The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-09-02
WASHINGTON, d. C..
SPEECH OF HON. LYMAN TRUMBUll,
of ILLINOIS,
AT MASS MEETING IN CHICAGO,
AUGUsT Z, 1858.

greeted with three hearty cheers. Silence hav-
ing been restored, he said:
FELLow-CITIzEss I am gratified to have an
opportunity of laying before so many of my fei-
low-citizens as see here assembled my views IN
regard TO the political questions which nave agi-
tated the public mind since became connected
with public affairs. When entered congress
as one of the Representatives OF this state, the
great and all-absorbing question which occupied
the public mind was the Slavery question. Par
ties were then organized upon that question, and
they have continued so up to this time; and II Is
40 regatd TO that question that | shall chiefly
address You tonight, though not altogether Tor,
in discussing that question, desire TO bring be-
fore YOU the fact which exists, that all the great
powers of this Government are subordinate to
this one question. | wish to show you how the
expenditures of this Government are made, how
It's patronage is used, and how its power is ex-
erted for the purpose OF encourag ng the spread
of Slavery and the domination of the slave
power. IApplausel In doing this, my fellow citi-
zens. shall resort TO no clap-trap expressions.
1 wish no person in this audience, or in this
State TO act or vote with that party with which
| have the honor to act, unless he believes il to
be right have no false colors 20 hang out to
deceive YOU. but | wish to lay before you the
plain. honest truth and if that does not COM
mend the party with which act to your Judg-
ments, then say to you, it is your duty to act
with some other party; but II, In the course OF
the observations have to make, / can show you
that party sailing under false colors, pretend
ing one thing and acting another-is misleading
the public mind and changing the policy of the
Government-professing economy, is guilty OF
profiigacy-professing TO love the Constitution,
is trampling it under foot-and protesting to be
Democratic, is the old black-cockade Federal
party in disguise-if can show this to you,
then trust you will abandon such party as
that.
HISTORY AND PROGRESS OF SLAVERY IN
THE TERRITORIES.
Ii will be necessary to devote a few moments
and shall be very brief upon that pOint-to a
history OF the Slavery question. This is neces-
sary, because parties dispute as TO what each
processes. Each of the great parties of the ceun-
try processes devotion to the Constitution, and
each charges upon the other the entertaining OF
views which it denies When such is the case
we must look at the facts, and, as intelligent
men, you must judge who is right.
When the Government was formed, we all
know that Slavery existed in many of the States,
and the Government was formed upon the prin-
ciple of letting the Slavery question alone, to be
managed by the States in which it existed. But,
so far as the Federal Government was concerned,
it took cognzance of this question in the Terri
tories belonging to the United States This is a
matter of history. Before the adoption of this
Constitution, the Territories which had been
ceded to the United States, as they existed under
the articles of tie Confederation, were governed
by what was known as the ordinance of 1881 !;
and that ordinance, as you well know, excluded
Slavery from all the territory which then belong
ed to the United States When the Constitution
was formed, shortly afterward, this subject was
left in the same condition in which the Conven-
ton found it.
And now | wish you to bear in mind the dis
tinction between a State and Tcrritory-for a
great deal of the confusion and difficulty which
has arisen in the country in regard 10 this QueT-
ton is by confounding States with Territories
The whole question which now divides parties
relates TO the government of the Territories, not
States at all And they who seek to confound
the two together must have some object to con-
fuse the public mind.
This policy continued to exclude Slavery from
all the Territories of the United States for many
wears When North Carolina and Georgia ceded
the western territory belonging to those States
10 the United States, it was so well understood
that the Federal Government would abolish Sla-
qery in the Territories which they ceded, unless
there was a provision against il, that such a
clause was inserted in the deed of cession.
In 1903, when we acquired Louisiana, Slavery
existed there. It renamed, and Louisiana as
admitted as a slave State. And when Missouri
came 10 be admitted, in 1920, it was admitted
on condition that the balance OF the Territory
living north of 800 80 north latitude should re-
main free while i; was Territory. There has
been great deal of confusion in the public mind
IN regard TO the meaning of the Missouri Com
promise. The Compromise OF the clause of it in
controversy. read something like this
THAT in all territory north of 360 30/ north lat
itude, Slavery or invC. "nt"ry servitude, except
as a penalty for crime, shaI DC ao2 IS hereby
forever prohibited"
Much stress has been laid, by those who seek
TO mlslead the public mind, upon the word for
ever This word forever makes the sentence q
little more emphatic, but it gives to it no Other
meaning, in legal point of view, than it would
have had, if this word had been omitted Tho
Missouri Compromise related 10 that Territory CT
long as II remained Territory but not a mo.
ment afterwards. II lad no application TO III,
country when admitted as a State-nor does .n1
law Congress may pass for the government of a
Territory have operation one moment after thai
Territory is admitted as State CApplause
what was the object of repeating the Missouri
compromise Was It to give the people, when
they came TO form n State Government. the rioht
to have Slavery not Why, they had il with
out such repeal 4 voice. That's so Y inst as
perfectly as they lad ID after its repeal becanse
that provision OF the law ceased to operate the
moment the Territory ceased TO exist in a Terri.
torlAl cOndtion-the moment the State ,rae
formec-Just a. the act organizing the Territorv
OF Minnesota, SO long il remained a Territory
provided Governor and judges and the rules
for the government of its Legislature: but when
Minnesota was admitted as a State. they were al
tPso Jdcto abolished. Just so in regard TO IN,
Missouri Compromise
l state this on this occasion TO show that som,
other object was designed than that which i
now protested in the repeal of the Missouri Com
promise. The policy ofAfhe country down I,
1854 was TO keep the Territories free. Then
new policy was inaugurated. Now. what wa
the theory upon which the Missouri Compromis
was repealed will state it as fairly as / know
how, Tor the benefit of those who effected tina
repeal Did they not tell us that the Missouri
Compromise was repealed for the purpose of con
ferring upon the people of the Territory the rich
of self-government and popular sovereignty
W asn thai the avowed reason TCries of {" Yes
yes. Well, il it was for that reason. has mo
that reason been totally abandoned? fYes. yes
that's so. Ii is true, that was the reason, an,
II was said, 10y those who brought about that re
peal, that the people of Territory should bav,
the same right TO regulate their domestic affair
as the people OF State, and remember to hay
heard the position stated in this form:
Are you hot caplOte OF governing yOurselye
in the State of Illinois, and 30 you lose Won
senses, so that you can't govern yourselves. tn
moment you pass over the line of a State into
Territory? Are you not as capable of goyernin
yourselves there as here ?"
This was the form in which the question wa
stated, and the appeal was made to all the peo
pie of the free States TO endorse the repeal of ID
Missouri Compromise, upon the ground-and tn
ground alone-of leaving the people of the TIE,
ritory free to regulate their own domestic affai,
in their own way. This was the doctrine DIT,
fessed until the Cincinnati Convention met
1861 mean protested in the North, for it new,
was the doctrine avowed by the South. Wht
~. Of I.