you Swiss disagree cheese,among yourselves peppers, as rious plans can show a precedent or an divided on new propositions andBreaded plans, but youPork are unanimousTenderloin in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are forrevivingthef ructiveness against us, are based on the Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery withinonions, their limits; and some A-1 for sauce. maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary;some for the “gur-reat pur-rinciple”Philly that “if Meatone man -would Pulled enslave another, Pork no third man should object,” fantastically called “Popular Sovereignty;” but never prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” Not oneofallyourva advocate in the century withinTurkey which our - ChickenGovernment originated. Breast Consider, then, whetherChicken your claim of conservatismCaesar for yourselves, and your chargeordest the precepts and policy of the old times. most clear and stable foundations. Chicken Strips Grilled or breaded chicken, romaine, red Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policyBuffalo of the fathers. Chicken We resisted, Strips and still resist, your innovation; and onion,thence comes Caesar the greater dressing, prominence and of the parmesan. question. Would you have that question reducedtoits former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old havetimes, readopt tried and failed to make the proof.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof?Chicken Harper’s Ferry! Bacon John Brown!! Ranch John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper’s Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusablefornot designating the man and provingHorseshoe the fact. If oryou doPonyshoe not know it, you are inexcusable for assertingGrilled it, and or especially breaded for persistingchicken, in the bacon, assertionafteryou lettuce, You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander. the blame upon us, you could get an tomato, and ranch dressing.ast, your charge was a slander, and he was Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper’s Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and declarationsrence necessarily whatever with lead to suchyour results.slaves, Wedonot orwith believe it. We know we* holdShare to no doctrine, a meal and make for no andeclaration, upcharge. which were not held to and made by “our fathers who framed the Government we live,” under declare which weour live.” belief Youthat never slavery dealt fairlybyus is in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand,Buffalo and you wereChicken in evident Wrap glee with the belief that,y bycharging would not, in fact, generally know advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself atle ack Republicanism; and then, to give not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are Grilledaccompanied or with breaded a continual chickenprotest against tossed anyinterfe in you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common with “our fathers, who framed the Government underwhich wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves wouldbuffalo scarcely sauce know there with is a Republicanlettuce, party. tomato, I believethe -eight years and ago, in which, at least three it but for your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathywithBl point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunderranch among the slaves. dressing. be attained. The slaves have no means of be supplied, the indispensable connecting Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty times as many lives were lost as at Harper’s Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by Black Republicanism.” In thepresent state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert ofld action scarcely cannot be devised and communicated rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are,in norcan Hayti was not an exception to it, but trains. only about twenty were admitted to the s from the kitchen, and open or stealthy Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for an uprisingcou n of slaves, as I think, can happen in this to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution a case occurring under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In thatcase, secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisoning assassinations in the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrectio er at the prospect held up.” country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation,peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature mustshudd

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as toefused the topower participate. of emancipation, In fact, itI speakwas oftheslaveholding so States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall neveroccuronany American soil which is now free from slavery.

John Brown’s effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which theslavesr absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little elsethanhis own execution. Orsini’s attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown’s attempt at Harper’s Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. Thecannot eagerness destroy to that cast judgmentblame on andold England intheone case, and on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things. rmed into order in the face of your heaviest nnel? What would that other channel And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper’s Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action can be modified tosomeextent,but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes.You feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army whichhasbeenfo fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, intosomeothercha probably be? Would theburgers number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?& sandwichessome right, plainly written down in the But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your Constitutional rights. federal territories, and to hold them there That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to depriveyouof Constitution. But we are proposingServed no such with thing. choice of French fries, coleslaw, cottage cheese,

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood tater allusion tots, to applesauce, an assumed Constitutional or potato right of yours, salad. to take slaves intothe all points in dispute between you and as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a righthasany existence in the Constitution, Substituteeven by implication. a cup of soup, a side salad, or onion rings for an upcharge. Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is Choicethat you willof destroyCheeses: the Government, American, unless you Pepper be allowed Jack,to construe Cheddar,and enforce the or Constitution Swiss.right asyouplease,on to take slaves into the federal us. You will rule or ruin in all events. ajority of the Judges, and they not quite Share a meal for an upcharge. hat it was mainly based upon a mistaken This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer’sdistinction between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court, byabarem agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning,andtat is, not mingled with anything else - statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that “the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”

An inspection of theAbe’s Constitution Classic will show Burger that the right of property in a slave is not “distinctlyRibeye and expressly Sandwich affirmed” in it. Bear in neithermind, thethe Judges word do “slave” not pledge nor “slavery”their judicial is opinionthat to such right is impliedly affirmedA fresh in the ground Constitution; beef but theypatty pledge topped their veracity that it is “distinctly6 ozand expressly”grilled ribeyeaffirmed there steak - “distinctly,” topped th that instrument with the slave is alluded “expressly,” that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning. as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, with lettuce, tomato, onion grilled onions and peppers,rpose and to exclude from the Constitution the If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to showthat be found in the Constitution,and nor pickles. the word “property” even, in any connection with language alludingserved to the with things slave,one side.or slavery; and that whereverin to, he is called a “person;” - and wherever his master’s legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor which maybedue,”- it would be open to show, byAdd contemporaneous cheese history,and/or that bacon this modefor of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed onpu idea that there could be property in man. Chicken Sandwich reconsider the conclusion based upon it? an upcharge. To show all this, is easy and certain. A char-broiled or breaded chickenme Constitutional question in our favor, Make it a double burger for was made, and, so far as any evidence is When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expectbreast that on they a toasted will withdraw bun the served mistaken statement,and with an upcharge. And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live”lettuce, - the men tomato, who made theonion Constitution and pickle. - decidedthissa submitted to as a conclusive and final long ago - decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it you say, the great crime of having left, without basing Mushroomit upon any mistaken & statement Swiss of facts.Burger Plain or with buffalo sauce., and then you will be a murderer!” Under all these circumstances,A dofresh you really ground feel yourselvesbeef patty justified topped to break up this Government Makeunless such it a court Griller! decision Add as crisp yourse is is, shallbeatonce slices my own; of and the threat of death to rule of political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union;andthen, destroyed it will be upon withus! That portabella is cool. A highwayman mushrooms holds a pistol and to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or Ishallkillyou bacon and smother with Swisset us Republicanscheese do our part to have it To be sure, what the robberSwiss demanded cheese. of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keepfor it; an but upcharge. it was no more my own than myvot us calmly consider their demands, and me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle. us, let us determine, if we can, what A few words nowPatty to Republicans. Melt It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great ConfederacyPhilly Cheese shall be at peace, Steak and in harmony, one withanother.L so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us,let yield to them if, in our deliberateA fresh view groundof our duty, beef we possibly patty can. smothered Judging by all they say and do, Yourand by thechoice subject of and shaved nature of their beef controversy or with chicken will satisfy them. in Swiss & American cheeses and stacked on a hoagie roll with sautéed Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrectionsgrilled are the onions rage now. between Will it satisfy grilled them, if, in the future, we have onionsnothing toand do with green invasions peppers and insurrections? layered We know it will not. We so know, becauseweknow we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. in any attempt to disturb them. rye bread. with Swiss cheese and A-1 sauce. The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do letalling them alone. it right. This, And we knowthis by mustexperience, be done isno easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purposeto let them alone; butReuben this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convincePulled them, is Porkthe fact thatSandwich they have never detected amanofus all their troubles proceed from us. These natural, and apparentlyPremium adequate means sliced all failing, corned what beef will stackedconvince them? This, and thisSouthern-style only: cease to call slavery pulled wrong, pork and join stacked theminc thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ newt you sedition please aboutlaw mustslavery.” be enacted But andenforced, we do suppressing all declarationswith that slaverysauerkraut, is wrong, whetherSwiss made cheese, in politics, and in presses, in pulpits, onor in aprivate. toasted We must bun, arrest served and return withtheir fugitive wea sidecease saying.slaves with greedy pleasure. We mustpull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believethat Thousand Island dressing all on of BBQ sauce. very, with more solemn emphasis, than I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and saywha be left to resist the demand. let them alone - have nevergrilled disturbed themrye -bread. so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until as a legal right, and a social blessing. I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong ofsla do all other sayingsAbe’s against Pork it; and whenTenderloin all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded,ions against andnothing it, are themselves wrong, and It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, theyupon can its voluntarilyextension - itsstop enlargement. nowhere shortofthis consummation. Holding, Hand-pounded,as they do, that slavery grilledis morally or right, breaded and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognitionit ofit, right, and our thinking it wrong, is right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, Nor can we justifiably tenderloinwithhold this, on on anyTexas ground toastsave our convictionor kaiser that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitut this? should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist All they ask, we could readilybun, grant,with if lettuce, we thought tomato,slavery right; pickles all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking the nation; but can we, while our the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, asbeing can we yield to them? andCan weonion. cast our votesTenderloin with their view,sauce and againstprovided our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can wedo for some middle ground between the t which all true men do care - such as Wrong as we think slaveryupon is, we request.can yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in - such as invocations to Washington, votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlesslyand effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored - contrivances such asgroping right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man - such as a policy of “don’t care” on aeons questionabou to ourselves. L ET US HA V E FAIT H Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteousMr. to repentance President and fellow citizens of New York: imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor ofdung be any novelty, it will be in the modeof T HAT R IGHT MAK E S MIGHT, AN D IN T HAT FAIT H, L ET US, TO T HE EN D, DA RE TO DO O UR D UT Y A S W E UN D E RSTAN D IT. -

The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall makeofthem.Ifthereshall presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in “The New-York Times,” Senator Douglas said: between Republicans and that wing of the

“Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, thanwedonow.”

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: “What was the understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?” ernment first went into operation,) and

What is the frame of government under which welive? ho framed that part of the present The answer must be: “The Constitution of the United States.” That Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which thepresentgov e nation at that time. Their names, twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the “thirty-nine” who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our fathersw Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment ofthewhol being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these “thirty-nine,” for the present, as being “our fathers who framed the Government under which welive.”

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers understood “just as well, and even better than we donow?”

It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories? d that better understanding? Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what thetextdeclaresour fathers understood “better than we.” Ask your server for all drink choices.

Let us now inquire whether the “thirty-nine,” or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how theyexpresse

In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then owning the NorthwesternBottle Territory,Beer and no other, the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question ofprohibiting slavery in that Territory; and four of the “thirty-nine” who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin,and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition,Bud, thus Budshowing Light, that, in theirBud understanding, Select, Busch,no line dividing Busch local Light,from federal Michelob authority, nor Ultra, anythingd else,the properlyConstitution, forbade were the inFederal that Congress, Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The Coorsother of Light,the four MGD,- James M’Henry Miller - voted Lite, against Corona, the prohibition, Heineken, showing Sam that, for Adams some cause, he thought it improper tovoteforit. In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the UnitedStates,thesame question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of the “thirty-nine” who afterward signe and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibition - thus showing that, in theirhence understanding, it is not recorded no line thatdividing the local fromfederal authority, nor anything else, properly forbids the Federal Government to control Wineas to slavery Selection in Federal territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now wellknown as the Ordinance of ‘87. Chardonnay, Merlot, Pinot Grigio, Cabernet, White Zinfandel, the Northwestern Territory. The bill forthis The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and “thirty-nine,” or any of them, while engagedPinot on that Noir,instrument, Riesling, expressed any Red opinion Moscato, on that precise White question. Moscato, Pink Moscato-nine fathers who framed the original

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of ‘87, including the prohibition ofslaveryin act was reported by one of the “thirty-nine,” Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a memberMixed of the DrinksHouse of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word ofopposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen ofthethirty ohibit slavery in the federal territory; else Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S.We Johnson, offer Roger a fullSherman, selection Robert Morris, of mixed Thos. Fitzsimmons, drinks. William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress topr both their fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the “thirty-nine,” was then President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the bill;ederal thus Government completing should its validity not prohibit as a law, andthusshowing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to slavery in federal territory. erritory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years laterGeorgia ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States thattheF slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking chargein of thesethe Constitution,countries, did properlynot absolutely forbade prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized theT prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congresswithout yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the “thirty-nine” who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, votedforit. ABE’S LOCATIONSpart, was an old and comparatively large Certainly they would have placed their oppositionABE’S to it upon record, if, in their LOCATIONS understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or anything the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but therein made, in relation to slaves, was: In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from aforeign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying withinthat city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, inthe they did interfere with it - SPRINGFIELD,take control of it - in a more marked and extensive IL way than they MECHANICSBURG,did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of theprovision IL First. That no slave 2301should be imported S Dirksen into the territory from Parkwayforeign parts. 200 Main Streettor of the law, and freedom to the slave. Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May,1798. Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case , it violated either the line properly Third. That no slave should be carried(217) into it, except 679-2044 by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the(217) penalty in all 364-9386 the cases being a fine upontheviola This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the “thirty-nine.” They were Abraham Baldwin and general question. Two of the “thirty- of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in theirwhile understanding Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution. ity, nor anything in the Constitution, nt reason for opposing such prohibition In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases ofthe nine” - Rufus King and Charles Pinckney - were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal author was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was somesufficie in that case. d be thirty of them. But this would be

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the “thirty-nine,” or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been abletodiscover. y way.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - therewoul counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of thosee “thirty-nine” of the “thirty-nine” - so acting upon whom it I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted uponitinan ity, or anything in the Constitution

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers “who framed the government under which we live,” who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they “understood just as well, and even better than we do now;” and twenty-one of them - a clear majority ofthewhol as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal author they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus thetood twenty-one in the acted; way; orand, they as actions may, without speak louderthan words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder. t the Constitution can conscientiously e which he deems constitutional, if, at Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they actedause, uponin their the understanding,question. But forany whatproper reasons theysovotedisnot known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, s any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworntosuppor vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measur ol of slavery in the federal territories. But the same time, he deems it inexpedient.Locally It, therefore, would owned be unsafe to set - downFamily even the two who Establishment voted against the prohibition, as having donesobec s, had it been manifested at all. division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the “thirty-nine,” so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal contr y-nine” even, on any other phase of the there is much reason to Webelieve that pride their understanding ourselves upon that question would in not haveservice appeared different & from quality that of their twenty-three food! compeer of slavery generally, it would appear to twenty-three did. Among that sixteen For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by anyperson,however distinguished, known other to thanhave been the otherwise, thirty-nine unless fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any ofthe“thirt general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have nderstoodacted justasthe that no proper division of local were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris - while there was notonenow it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. “better than we.”

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole - certainly u ment, a mode was provided for amending from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while edall and the adopted rest probably since. Those had thewho same now understanding. insist Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood thequestion rstand, that all fix upon provisions in which provides that no person shall be But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the originalinstru it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of “the Government under which we live” consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articlesfram that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and,asIunde these amendatory articles, and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment,