The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-11
WASHINGTON, D. C..
FREEDOM IN KANSAS.
SPEECH or WILLIAM H. SEWARD,
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 3, 1883.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
MARCH 3, 1883.
Mr. PRESIDENT: Eight years ago, we slew the
Wilmot Proviso in the Senate Chamber, and
buried it with triumphal demonstrations under
the floors Of the Capitol Four years later, we
exploded altogether the time-honored system OF
governing the Territories by Federal rules and
regulations, and published and proclaimed In It's
stead new gospel of popular sovereignty, whose
ways, like those of wisdom, were TO be ways OF
pleasantness, and all of whose paths were sup
posed to be fowery paths Of peace Nevertne-
less the question whether there shall be Slavery
Slavery in the Territories, 10 again the sur
ring passage of the day. The restless Proviso
has burst the cerements of the grave and, striking
hands here in our very presence with the genle
spirit Of popular sovereignty run mad, Is seen
raging freely in our halls, scattering dismay
among the Administration benches in both
Houses OF Congress. Thus an old and unwel-
come lesson is read to US anew. The question
of Slavery in the Federal Territories, which are
the nurseries of future States, Independently Of
all its moral and humane elements, involves a
dynastical struggle of two sntagonistical sys-
tens the labor of slaves and the labor of free
wen, for mastery in the Federal Union. One of
these systems partakes of An sristocratic charac-
ter the other is purely democratic. Each one
of the existing States has staked or it will ult-
mately stake, not only its internal welfare, but
also its influence in the Federal councils, on the
decision of that contest. Such q struggle is not
TO be arrested, quelled, reconcued, by tempo
rary expedients or compromises.
Mr.. President, / always engage reluctantly in
these discussions, which awaken passion just in
the degree that their Importance demands the
impartial umpirage Of reason. This reluctance
deepens now, when look around me, and count
the able contestants who have newly entered the
Iiata ON fhers nd had form .sf nv
great and honored statesmen who once were elo-
quent in these disputes, but whose tongues have
since become stringless instruments, rise up
before me. Ii is, however, a maxim in military
science, that in preparation for war every one
should think as if the last event depended on his
counsel, and in every great battle each one
should fight as if he were the only champion
The principle, perhaps is equally sound in politi
cal affairs II it be possible, shall perform my
present duty in such way as to wound no just
sensibilities. | must, however, review the ac-
ton of Presidents, Senates, and Congresses. l
do indeed, with all my heart reject the instruc-
ton given by the Italian master of political sci
ence, which teaches that all men are bad by ma
ture, and that they will not fail to show this de-
pravity whenever they have fair opportunity.
But jealousy of executive power is a high, prac-
teal virtue in Republics and we shall find it hard
to deny the justice of the character of free legs
lative bodies, which Charles James Fox drew
when he said that the British House of Com
mons of which he was at the moment equally an
ornament and idol, like every other popular
assembly, must be viewed a mass of men
pable of too much attachment and too much
imosfy, capable Of being biased by weak and
even wicked motives, and liable to be governed
by ministerial influence, by caprice, and by cor
ruption.
Mr.. President, propose TO inquire, in the first
place, why the question before US is attended by
real or apparent dangers.
think our apprehensions in part due TO
the intrinsic Importance of the transaction con-
eerned. Whenever we add a new column to
the Federal colonnade, we need TO lay its found
atoms so firmly, TO shape its shaft with such
Just proportions, to poise it with such exact
ness and TO adjust its connections with the
listing structure so carefully that instead of fall
ing prematurely, and dragging other and ven
cradle columns with il to the ground, it may
stand erect forever, increasing the grandeur and
the stability of the whole massive and imperial
fabric. Still, the admission of new State is
not necessarily or even customarily attended 10y
either embarrassments alarms. We have
already admitted eighteen new States without
seriou. connections, except in the cases of Mis-
souri,, Texas, and California. We now
admitting two Others, Minnesota and Oregon :;
and these transactions go on so smoothly, that
only close observers aware that thus
consolidating our dominion on the shores of Lake
Superior ana almost at the gates OF the Arctic
ocean.
1t is manifest that the apprehended difficulties
in the present case have some relation to the
dispute concerning Slavery, which is raging
within the Territory of Kansas. Yet it must be
remembered thst nine of the new States which
have been admitted, expressly established Sla-
very, or tolerated it, and nine of them forbade
it. The excitement, therefore, is due to peculiar
circumstances. think there are three of them,
namely:
First. That whereas, in the beginning, the as
tendency of the slave States was absolute, it is
now being reversed.
Second. That whereas, heretofore, the National
Government favored this change of balance from
the slave States TO the free States, it has now
reversed this policy, and opposes the change.
Third That national intervention in the Ter
ritories in favor of slave labor and slave States
is opposed to the natural, social, and moral de-
velopments of the Republic.
1t seems almost unnecessary to demonstrate
the first of these propositions. Ia the beginning,
there were twelve slave States, and only one that
was free. Now, six Of those twelve have become
free and there sixteen free States to fifteen
slave States. If the three candidates now here
Kansas, Minnesota, and Oregon, shall be admitted
as free States, then there will be nineteen free
States to fifteen slave States. Originally, there
were tWenty-four Senators of slave States, and
only two Of a free State; now there are thirty
two Senators of free States, and thirty Of
slave States. In the first Constitutional Con-
gress the slave States had ffty-seven Representa-
fiyes and the one free State had only eight; now
the free States have one hundred and forty-four
Representatives, while the slave States have only
ninety. These changes have happened in period
during which the slave States have almost unin-
terruptedly exercised paramount influence in the
Government, and Notwithstanding the Consti-
tuition itself has opposed well-known checks to
the relative increase of representation of free
States. | assume, therefore, the truth of my first
proposition.
/ suggested sir, a second circumstance, name
ly: That whereas, in the earlier age of the Re-
public, the National Government favored this
change, yet it has since altogether reversed that
policy, and it now opposes the change. l do not
claim that heretofore the National Government al
ways, habtually, interviewed in the Terrific
res in favor of the free States but only that such
Intervention preponderated. While Slavery ex-
listed in all of the States but one, at the begin
ming, yet it was far less intense in the Northern
than in some of the Southern States. All of
the former contemplated an early emancipation
The fathers seem not to have anticipated an
enlargement of the national territory. Conse-
auently, they expected that all the new States to
be thereafter admitted would be organized upon
subdivisions of the then existing States, or upon
divisions Of the then existing national domain
That domain lay behind the thirteen States and
stretched from the Lakes to the Gulf and was
bounded westward by the Mississippi 1t was
naturally divided by the Ohio river, and the
Northwest Territory and the Southwest Territory
were organized on that division. twas foreseen
even then, that the new States to be admitted
would ultimately overbalance the thirteen origi-
nal ones. They were, however, mainly to be yet
x-,,L l.