The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-02-04

distinction of parties went to the polls; and the
result was, that your Prc-Slavery Democracy
found themselves in a minority of less than one
third. The people spoke, nay, they Numbered
at the polls; and they returned, by an over
whelming majority, Free State Legislature and
Free State Delegate to the Congress of the
United States.
After this expression of public opinion on be-
half of the people of Kansas, in November, this
Convention, which was pledged to submit their
Constitution to the people, had ascertained that,
If they did submit IL to the people, the people
would reject it; and therefore, inasmuch as pop
ular sovereignty and perfect freedom were very
good things TO talk about, but very inconvenient
when you come to submit them to practical test
at the polls, by people that had already pro-
nounced their opinions it was thought that the
safest and most convenient way was to violate
their pledges, break their promises, and not sub
NIT it to the people. They did not have the
courage or manliness to do that right out but
they adopted a subterfuge. They undertook to
adopt mode by which the forms of a submission
should be had, while the substance was wanting.
will read to you an extract from a newspaper
and think that will show you how it was under
stood oy the friends of Slavery at that time 1
read an extract from a letter published in the
AississiPpian of November 9th last, in which the
writer says;
Thus YOU see that whilst by submitting the question
In this form, they bound have ratification of the
one or the other and that while seems to be an cleo
non between Fee State and Pro Slavery Constitution
u is In fact, but que the future introduction OF
81 very Ihstis in controversy and vet il furnishes our
friends in Congress basis which 10 rest their vindi
cation OF the m sson of Kansas as a STATE un,.r II
INTO the Unon, while they would have sent direct
y from The Convention.
1t is the very best proposition for making Kansas
slave Stale that was submitted for the consideration OF
the Convention"
Yes, sir, that Is what they thought in the slave
States; that this Convention had adopted the
very best mode that could be possibly devised
for making slave State of Kansas-and / agree
to his judgment that it was /; because there was
no legal way left by which man could vote
against Slavery. He voted for the " Constitution
with Slavery" or the Constitution without
Slavery" But there is one remarkable fact and
call the attention of the Senate to it. and IL
may explain the vote that was given if they
had adopted the Constitution without Slavery. IL
would have been more stringent Pro-Slavery
Constitution, than it would if they had voted for
the Constitution with Slavery and | will tell
you why. If they had voted for the Constitution
with Slavery, they would have left the seventh
article entire; and the seventh article contains
provision for the future emancipation of slaves.
This article says, in granting powers to the Leg
isature, in regard to Slavery
They shall have power 10 pass laws to PERM, III.
owner OF slaves TO emancpRe them ng the rights OF
creditors ana preventing them from becoming public
charge" pN'"'
This seventh article, if that were voted in gives
lhe Legislature right to provide for the future
emancipation Of slaves; but if that were voted out
IL ieit In the schedule the only provision on tina,
subject; and in the schedule the provision is:
II" upon such examination OF said poll books ii shall
appear that majority of the legal said cleo
ton be in favor OF ine Constitution with no Saver,
hen The article providing for Slavery shall be stricken
from this Constitution by the President of This Convrn
Slavery l. in he Star
kansas Except that the right OF properly in slaves now
in this Territory shall no manner be interfered win ~
If they had voted out the Slavery clause. this
provision, that the right of property in slaves
should in no manner be interfered with. was left
the permanent law. If they voted in the Slavery
article, they voted a provision by which the Leg
lslature might emancipate slaves; and then
further in the schedule they have a provision,
that in all future alterations of their Constitution
no alteration shall be made to affect the right Of
property in slaves. That was the doing OF this
70 SPEAK q M S Ssea oY S A 6sqf R
ably call him Van Buren, / do not know why.
There must be something similar in their char
acters. When you come to speak of ii rs Mr..
Buchanan does, 1t seems to me that you cannot
by any possibility vindicate it at all.
But wish to speak of this provision in the
Constitution, that no amendment shall be made
in reference to slaves. ! know we are Living in
day of new lights. New doctrines are con-
stantly propounded, and some rampant Demo-
Gratis of the new-light order laugh at such a con-
stitutional provision as that. They say, no mat
ter if it be in there; il is idle a majority of the
people can come together and alter the Constitu-
ton just as they please. or form a new one DOT
withstsnding that provision. ! am not going to
controvert that doctrine; but ! will say that the
State which have the honor in part 10 repre-
sent used to be considered tolerably good Dem
ocratic authority; and in our State we have
never believed, and have never acted upon the
belief, that mere majority could come together
and amend our State Constitution; because our
fathers inserted in the old Constitution a pro
vision that it should require vote of two-tniris
to amend it. The doctrine that mere majority
can alter the Constitution, never fund favor
there. We had, few years ago, a Convention
called to>revise our Constitution, and the late
President of the United States presided over it,
Ihey submitted great many amendments, and
the people voted on chem and rejected them all
They then met together again, and submitted two
SPECIFIC amendments. The people came together,
and, by two-thirds vote, agreed to adopt one
or those amendments; and thereupOn il was
adopted, and is part of our Constitution. As to
the other provision, the people voted by an inn
mense majority, lacking few hundred only of
two-thirds, TO adopt the amendment but il was
not adopted, and forms no part of the Constitu-
ton. So, sir, Democratic rs we have been, we
have never held in our State, and never believed
and we have never had a man there seho con-
tended, that mere democracy of numbers could
uproot and overturn and eradicate and DESTROY
the fundamental principle ofsHr Constitution.
Let me call your attention TO another iIlustra-
ton. We have provision in the Constitution
of the United States, by which an equal vote is
secured on tais floor to every State Delaware
with her ninety thousand people, and New Hamn-
shire with her three hundred thousand, stand
here voting equally with New York, with her
three millions, and with Ohio and Pennsvlyania
with their two millions each. II may be that
these little States do not send such able men as
those great ones. All tho preponderance which
pennsylvania or New York can claim, on account
OF the pre-emipent talent of the gentlemen whom
they send to represent them they are entitled 10.
but when we come TO the sober matter of voting .
our little States, with our handful of men, stand
equal with the great Empire State of the Union;
and our fathers in their wisdom, or their folly
| do not know what modern Democracy will call
it-haye provided, that in that feature the Con-
stitution never shall be amended. Now, sir l
put II TO YOU ask you if mere democracy of
numbers came together, in these United States,
and undertook to make new Constitution, and
20 strike out that great, radical, fundamental
principle, securing the equality Of the States on
this floor if this Union would survive that act a
day? No, sir; not day. This Federal Con-
gress never will assemble after that amendment
TO the Constitution shall be made. Do no1 talk
to me about what numbers can do. There are
some things numbers can do, and some things
they cannot do. They cannot amend the Con-
stitution of the United States in that behalf
in which its trainers said it should never be
amended. Our .athers thought the equality of
States on lis floor was the great fundamental
principle on which the Constitution should rest,
and therefore they have said, that in that respect
it shall never be amended. The trainers of the
Il In