Chapter VI: Part 6

Mr. Hale has long been a favorite in the Senate with men of all parties. Whenever it is known beforehand that he is going to speak--no matter what the subject may be--he is sure to gather a crowded audience. He is one of the most popular men in the country, for his satire has never a spice of cruelty in it. His jolly humor, everlasting good nature, and natural love of fair play, make him friends wherever he is, no matter if he be among his bitterest southern enemies.

To gain any idea of the change which has taken place in the Senate since Mr. Hale took his seat in it, we must remember that then he stood up _alone_ the champion of anti-slavery--unless we make an exception in favor of Mr. Seward--while now more than twenty Republican senators sit with him on the "opposition benches." To get a faint idea of the condition of the Senate when Mr. Hale entered it, let us go back to the 20th of April, 1845. The famous Drayton and Soyers slave case had just occurred, and Dr. Bailey and his paper, the "National Era," had been at the mercy of a mob for three days. Mr. Hale introduced into the Senate a bill relating to riots and unlawful assemblages in the District of Columbia. We will abridge the debate which ensued:

Mr. Foote, of Miss., made a very long speech on the general subject of slavery, and especially slavery in the District of Columbia. The attempt to legislate indirectly--that is, to sustain freedom of discussion in the District--against slavery, was an outrage upon the rights of the South. If any man gives countenance to this bill, he said, I pronounce him to be no gentleman--he would, upon temptation, be guilty of highway robbery on any of the roads of the Union. He charged that the abduction of the Drayton-Soyer slaves was instigated or countenanced by a member of the United States Senate--meaning Mr. Hale. This bill is intended to cover negro-robbery. The New Hampshire senator is endeavoring to get up civil war and insurrection. Let him go South. Let him visit the good State of Mississippi. I invite him there, and will tell him beforehand, in all honesty, _that he could not go ten miles into the interior before he would grace one of the tallest trees of the forest, with a rope around his neck, and if necessary_, I should myself assist in the operation!

MR. HALE.--I did not anticipate this discussion, yet I do not regret it. Before proceeding further, let me say that the statement that I have given the slightest countenance to the recent "kidnapping of slaves is false."

MR. FOOTE.--It had been stated so to me and I believed it. I am glad to hear the senator say he had no connection with the movement--some of his brethren doubtless had.

MR. HALE.--The sneer of the gentleman does not affect me. While I am up, let me call the attention of the Senate to a man, who I am proud to call my friend, the editor of the "National Era." Mr. Hale read a card of Dr. Bailey's in the "Intelligencer," declaring his entire ignorance of the abduction of the slaves till they were returned.

MR. CALHOUN.--Does he make denunciation of the robbery?

MR. HALE.--He had quite enough to do in defending himself, and it was no part of his duty to denounce others.

MR. CALHOUN.--I understand that.

Mr. Hale went on to refer to Mr. Foote's invitation of hanging in Mississippi, and would, in return for the hospitality, invite the senator to come to New Hampshire to discuss this whole subject, and he would there promise him protection and rights. He defended his bill as containing simply the plainest provisions of the common law; yet the South Carolina senator was shocked at his temerity.

MR. BUTLER.--Will the senator vote for a bill, properly drawn, inflicting punishment on persons inveigling slaves from the District of Columbia?

MR. HALE.--Certainly not; and why? Because I do not believe slavery should exist here.

MR. CALHOUN.--He wishes to arm the robbers and disarm the people of the district.... I will take this occasion to say, that I would just as soon argue with a maniac from Bedlam as with the senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. Hale went on calmly to reply to all these personalities by defending his bill. Mr. Foote again got the floor, and began to defend his threat of assassination. He never deplored the death of such men. The senator from New Hampshire will never be a victim. He is one of those gusty declaimers--a windy speaker--a----

MR. CRITTENDEN.--I call the gentleman to order--and Mr. Foote was called to order by the presiding officer.

Later in the day, Mr. Douglas rose and congratulated Mr. Hale on the triumph he had achieved. The debate would give him ten thousand votes. He could never have represented a State on that floor but for such southern speeches as they had just listened to, breathing a fanaticism as wild and reckless as that of the senator from New Hampshire.

MR. CALHOUN.--Does the gentleman pretend to call me and those who act with me fanatics? We are only defending ourselves. The Illinois senator partially apologized. Mr. Foote was restive, however, and said that he must repeat his conviction, that any man who utters in the South the sentiments of the New Hampshire senator, will meet with death upon the scaffold--and deserves it.

MR. DOUGLAS.--I must again congratulate the senator from New Hampshire upon the accession of five thousand more votes! and he is on for honors? Who can believe that _now_ walks into the United States Senate, that such things could have been within so few years?

It would be easy to fill this volume with extracts from exciting and interesting debates in the Senate, in which Mr. Hale participated, but we have room only for a few paragraphs, to show his style and manner.

Jan. 19 and 21, 1857, Mr. Hale delivered one of his longest and ablest senatorial speeches upon Kansas and the Supreme Court. We subjoin a few extracts:

"I aver here that the object of the Nebraska bill was to break
down the barrier which separated free territory from slave
territory; to let slavery into Kansas, and make another slave
state, legally and peacefully if you could, but a slave state
anyhow. I gather that from the history of the times, from the
character of the bill, from the measure, the great measure, the
only measure of any consequence in the bill, which was the repeal
of the Missouri restriction.

* * * * *

"I say, then, sir, that the rule by which to judge of the intent,
the object, the purpose of an act, is to see what the act is
calculated to do, what its natural tendency is, what will in all
human probability be the effect. Before the passage of the
Kansas-Nebraska act, there stood upon your statute-book a law by
which slavery was prohibited from going into any territory north
of 36 deg. 30'. The validity and constitutionality of that law had
been recognized by repeated decisions of the courts of the several
States. If I am not mistaken, I have a memorandum by me, showing
that it had been recognized by the Supreme Court of the State of
Louisiana. So far as I know, the constitutionality of that
enactment was unquestioned, and the country had reposed in peace
for more than a generation under its operation. By and by,
however, it was discovered to be unconstitutional, and it was
broken down. The instant it was broken down, slavery went into
Kansas; but still, gentlemen tell us they did not intend to let
slavery in; that was not the object. Let me illustrate this.
Suppose a farmer has a rich field, and a pasture adjoining,
separated by a stonewall which his fathers had erected there
thirty years before. The wall keeps out the cattle in the pasture,
who are exceedingly anxious to get into the field. Some modern
reformer thinks that moral suasion will keep them in the pasture,
even if the wall should be taken down, and he proceeds to take it
down. The result is, that the cattle go right in; the experiment
fails. The philosopher says; 'Do not blame me; that was not my
intention; but it is true, the effect has followed.' I retort upon
him; 'You knew the effect would follow; and, knowing that it would
follow, you intended that it should follow.'

* * * * *

"This brings me to another part of my subject, in answer to a
question which the honorable senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas)
propounded, when he asked if he was to be read out of the party
for a difference on this point. I have great regard for the
sagacity of that honorable senator, but I confess it was a little
shaken when he asked that question; is a man to be read out of the
party for departing from the President on this great cardinal
point? Why, sir, he asks, is a man who differs from the President
on the Pacific railroad to go out of the party? Oh no, he may
stay. If he differs on Central America, very good; take the first
seat if you please. You may differ with the President on anything
and everything but one, and that is this sentiment, which I shall
read; Mr. Buchanan shall speak his own creed. On the 19th of
August 1842, in the Senate, Mr. Buchanan used this language:

"'I might here repeat what I have said on a former occasion'--(you
see it was so important he must repeat it)--'that all
Christendom'--(mark the words)--'is leagued against the South upon
this question of domestic slavery.'

"All Christendom includes a great many people. If that be true,
and if you have got any allies, it is manifest they must be
outside of Christendom, because Mr. Buchanan says all Christendom
is against you; but still he leaves you some allies, and you will
see--it is as plain as demonstration can make it--that your allies
are not included in Christendom. Where are the allies? I will read
the next sentence:

"'They have no other allies to sustain their constitutional rights
except the Democracy of the North.'

"There is a fight for you: all Christendom on one side, and the
Democracy of the North on the other. That is not my version; it is
Mr. Buchanan's. That is the way he backs his friends; for he went
on, after having made this avowal, to claim peculiar consideration
from southern gentlemen, and intimated that he might speak a
little more freely, having previously indorsed them so highly as
this. Well, sir, when all Christendom was on one side, and the
Democracy of the North on the other, and the Democracy of the
North growing less and less every day--a small minority in the New
England States--how could the senator from Illinois be so unkind,
or how could he doubt, if on this vital question he deserted the
Democracy and went over to Christendom, as to how the question
would be answered whether he was to be read out of the party? Read
out, sir. That question was settled long ago. On this great vital
question he is out of the party.

"I would not say anything unkind to that senator, nor would I say
anything uncourteous in the world; but my experience in the
country life of New England does present to my mind an
illustration which I know he will excuse me if I give it. A
neighbor of mine had a very valuable horse. The horse was taken
sick, and he tried all the ways in the world to cure him, but it
was of no avail. The horse grew worse daily. At last, one of his
neighbors said: 'What are you going to do with the horse?' 'I do
not know,' was the reply; 'but I think I shall have to kill him.'
'Well,' said the other, 'he does not want much killing.' You see,
in ordinary times, and on ordinary questions, a little wavering
might be indulged; but when it is on one question, and a great
vital question, and all Christendom is on the one side, and the
northern Democracy on the other, to go over from the ranks of the
Democracy to swell the swollen ranks of Christendom, and then ask
if he is to be read out!

"This omission to submit the constitution to the people of Kansas
is not accidental. I am sorry to find, as I have found out this
session, that the omission to put it in the original bill was not
accidental. We have a little light on this subject from a
gentleman who always sheds light when he speaks to the Senate--I
mean the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Bigler]. He says
that this was not accidental, by any means. He has spoken once or
twice about a meeting that was held in the private parlor of a
private gentleman. There was a good deal of inquiry and anxiety to
know what sort of a meeting that was. The gentleman who owns the
house said he did not know anything about it. That is not strange.
The hospitable man let his guests have the use of any room they
chose. The honorable senator from Pennsylvania said this meeting
was 'semi-official.' I do not know what kind of a meeting that
was. I have heard of a semi-barbarous, a semi-civilized, and a
semi-savage people; I have heard of a semi-annual, and
semi-weekly; but when you come to semi-official, I declare it
bothers me. What sort of a meeting was it? Was it an official
meeting? No. Was it an unofficial meeting? No. What was it?
Semi-official.

"I have never met anything analogous to it but once in my life,
and that I will mention by way of illustration. A trader in my
town, before the day of railroads, had taken a large bank bill,
and he was a little doubtful whether it was genuine or not. He
concluded to give it to the stage driver, and send it down to the
bank to inquire of the cashier whether it was a genuine bill. The
driver took it, and promised to attend to it. He went down the
first day, but he had so many other errands that he forgot it, and
he said he would certainly attend to it the next day. The next day
he forgot it, and the third day he forgot it; but he said,
'to-morrow I will do it, if I do nothing else; I will ascertain
whether the bill is genuine or not.' He went the fourth day, with
a like result; he forgot it; and when he came home, he saw the
nervous, anxious trader, wanting to know whether it was genuine or
not; and he was ashamed to tell him he had forgotten it, and he
thought he would lie it through. Said the trader to him, 'Did you
call at the bank?' 'Yes.' Did the cashier say it was a genuine
bill?' 'No, he did not.' 'Did he say it was a bad one?' 'No.'
'Well, what did he say?' 'He said it was about
middling--semi-genuine.' I have never learned to this day whether
that was a good or a bad bill. They used to say, in General
Jackson's time, that he had a kitchen cabinet as well as a regular
one. This could not be a meeting of the kitchen cabinet, because
it sat in a parlor. It was semi-official in its character also."

The speech closes with the following language in reference to the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court:

"If the opinions of the Supreme Court are true, they put these men
in the worst position of any men who are to be found on the pages
of our history. If the opinion of the Supreme Court be true, it
makes the immortal authors of the Declaration of Independence
liars before God and hypocrites before the world; for they lay
down their sentiments broad, full, and explicit, and then they say
that they appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the universe for the
rectitude of their intentions; but, if you believe the Supreme
Court, they were merely quibbling on words. They went into the
courts of the Most High, and pledged fidelity to their principles
as the price they would pay for success; and now it is attempted
to cheat them out of the poor boon of integrity; and it is said
that they did not mean so; and that when they said all men, they
meant all white men; and when they said that the contest they
waged was for the right of mankind, the Supreme Court of the
United States would have you believe that they meant it was to
establish slavery. Against that I protest, here, now, and
everywhere; and I tell the Supreme Court that these things are so
impregnably fixed in the hearts of the people, on the page of
history, in the recollections and traditions of men, that it will
require mightier efforts than they have made or can make to
overturn or to shake these settled convictions of the popular
understanding and of the popular heart.

"Sir, you are now proposing to carry out this Dred Scott decision
by forcing upon the people of Kansas a constitution against which
they have remonstrated, and to which, there can be no shadow of
doubt, a very large portion of them are opposed. Will it succeed?
I do not know; it is not for me to say, but I will say this, if
you force that, if you persevere in that attempt, I think, I hope
the men of Kansas will fight. I hope they will resist to blood and
to death the attempt to force them to a submission against which
their fathers contended, and to which they never would have
submitted. Let me tell you, sir, I stand not here to use the
language of intimidation or of menace; but you kindle the fires of
civil war in that country by an attempt to force that constitution
on the necks of an unwilling people; and you will light a fire
that all Democracy cannot quench. Aye, sir, there will come up
many another Peter the Hermit, that will go through the length and
the breadth of this land, telling the story of your wrongs and
your outrages; and they will stir the public heart; they will
raise a feeling in this country such as has never yet been raised;
and the men of this country will go forth, as they did of olden
time, in another crusade; but it will not be a crusade to redeem
the dead sepulchre where the body of the Crucified had lain from
the profanation of the infidel, but to redeem this fair land,
which God has given to be the abode of freemen, from the
desecration of a despotism sought to be imposed upon them in the
name of 'perfect freedom' and 'popular sovereignty!'"

ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS.

Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, has for years been a leading character in the politics of the country, and has been reckoned by all who know him, or of his acts in Congress, as one of the first men which the South has sent into public life. He is a native of Georgia, where he was born in the year 1812. His grandfather, the Hon. Alexander Stephens, was an Englishman and Jacobite, and came to this country about the year 1746. He joined the American Colonial army--was present at Braddock's defeat, and took a very active part in the Revolutionary War, and settled down, after it was over, in Pennsylvania. In 1795, he emigrated to Georgia, and finally settled down on the place now occupied by his grandson--the subject of this sketch--in Taliaferro County. He died on this place, in 1813, at the age of ninety-three. The year before, young Alexander was born, his mother dying while he was an infant. His father was comparatively poor, but was industrious and virtuous, so that he maintained a high reputation in the town of his birth. He died when Alexander was only fourteen years of age, leaving each of his children a trifle over four hundred dollars as their portion. Alexander was sickly and emaciated, and little was hoped of him. He had attended a common school in the neighborhood, and his uncle kept him still in attendance upon it. Of course this school was a very inferior one, not at all equal to one of the common schools of New England. But the boy learned enough there to excite his ambition, and he made known his desire to gain a classical education. He was without sufficient funds, but generous friends immediately came forward and furnished him with all the money he needed, which he would only accept as a loan. He now went to his studies alone, and in less than a year, without a teacher, fitted himself for a freshman class, and entered the Georgia University. After the usual four years' course, he graduated with unusually high honors. Having been an invalid since his birth, the severe application of his college course left him in a state of great prostration, and he was obliged to leave his studies and travel for his health. In May, 1834, he commenced the study of the law, and he was soon admitted to the bar. His first "case" was an action against a landlord for a stolen trunk--the trunk being his own. He gained his case and trunk easily. The next was a very important one. "A wealthy man was guardian of his grandchild, its mother having married to a second husband. In course of time, the mother desired possession of the child, which was resisted by the grandfather, who claimed it as legal guardian. The step-father, desiring to please his wife, came to young Stephens and engaged him as counsel to set aside the guardianship, older lawyers declining on the score of the hopelessness of the case, and perhaps a fear to encounter the learned array of counsel engaged on the opposite side. The trial came off before five judges, no jury being called. Owing to the respectability of the parties, and the novel scene of a sickly boy, without any legal practical experience, opposed to the most veteran lawyers at the bar, the case attracted unusual attention. The result was, that the guardianship was set aside, and the child was restored to the possession of its mother, and young Stephens at once took a prominent place at the bar, from that time, being engaged on one side or the other of every important case that was tried in the county."

Mr. Stephens' success was now so marked that he was sought after to remove to some prominent city, but he refused, preferring to remain with his old friends, and he was in a few years able, out of his earnings, to purchase his grandfather's estate, and settled upon it. The subjoined political sketch of Mr. Stephens is by one of his personal friends--Mr. Thorpe--and is in the main correct:

"In 1836, against his wishes, Mr. Stephens was run by his friends for the legislature. On the Wednesday before the election he made his first stump-speech--this was followed by another on Saturday, and still another at the polls on election day. He was triumphantly returned against a bitter opposition. He signalized his appearance as a legislator in defence of the bill which proposed 'that Georgia should launch out in certain internal improvements,' and in spite of the formidable opposition, his speech probably saved the bill, and thus inaugurated the commencement of the present prosperity of the 'Empire State of the South.' In the six years which he remained in the legislature he took a most prominent part in all important matters, particularly the one which proposed a change in the Constitution. The instrument at the time in force said that it should only be amended by a bill passed by two-thirds of each branch of the legislature at two consecutive sessions.

"The difficulty seemed insurmountable, if opposition to a change existed in either branch of the legislature, and the opponents of the bill appeared to be impregnable. Stephens took the ground that when the constitution is silent upon the mode of its amendment, then the legislature can call a convention; that when a constitution points out a particular mode in which it may be amended, without excluding other modes, then the legislature may adopt some other mode than that pointed out; but when a constitution provides a mode for its amendment, and prohibits all other modes, then that mode only can be taken which is provided for. Jenkins, Crawford, Howard, and others, took the opposite side, opposed the bill, and voted for a convention; the universal opinion was that the convention could be called, and the convention was called by an overwhelming majority, which passed the proper amendments, but they were never ratified by the people.

"As a member of the legislature, he opposed the organization of the Court of Errors, believing that the judiciary as established was the best in the world, and that the change would only multiply difficulties, without gaining any additional certainty to the administration of the law; the bill was not passed while Mr. Stephens was in the legislature.

"In 1842, he went to the State Senate, opposed the Central Bank, and took an active part in the questions of internal improvements and districting the State, which then divided parties.

"In 1843, he was nominated for Congress, on a general ticket, and commenced the canvass with a majority of two thousand votes against him, and came out of the contest with thirty-five hundred majority; and as he discussed on the stump matters entirely relating to local interests, his eloquence and power undoubtedly carried the State. His entry into Congress was signalized by extraordinary circumstances; his right to a seat was denied. Stephens, in the discussion that ensued, made a speech in favor of the power of Congress to district the States, though he was elected in defiance of the law on a general ticket, and then left the House to decide upon his claims. He was permitted to take his seat.

"Up to this time Mr. Stephens was a prominent Whig, having been bred in that school of States' rights men of the South who sustained Harrison in 1840; but upon the question of the annexation of Texas coming up, he favored that bill, and for the first time affiliated with the Democracy. In the contest between Taylor and Cass, he supported Taylor. On the compromises of 1850, he was willing to support any measure that did away with Congressional restriction, leaving the territories to come into the Union with or without slavery. In the Mexican war, he stood beside Mr. Calhoun, and held that the troops should not be advanced; but after the war commenced, he sustained it with vigor.

"The guaranty that four slave States should be carved out of the territory of Texas was secured mainly by Mr. Stephens' untiring labor and foresight. In 1854, he advocated the Kansas bill, which declared null and void the Missouri restriction, for the purpose of carrying out the principle of 1850, advanced in the Utah and New Mexican bills. The year 1855 was the most interesting and critical period of his life, which he spent fighting the Know Nothing organization, in the commencement of which he found all his early friends and associates for the first time opposed to him. In the month of May, of this year, he wrote his celebrated letter against the order, addressed to Col. Thos. W. Thomas. The effect of it was overwhelming, not only in his own State, but in Virginia and the adjoining States. His position was sustained, and commencing with three thousand majority against him in his own district, he came out of the contest with nearly three thousand majority.

"When Mr. Stephens rises to speak there is a sort of electric communication among the audience, as if something was about to be uttered that was worth listening to. The loungers take their seats, and the talkers become silent, thus paying an involuntary compliment to Mr. Stephens' talents and high claims as a gentleman. At first his voice is scarcely distinguishable, but in a few moments you are surprised at its volume, and you are soon convinced that his lungs are in perfect order, and as his ideas flow, you are not surprised at the rapt attention he commands. His style of speaking is singularly polished, but he conceals his art, and appears, to the superficial observer, to be eloquent by inspiration. The leading characteristic of his mind is great practical good sense, for his arguments are always of the most solid and logical kind; hence his permanent influence as a statesman, while his bright scintillations of wit, and profuse adornment, secure him a constant popularity as an orator. Possessed of a mind too great to be restrained by mere partisan influence, he has therefore the widest possible field of action, at one time heading a forlorn hope and leading it to victory, at another, giving grace and character to a triumphant majority. Common as it is to impugn the motives of many of our public servants, and charge them directly with corruption, Mr. Stephens has escaped without even the taint of suspicion, an inflexible honesty of purpose on his part, as a governing principle, is awarded to him by his veriest political foe."

Mr. Stephens' position in Georgia, in reference to calling a convention to frame a new constitution, is not very distinctly stated by Mr. Thorpe. A bill was introduced into the legislature providing for the calling of a convention to remodel the State constitution. Mr. Stephens opposed the bill because the constitution, as it then stood, provided that _only_ by a two-thirds vote of both branches of the legislature, at two consecutive sessions, could any amendment be put upon the constitution. Mr. Stephens argued that, under these circumstances, it would be revolutionary to pass the bill calling a convention. But the bill passed--and a convention submitted various amendments to the people, all of which were repealed. Since then Mr. Stephens' views have been generally adopted by the people of Georgia, for the constitution has been amended in the mode pointed out in that document itself. Since then, too, Mr. Stephens' position has been sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dorr case.

We have noticed the fact that Mr. Stephens, when young and poor, was furnished with the means to procure an excellent classical and legal education. He repaid this money to the parties who so generously aided him when help was of so much importance to his welfare. Not only this: since he has himself been so successful, Mr. Stephens has been constantly engaged in helping poor young men to an education. He has carried _upward of thirty_ young men through a collegiate or academic course within the last fifteen or twenty years, and has, in this way, repaid the generosity of his friends to him. This single incident will show what his character is for generosity.

Mr. Stephens is one of the most effective public speakers in the country, whether it be in the court-room, the legislative hall, or before the people. During the last Congress he was the leader of the Democracy in the House of Representatives, and by his management secured the admission of Oregon into the Union. Perhaps the finest speech he ever made in Congress was the closing one in the Oregon debate. We subjoin a few quotations.

One in reference to the anti-negro clause of the Oregon constitution:

"And those who profess to be the exclusive friends of negroes, as
they now do, so far as that constitution was concerned, voted to
banish them forever from the State, just as Oregon has done.
Whether this banishment be right or wrong, it is no worse in
Oregon than it was in Kansas. But, on the score of humanity, we of
the South do not believe that those who, in Kansas or Oregon,
banish this race from their limits, are better friends of the
negro than we are, who assign them that place among us to which by
nature they are fitted, and in which they add so much more to
their own happiness and comfort, besides to the common well-being
of all. We give them a reception. We give them shelter. We clothe
them. We feed them. We provide for their every want, in health and
in sickness, in infancy and old age. We teach them to work. We
educate them in the arts of civilization and the virtues of
Christianity, much more effectually and successfully than you can
ever do on the coasts of Africa. And, without any cost to the
public, we render them useful to themselves and to the world. The
first lesson in civilization and Christianity to be taught to the
barbarous tribes, wherever to be found, is the first great curse
against the human family--that in the sweat of their face they
shall eat their bread. Under our system, our tuition, our
guardianship and fostering care, these people, exciting so much
misplaced philanthropy, have attained a higher degree of
civilization than their race has attained anywhere else upon the
face of the earth. The Topeka people excluded them; they, like the
neighbors we read of, went round them; we, like the good
Samaritans, shun not their destitution or degradation--we
alleviate both. But let that go.

"Oregon has, in this matter, done no worse than the gentleman's
friends did in Kansas. _I think she acted unwisely in it_--that is
her business, not mine. But the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stanton]
questions me, how could a negro in Oregon ever get his freedom
under the constitution they have adopted? I tell him, under their
constitution a slave cannot exist there. The fundamental law is
against it. But, he asks, how could his freedom ever be
established, as no free person of color can sue in her courts?
Neither can they in Georgia; still our courts are open to this
class of people, who appear by _prochein ami_ or guardian. Nor is
there any great hardship in this; for married women cannot sue in
their own names anywhere where the common law prevails. Minors
also have to sue by guardian or next friend. We have suits
continually in our tribunals by persons claiming to be free
persons of color. They cannot sue in their own names, but by next
friend. They are not citizens; we do not recognize them as such;
but still the courts are open; and just so will they be in Oregon,
if the question is ever raised."

The closing portions of the speech give such a good idea of the style of Mr. Stephens' oratorical powers, that we must quote them:

"Let us not do an indirect wrong, for fear that the recipient from
our hands of what is properly due will turn upon us and injure us.
Statesmen in the line of duty should never consult their fears.
Where duty leads, there we may never fear to tread. In the
political world, great events and changes are rapidly crowding
upon us. To these we should not be insensible. As wise men, we
should not attempt to ignore them. We need not close our eyes, and
suppose the sun will cease to shine because we see not the light.
Let us rather, with eyes and mind wide awake, look around us and
see where we are, whence we have come, and where we shall soon be,
borne along by the rapid, swift, and irresistible car of time.
This immense territory to the west has to be peopled. It is now
peopling. New States are fast growing up; and others, not yet in
embryo, will soon spring into existence. Progress and development
mark everything in nature--human societies, as well as everything
else. Nothing in the physical world is still; life and motion are
in everything; so in the mental, moral, and political. The earth
is never still. The great central orb is ever moving. Progress is
the universal law governing all things--animate as well as
inanimate. Death itself is but the beginning of a new life in a
new form. Our government and institutions are subject to this
all-pervading power. The past wonderfully exemplifies its
influence, and gives us some shadows of the future.

"This is the sixteenth session that I have been here, and within
that brief space of fifteen years, we have added six States to the
Union--lacking but one of being more than half the original
thirteen. Upward of twelve hundred thousand square miles of
territory--a much larger area than was possessed by the whole
United States at the time of the treaty of peace in 1783--have
been added to our domain. At this time the area of our Republic is
greater than that of any five of the greatest powers in Europe all
combined; greater than that of the Roman empire in the brightest
days of her glory; more extensive than were Alexander's dominions
when he stood on the Indus, and wept that he had no more worlds to
conquer. Such is our present position; nor are we yet at the end
of our acquisitions.

"Our internal movements, within the same time, have not been less
active in progress and development than those external. A bare
glance at these will suffice. Our tonnage, when I first came to
Congress, was but a little over two million; now it is upward of
five million, more than double. Our exports of domestic
manufactures were only eleven million dollars in round numbers;
now they are upward of thirty million. Our exports of domestic
produce, staples, etc., were then under one hundred million
dollars; now they are upward of three hundred million! The amount
of coin in the United States, was at that time about one hundred
million; now it exceeds three hundred million. The cotton crop
then was but fifty-four million; now it is upward of one hundred
and sixty million dollars. We had then not more than five thousand
miles of railroad in operation; we have now not less than
twenty-six thousand miles--more than enough to encircle the
globe--and at a cost of more than one thousand million dollars. At
that time, Prof. Morse was engaged in one of the rooms of this
Capitol in experimenting on his unperfected idea of an electric
telegraph--and there was as much doubt about his success, as there
is at present about the Atlantic cable; but now there are more
than thirty-five thousand miles in extent of these iron nerves
sent forth in every direction through the land, connecting the
most distant points, and uniting all together as if under the
influence of a common living sensorium. This is but a glance at
the surface; to enter within and take the range of other
matters--schools, colleges, the arts, and various mechanical and
industrial pursuits, which add to the intelligence, wealth and
prosperity of a people, and mark their course in the history of
nations, would require time; but in all would be found alike
astonishing results.

"This progress, sir, is not to be arrested. It will go on. The end
is not yet. There are persons now living who will see over a
hundred million human beings within the present boundaries of the
United States, to say nothing of future extension, and perhaps
double the number of States we now have, should the Union last.
For myself, I say to you, my southern colleagues on this floor,
that I do not apprehend danger to our constitutional rights from
the bare fact of increasing the number of States with institutions
dissimilar to ours. The whole governmental fabric of the United
States is based and founded upon the idea of dissimilarity in the
institutions of the respective members. Principles, not numbers,
are our protection. When these fail, we have like all other
people, who, knowing their rights, dare maintain them, nothing to
rely upon but the justice of our cause, our own right arms and
stout hearts. With these feelings and this basis of action,
whenever any State comes and asks admission, as Oregon does, I am
prepared to extend her the hand of welcome, without looking into
her constitution further than to see that it is republican in
form, upon our well-known American models.

"When aggression comes, if come it ever shall, then the end
draweth nigh. Then, if in my day, I shall be for resistance, open,
bold, and defiant. I know of no allegiance superior to that due
the hearthstones of the homestead. This I say to all. I lay no
claim to any sentiment of nationality not founded upon the
patriotism of a true heart, and I know of no such patriotism that
does not centre at home. Like the enlarging circle upon the
surface of smooth waters, however, this can and will, if
unobstructed, extend to the utmost limits of a common country.
Such is my nationality--such my sectionalism--such my patriotism.
Our fathers of the South joined your fathers of the North in
resistance to a common aggression from their fatherland; and if
they were justified in rising to right a wrong inflicted by a
parent country, how much more ought we, should the necessity ever
come, to stand justified before an enlightened world, in righting
a wrong from even those we call brothers. That necessity, I trust,
will never come.

"What is to be our future, I do not know. I have no taste for
indulging in speculations about it. I would not, if I could, raise
the veil that wisely conceals it from us. 'Sufficient unto the day
is the evil thereof,' is a good precept in everything pertaining
to human action. The evil I would not anticipate; I would rather
strive to prevent its coming; and one way, in my judgment, to
prevent it, is, while here, in all things to do what is right and
proper to be done under the Constitution of the United States;
nothing more, and nothing less. Our safety, as well as the
prosperity of all parts of the country, so long as this government
lasts, lies mainly in a strict conformity to the laws of its
existence. Growth is one of these. The admission of new States, is
one of the objects expressly provided for. How are they to come
in? With just such constitutions as the people in each may please
to make for themselves, so it is republican in form. This is the
ground the South has ever stood upon. Let us not abandon it now.
It is founded upon a principle planted in the compact of Union
itself; and more essential to us than all others besides; that is,
the equality of the States, and the reserved rights of the people
of the respective States. By our system, each State, however great
the number, has the absolute right to regulate all its internal
affairs as she pleases, subject only to her obligations under the
Constitution of the United States. With this limitation, the
people of Massachusetts have the perfect right to do as they
please upon all matters relating to their internal policy; the
people of Ohio have the right to do the same; the people of
Georgia the same; of California the same; and so with all the
rest.

"Such is the machinery of our theory of self-government by the
people. This is the great novelty of our peculiar system,
involving a principle unknown to the ancients, an idea never
dreamed of by Aristotle or Plato. The union of several distinct,
independent communities upon this basis, is a new principle in
human governments. It is now a problem in experiment for the
people of the nineteenth century upon this continent to solve. As
I behold its workings in the past and at the present, while I am
not sanguine, yet I am hopeful of its successful solution. The
most joyous feeling of my heart is the earnest hope that it will,
for the future, move on as peacefully, prosperously, and
brilliantly, as it has in the past. If so, then we shall exhibit a
moral and political spectacle to the world something like the
prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when he saw a number of distinct
beings or living creatures, each with a separate and distinct
organism, having the functions of life within itself, all of one
external likeness, and all, at the same time, mysteriously
connected with one common animating spirit pervading the whole, so
that when the common spirit moved they all moved; their appearance
and their work being, as it were, a wheel in the middle of a
wheel; and whithersoever the common spirit went, thither the
others went, all going together; and when they went, he heard the
noise of their motion like the noise of great waters, as the voice
of the Almighty. Should our experiment succeed, such will be our
exhibition--a machinery of government so intricate, so
complicated, with so many separate and distinct parts, so many
independent States, each perfect in the attributes and functions
of sovereignty, within its own jurisdiction, all, nevertheless,
united under the control of a common directing power for external
objects and purposes, may natural enough seem novel, strange, and
inexplicable to the philosophers and crowned heads of the world.

"It is for us, and those who shall come after us, to determine
whether this grand experimental problem shall be worked out; not
by quarrelling amongst ourselves; not by doing injustice to any;
not by keeping out any particular class of States, but by each
State remaining a separate and distinct political organism within
itself--all bound together for general objects, and under a common
Federal head; as it were, a wheel within a wheel. Then the number
may be multiplied without limit; and then, indeed, may the nations
of the earth look on in wonder at our career; and when they hear
the noise of the wheels of our progress in achievement, in
development, in expansion, in glory and renown, it may well appear
to them not unlike the noise of great waters; the very voice of
the Almighty--_Vox populi! Vox Dei!_ (Great applause in the
galleries and on the floor.)

"THE SPEAKER.--If the applause in the galleries is repeated, the
chair will order the galleries to be cleared.

"MANY MEMBERS.--It was upon the floor.

"MR. STEPHENS, of Georgia. One or two other matters only I wish to
allude to. These relate only to amendments. I trust that every
friend of this bill will unite and vote down every amendment. It
needs no amendment. Oregon has nothing to do with Kansas, and
should in no way be connected with her. To remand her back, as the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Marshall) proposes, to compel her to
regulate suffrage as we may be disposed to dictate, would be but
going back to the old attempt to impose conditions upon Missouri.
There is no necessity for any census if we are satisfied, from all
the evidence before us, that there are sixty thousand inhabitants
there. Florida was admitted without a census. Texas was admitted,
with two members on this floor without a census. So was
California.

"To our friends upon this side of the house, let me say, if you
cannot vote for the bill, assist us in having it voted upon as it
is. Put on no riders. Give us no side-blows. Aid in keeping them
off. Let the measure stand or fall upon its merits. If you cannot
vote for the bill, vote against it just as it stands.

"I see my time is nearly out, and I cannot go into the discussion
of other branches of the question; but may I not make an appeal to
all sides of the house to come up to do their duty to-day? I have
spoken of the rapid development of our country and its progress in
all its material resources. Is it true that the intellectual and
moral development of our country has not kept pace with its
physical? Has our political body outgrown the heads and hearts of
those who are to govern it? Is it so, that this thirty-fifth
Congress is unequal to the great mission before it! Are we
progressing in everything but mind and patriotism? Has destiny
cast upon us a heavier load of duty than we are able to perform?
Are we unequal to the task assigned us? I trust not. I know it is
sometimes said in the country that Congress has degenerated. It is
for us this day to show whether it is true or not. For myself, I
do not believe it. It may be that the _esprit de corps_ may have
some influence on my judgment. Something may be pardoned to that.
But still I feel that I address men of as much intelligence,
reflection, talent, integrity, virtue and worth, as I have ever
met in this hall; men not unfit to be the Representatives of this
great, growing and prosperous Confederacy. The only real fitness
for any public station is to be up to the requirements of the
occasion, whatever that be. Let us, then, vindicate our characters
as fit legislators to-day; and, with that dignity and decorum
which have so signally marked our proceedings upon other great,
exciting questions before, and which, whatever may be said of our
debates, may be claimed as a distinguished honor for the present
House of Representatives, let us do the work assigned us with that
integrity of purpose which discharges duty regardless of
consequences, and with a patriotism commensurate with the
magnitude of the subject under all its responsibilities."

Mr. Stephens took very decided ground in favor of the Lecompton bill in 1857-8, and when that was likely to fail in favor of the English Compromise. He is also, while a Union man, very much in sympathy with the Southern Rights school of politicians, and has made two or three speeches in defence of filibusterism in the house. He has not entirely forgotten that he was once a Whig, for last winter he spoke in favor of, and supported heartily the French Spoliation bill. He is a very fair political opponent, doing everything in an open and frank manner, but a very shrewd tactician. He has rarely allowed himself to be led into excited, partisan or sectional speeches, and, therefore, has long been looked upon in Congress as an admirable party manager.

N. P. BANKS.

Few men in the country have, in these latter days of politics, been so uniformly successful, even when circumstances were untoward, as Governor Banks. He is known by the people as _a lucky man_. He succeeds in whatever he undertakes. He has risen from an obscure young man to be Speaker of the National House of Representatives, and Governor of one of the first States of the Union. What may not such a man expect if he be ambitious?

Mr. Banks was born in Waltham, Mass., January 30, 1816, where he received a common school education. At a very early age he was placed to work in a cotton-mill, in his native town, as a common hand. His father was an overseer in the same mill. Here he remained for some time, but not liking the business left the mill, and learned the trade of machinist. While thus engaged, a strolling theatrical company passed through Waltham, and young Banks was so much taken with their acting, that he learned to perform several parts himself. He succeeded so well that a tempting offer was made to him to follow the fortunes of the company. He was sufficiently wise to refuse the offer. There can be no doubt that to this dramatic corps Mr. Banks owes much of his after success. They taught him much of that gracefulness which, to this day, distinguishes him as an orator and a presiding officer.

Banks now joined a village lyceum and made himself a ready speaker--then delivered temperance speeches, and at last drifted into politics as a Democrat. He edited a village paper in Waltham, a Democratic paper, and Mr. Polk gave him an office in the Boston Custom House. In attending political meetings, Mr. Banks often acted as presiding officer, and it was soon discovered that he possessed a remarkable talent for such a post. In 1849, Mr. Banks was elected to the Massachusetts House of Representatives, and put himself down in the list of members as a "machinist." The very next year he turned to the law--in 1851 was chosen Speaker of the State Legislature, and was a prominent advocate of the coalition between the Democrats and Free Soilers. This was his first step out of the Democratic party toward Republicanism. The next year he was reelected speaker, and in the autumn was elected to Congress. While in Congress, during his first term, he voted against the Kansas-Nebraska bill, though he was one of those Democrats who _voted to take the bill up_, a movement which insured its final success.