The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-06
ADDRESSES DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL
/ REPUBLICAN, CONVENTION CONVENED AT
/ pITTSRURGu

ADDRESSES DELIVERED AT THE NATIONAL
REPUBLICAN CONVENTION CONVENED AT
PITTSBURGH
The gentlemen named, being loudly called
for, responded as follows:
Charles Reemelin.
Cries of Reemelin," "Reemelin," brought
Mr.. Reemelin, of Ohio, to the stand. He felt a
degree of embarrassment in addressing the
Convention, as to what he should say. He
wished to give few simple ideas on what he
considered the main issues involved in the
coming Presidential campaign. One of these,
more important than the one mentioned in the
various discussions to-day-for it lay at the
basis-was, that the People should rebuke the
official insolence of their accidental President.
The Administration in Washington had started
out with the intention to crush Liberty and the
People of the United States. He thought it
important one plank of the platform to be
adopted should be the diminution of the pat
ronage of the Executive; that the President
should cease TO be the regulator of newspa-
pers; the only source of honor and emolument.
And not only should this patronage be taken
away, but the powers and functions of the Gen.
eral Government should be diminished. For
it was perfectly plain that, if in the course of
twenty years the expenses of the Government
had risen from fifteen millions to Gs.y millions,
and in every Presidential contest three or four
hundred millions should be fixed as a prey for
the country, we cannot long have peaceful
timee The President shcIld be rebuked for
interfering, not only in general elections, but
in State, and even in township elections. The
power of appointing postmasters, who are To-
Gated IN every city, town, and village, in the
49, IL l. - A -
temptation should be removed from the Execu-
tive.
He would allude to another great point in
addition to the subject just treated Of They
had erred in permitting the South to charge
sectionahsm upon them. He would have it
impressed upon the public mind that the Gen.
eral Government was guided by one idea, and
that was Sectionalism. Cheers. He would
not say to the South, we wish to establish a
North, but that he objected to the exclusive es-
tablishment of the South. He wanted party
that recognised no North, no South, no East
no West; but Freedom everywhere, in every
State and Territory. He meant that to be his
guiding star but he also held that the foreign
policy of the Government should be for the
whole country, and not for one interest or labor
'alone. He thought facts and arguments innu.
merable exist in history, that the South has
always endeavored to force the foreign policy
to their behests. This had its original in the
letter of John G. Calhoun to Lord Aberdeen.
The Democratic party had been induced to
adopt Slavery. He hoped to show the world
when they had elected a Republican President
that Slavery is only temporary.
The speaker referred to the subject of popu.
lar sovereignty, and to Pierce's course on the
Kansas question. The stand taken by the Ex
ecutive was such as Napoleon Bonaparte EN-.
ployed to enforce his. claims to the Empire.
According to Pierce, he was right. Why, who
ever heard of popular sovereignty abolishing
itself and establishing empire? Napoleon the
Little followed his uncle's example, and was
chosen Emperor by French votes. If he had
not been elected he would have done as Pierce
is doing in Kansas-attempt to force it down
the Threats of the people with arms. He had
about emigrating to Kansas. He was complain
ing he advocated popular sovereignty. The
speaker opposed the Kansas bill and asked the
reason. "Sir," he replied, "you are going tc
Kansas with fifteen slaves; are you willing that
the popular vote shall decide whether you shall
hold your slaves or not?" "You must be a
fool" was the reply. "Then, sir, if you will
not allow the question of property to be voted
upon, l will not that of human rights" Ap
plause. The Southern man argued sensibly
1t was never pretended that popular sovereignty
should prohibit Slavery, but establish it, or il
never would have been given chance.
I, The Democratic orators and Pierce seem tc
assert that the trainers of the United States
Constitution did what Congress, in the repea
of the Missouri Compromise and the passage Of
the Kansas bill, had done. He would see what
there was in such fool doctrine. In the Con
'yention, the question as to Slavery was this
Shareholders knew that under this clause rela
diye' to the commerce of the States, Congress
had the power to abolish the slave trade, and
they therefore introduced clause that Con
gress should not pass such law till 1903
Now, in that Convention, Washington, the
great man whose birthday was celebrated to
day by the starting of new race of freemen
cheers, of whom to be asked why he was ven
grated would be an insult, and he must admit
that the boisterous applause with which his mem
DRY is greeted was inappropriate = Washing
ton. Madison. Franklin, and Jefferson, were in
shat Convention-men who understood perfect
IL the functions and powers Of Government
with whom jealousy of power was the great
,dea They fixed a certain time, and then
abolished the slave trade, on the great princi
pie that it was wrong. In accordance with the
idea. of popular sovereignty, Congress should
now'call upon the Southern States to say al the
ballot-box whether the slave trade should be
abolshed-to South Cardinal But they them.
selves would refuse to do so, because they know
It would be wrong.
Why did he, (the speaker,) with the above
principles, deny the right of the people to de-
eide for or against Slavery? Because the Con.
stitution said that man had certain inalienable
rights. He did not hold his rights at the beck
of Ohio, or any other State. No human au-
hortty could make the traffic in blood right.
fCheers.
/, The eloquent gentleman referred to the power
by which Slavery exists at all. 1t was prescrip
ton, and not by statutory enactment.
He referred, with hesitancy, to the subject OF
Americanism. He hoped the Convention would
rot go into the fight without an explicit state
nnent of where they stand ON this question. He
was a foreigner by birth; and the hardest thing
he had to complain of was, that he had to ask
himself whether he was an American:
; The response was right. He was an Ameri-
gan. Cheers The same question was asked
Of every man born abroad.
/; Malone Raymond, (the Irish comedian. J
What right have you to be born abroad? lGreat
laughter.
That was true. A man had no right to be
born abroad. This question had separated
hearts that never were anything but American.
This question was as tender and as delicate as
the Slavery question to the South, and was as
likely to end in the same evils He knew that
the honest Catholic had turned with fresh zeal
t. their religion, and their children, who have
formerly been in attendance upon Protestants,
had been taken away. The persecution proved
itself folly, for it froze up, where different
policy would have expanded proper feeling.
sWith some few remarks upon the question
ABLE taste of throwing dscredit upon a Legis-
lature which had just gained Republican VIC