Year: 1860

which they claim for them, thereby assuming that
we Republicans claim equality for the negro. We
have not done any such thing; aud now Will am
swer that point, and answer it so that | think he
will never repeat it again, at least whero he can
be replied to. He has asked here to-day, whether
we claim that negroes are created by the Almighty
with the same natural rights as the white mani l
answer him, that | do claim it. Well, then, SAID
he, does not the Declaration. of Independence de-
clare that they are endowed with certain inaeable
rights among which are liberty and the pursuit OF
happiness, and if you deny any of thes, rights, do
you not violate the law of God7 That is the way
my colleague put the question. Now let me an
swer him. / will apply his own mode OF reasoning
to white men, and if his construction docs not
violate the law of God equally with mine


He claims the Declaration Of Independence ap-
plies to white men. Ifitappes to white men, then
white men are endowed by their Creator with GER
tain inalenabc rights, among which arc life, liber-
ty and the pursuit of happiness. What right has
he to take the life or liberty OF 4 white man! is
he opposed to the criminal code OF the State OF IL
inois, which subjects the horse thief to imprison7
ment in the Pententiary, and takes away his ina
lienable right to liberty He says this nalienable
right is secured to him, being white man, by the
great Creator; aud yet he is for taking it away.
presume. If the Declaration Of Independence ap-
plies to white men, ask him by virtue of what au-
thorty it is that he violates the law OF God, and
sends the horse thief TO the penitentiary, or the muir



the exigencies of society require it. We deny the
negro equal political and civil rights because the
/ texigencies of society require it. And If he can
press the argument upon me that have no right 70
deny an inalienable right to negro, then say no
has right to deny an inalienable right TO white
man, and he must abolish the criminal code, and
let murderers and robbers thieves and pcrureis 60
unwhipped of justice thro the land. This shows the
utter f,lacy OF his attempt to m Ike Republicans
the advocates of negro equality, because they say
all men created equal, and endowed With certain
inalienable rights.


Ny colleague makes another statement which
must not suffer to pass. He said that he doubted
whether any State would ever arrogate TO itself the
right to dvest property in slaves. That is exactly
the point to which / expected my colleague would
come. 1t is contended on the other side OF this
Chamber, that slavery goes into all the Territories
under the Constitution, and remains there so long
as it continues Territory; and new we have my
colleague saying that he doubts whether any State
will arrogate to itself the right to dvest this
property. Then how can we ever have another
free State added to this Union? Slavery goes into
all the Territories, according to his creed know
he SAYS now, that by unfricndy legislation the peo
pie OF Territory may keep it out. but do not un-
dersand him to deny, now, that it has right to GO
! into the Territories. understand him to admit
that under the Dred Scott decision Slavery may 60
into any Territory, and he has abandoned his orr
gnal doc trine, that the people of Territory, like
those of State may exclude slavery while IN a ter
ritorial condition. Now he has added another arti
Gle to his creed, that no State arrogatc to il
self the right TO deprive the holders of slaves OF
their property. lfthat be SO, how can Territory.
which has slavery in it, when it comes to form a
State Constitution, get rid of slavery and make for
itself free Constitution?


| But, sir, he speaks of my arraignmcnt Of the
Chairman Of the Territorial Committee against the
Senators here, when he stated one thing in his
port, and directly the reverse in his speech. He
speaks ofthat a small matter. No doubt it Is to
him. Some men are very large in their own es
timation; and matters which would appear to be of
importance to others, appear very small to them
l should think it a matter of considerable i'm
portance to me if were TO state to-day one thing
as fact and another to morrow directly the
rcverse but to a man of his dimensions it is a very
small matter; it is the work of small politicians.


Why, sir what is the fact about the repeal OF the
Missouri Compromise? My colleague did not in
troduce the proposition originally. He had report.
ed against it. he had said in his report that it would
be departure from the policy of 1850 to repeal il;
but Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, offered the PROPOSE
| ton to repeal the Missouri Compromise; and how
did my colleague take it, and how did the party
take it7 The Washington Union came out, and
denounced il as a frc brand thrown into Congress
for the purpsse of stirring up agitation the SUBJ


cct of slavery. That is the way it taken here:
it was denounced; but, few days afterwards, we
find my colleague declaring that the Missouri Com
promise inconsistent with the measures of 1850,
and now to point out this palpabe, open contradic
ton, patent to the whole world, and the records
Of the country, is very small business, the work
of very small politcians He has gone on TO re-
peat again. in his last remarks, that it is wrong for
State to interfere with the affairs of another
We admit it, everybody agrees to it; there is not
a man in the land that does not indorse the idea;
and yet he talks against an idea which his own i'm
agnation invens, il somebody really entertained
| it.


Sir, promised not TO dctain the Senate at this
hour. / have said enough trust to show that
slavery never did exist in Illinois; that there was
attempt to have slavery there, but that the old
ordinance of l761 kept it out in spite Of the wishes
of the people, and preserved that Territory to free
domi and to it We owe the great prosperity and
advancement Of the State. e