Daniel Webster Defends Supremacy of Union and Constitution in 1830 Speech

References must be from 2014 and above for all the questions.
1. Search the Internet for information on “Information
Governance” and discuss the evolution of Information
Governance in the digital age.
Please remember that this is an academic forum – while you
may discuss any topics of interest, please remember that you are
expected to follow the same etiquette for class discussions here
as you would in a “live” face-to-face classroom.
2. Research the Web for a leader, past or present. This might be
a leader in business, politics, or society and have impacted
society in a positive way.
3. Review the work you have done throughout the semester and
reflect on your learning experience. Then respond to the
following questions:
HIST 1301
This assignment has several documents for you to read and view
in order to answer the five
required questions. Please follow any formatting guidelines and
minimum length requirements as
set by your professor. Please take your time to analyze these
documents and submit thoughtful
arguments supported by the evidence these documents provide.

Documents:
1. Excerpt of Daniel Webster’s “Liberty and Union” Speech
(January 26, 1830)
2. South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification (November 24,
1832)
3. Political Cartoon “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander” (1851)
4. Political Cartoon “Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a
Freesoiler” (1856)
5. Excerpt of Majority Decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford
(March 6, 1857)
6. Frederick Douglass “The Meaning of the Fourth of July for
the Negro” (July 5, 1852)
7. William Henry Seward’s “On the Irrepressible Conflict”
(October 25, 1858)
8. Alexander Stephen’s “Cornerstone Speech” (March 21, 1861)
9. Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” (November 19,
1863)
Document 1: [excerpt] Daniel Webster on Liberty and Union
(1830)
Responding to South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne’s argument

that states had the power
to protect their liberties by resisting federal laws they deemed
unconstitutional,
Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster defended the supremacy
of the Union over
individual states. Although Webster did not plan his speech
beforehand, it is generally
considered one of the greatest speeches ever delivered on the
floor of the US Senate.
....I say, the right of a state to annul a law of Congress cannot
be maintained but on the ground of the inalienable
right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon the ground
of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate
violent remedy, above the Constitution and in defiance of the
Constitution, which may be resorted to when a
revolution is to be justified. But I do not admit that, under the
Constitution and in conformity with it, there is any
mode in which a state government, as a member of the Union,
can interfere and stop the progress of the general
government, by force of her own laws, under any circumstance
whatever…
This absurdity (for it seems no less) arises from a
misconception as to the origin of this government and its true

character. It is, sir, the people's Constitution, the people's
government, made for the people, made by the people, and
answerable to the people. The people of the United States have
declared that this Constitution shall be the supreme
law. We must either admit the proposition or dispute their
authority. The states are, unquestionably, sovereign, so far
as their sovereignty is not affected by this supreme law. But the
state legislatures, as political bodies, however
sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. So far as the
people have given power to the general government,
so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government
holds of the people and not of the state governments.
We are all agents of the same supreme power, the people. The
general government and the state governments derive
their authority from the same source. Neither can, in relation to
the other, be called primary, though one is definite
and restricted, and the other general and residuary. The national
government possesses those powers, which it can be
shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All the rest
belongs to the state governments, or to the people
themselves. So far as the people have restrained state
sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution
of the United States, so far, it must be admitted, state
sovereignty is effectually controlled….

I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the
states derived? Where do they find the power to
interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir, the opinion which the
honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded
in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this
government, and of the foundation on which it
stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by the
people; those who administer it, responsible to the
people; and itself capable of being amended and modified, just
as the people may choose it should be. It is as
popular, just as truly emanating from the people, as the state
governments. It is created for one purpose; the state
governments for another. It has its own powers; they have
theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the
operation of a law of Congress than with Congress to arrest the
operation of their laws.
We are here to administer a Constitution emanating immediately
from the people, and trusted by them to our
administration. It is not the creature of the state governments....
This government, sir, is the independent offspring of the
popular will. It is not the creature of state legislatures; nay,
more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into
existence, established it, and have hitherto supported

it for the very purpose, among others, of imposing certain
salutary restraints on state sovereignties. The states cannot
now make war; they cannot contract alliances they cannot make,
each for itself, separate regulations of commerce;
they cannot lay imposts; they cannot coin money. If this
Constitution, Sir, be the creature of state legislatures, it
must be admitted that it has obtained a strange control over the
volitions of its creators.
The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave it a
Constitution, and in that Constitution they have
enumerated the powers which they bestow on it. They have
made it a limited government. They have defined its
authority. They have restrained it to the exercise of such powers
as are granted; and all others, they declare, are
reserved to the states or the people. But, sir, they have not
stopped here. If they had, they would have accomplished
but half their work. No definition can be so clear as to avoid
possibility of doubt; no limitation so precise as to
exclude all uncertainty. Who, then, shall construe this grant of
the people? Who shall interpret their will, where it
may be supposed they have left it doubtful? With whom do they
repose this ultimate right of deciding on the powers
of the government? Sir, they have settled all this in the fullest
manner. They have left it with the government itself,

in its appropriate branches….
The Constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and
established that authority. How has it accomplished this great
and essential end? By declaring, sir, that "the Constitution, and
the laws of the United States made in pursuance
thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the
constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding."
This, sir, was the first great step. By this, the supremacy of the
Constitution and laws of the United States is
declared. The people so will it. No state law is to be valid
which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any law
of the United States passed in pursuance of it. But who shall
decide this question of interference? To whom lies the
last appeal? This, sir, the Constitution itself decides also, by
declaring, "that the judicial power shall extend to all
cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United
States." These two provisions cover the whole ground.
They are, in truth, the keystone of the arch! With these it is a
government; without them it is a confederation. In
pursuance of these clear and express provisions, Congress
established, at its very first session, in the judicial act, a
mode for carrying them into full effect, and for bringing all

questions of constitutional power to the final decision of
the Supreme Court. It then, sir, became a government. It then
had the means of self-protection; and but for this, it
would, in all probability, have been now among things which
are past….
Sir, I deny this power of state legislatures altogether. It cannot
stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say
that, in an extreme case, a state government might protect the
people from intolerable oppression. Sir, in such a case,
the people might protect themselves, without the aid of the state
governments. Such a case warrants revolution. It
must make, when it comes, a law for itself. A nullifying act of a
state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make
resistance any more lawful….
The people have preserved this, their own chosen Constitution,
for forty years and have seen their happiness,
prosperity, and renown grow with its growth, and strengthen
with its strength. They are now, generally, strongly
attached to it. Overthrown by direct assault, it cannot be;
evaded, undermined, nullified it will not be if we, and
those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives
of the people, shall conscientiously and vigilantly
discharge the two great branches of our public trust, faithfully
to preserve and wisely to administer it....

I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union, to see
what might he hidden in the dark recess behind. I
have not coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when
the bonds that unite us together shall be broken
asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the
precipice of disunion, to see whether, with my short sight, I
can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him
as a safe counselor in the affairs in this government
whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how
the Union may be best preserved but how tolerable
might be the condition of the people when it should be broken
up and destroyed. While the Union lasts, we have
high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us
and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate
the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise!
God grant that on my vision never may be opened what
lies behind! When my eyes shall be turned to behold for the last
time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining
on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious
Union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a
land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal

blood! Let their last feeble and lingering glance rather
behold the gorgeous ensign of the republic, now known and
honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced,
its arms and trophies streaming in their original luster, not a
stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star obscured,
bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory as "What
is all this worth?" nor those other words of delusion
and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterwards"; but everywhere,
spread all over in characters of living light, blazing
on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the
land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that
other sentiment, dear to every true American heart-Liberty and
Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!
Document 2: South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification
(1832)
In direct response to President Andrew Jackson and the Tariff
of 1832, South Carolina
held a special convention on November 24, 1832 that resulted in
the following document.
This ordinance represents South Carolina’s official position on
the power of a state
government to nullify federal laws it deemed unconstitutional.

An ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the
United States, purporting to be
laws laying duties and imposts on the importation of foreign
commodities.
Whereas the Congress of the United States by various acts,
purporting to be acts laying duties and imposts on
foreign imports, but in reality intended for the protection of
domestic manufactures and the giving of bounties to
classes and individuals engaged in particular employments, at
the expense and to the injury and oppression of other
classes and individuals, and by wholly exempting from taxation
certain foreign commodities, such as are not
produced or manufactured in the United States, to afford a
pretext for imposing higher and excessive duties on
articles similar to those intended to be protected, bath exceeded
its just powers under the constitution, which confers
on it no authority to afford such protection, and bath violated
the true meaning and intent of the constitution, which
provides for equality in imposing the burdens of taxation upon
the several States and portions of the confederacy:
And whereas the said Congress, exceeding its just power to
impose taxes and collect revenue for the purpose of
effecting and accomplishing the specific objects and purposes

which the constitution of the United States authorizes
it to effect and accomplish, hath raised and collected
unnecessary revenue for objects unauthorized by the
constitution.
We, therefore, the people of the State of South Carolina, in
convention assembled, do declare and ordain and it is
hereby declared and ordained, that the several acts and parts of
acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting
to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the
importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual
operation and effect within the United States, and, more
especially, an act entitled "An act in alteration of the several
acts imposing duties on imports," approved on the nineteenth
day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-
eight and also an act entitled "An act to alter and amend the
several acts imposing duties on imports," approved on
the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and
thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the
United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof
and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this
State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and
obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or
entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said
acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be

hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly
null and void.
And it is further ordained, that it shall not be lawful for any of
the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of
the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by
the said acts within the limits of this State; but it
shall be the duty of the legislature to adopt such measures and
pass such acts as may be necessary to give full effect
to this ordinance, and to prevent the enforcement and arrest the
operation of the said acts and parts of acts of the
Congress of the United States within the limits of this State,
from and after the first day of February next, and the
duties of all other constituted authorities, and of all persons
residing or being within the limits of this State, and they
are hereby required and enjoined to obey and give effect to this
ordinance, and such acts and measures of the
legislature as may be passed or adopted in obedience thereto.
And it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity,
decided in the courts of this State, wherein shall be drawn
in question the authority of this ordinance, or the validity of
such act or acts of the legislature as may be passed for
the purpose of giving effect thereto, or the validity of the
aforesaid acts of Congress, imposing duties, shall any

appeal be taken or allowed to the Supreme Court of the United
States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted
or allowed for that purpose; and if any such appeal shall be
attempted to be taken, the courts of this State shall
proceed to execute and enforce their judgments according to the
laws and usages of the State, without reference to
such attempted appeal, and the person or persons attempting to
take such appeal may be dealt with as for a contempt
of the court.
And it is further ordained, that all persons now holding any
office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military, under
this State (members of the legislature excepted), shall, within
such time, and in such manner as the legislature shall
prescribe, take an oath well and truly to obey, execute, and
enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts of the
legislature as may be passed in pursuance thereof, according to
the true intent and meaning of the same, and on the
neglect or omission of any such person or persons so to do, his
or their office or offices shall be forthwith vacated,
and shall be filled up as if such person or persons were dead or
had resigned; and no person hereafter elected to any
office of honor, profit, or trust, civil or military (members of
the legislature excepted), shall, until the legislature

shall otherwise provide and direct, enter on the execution of his
office, or be he any respect competent to discharge
the duties thereof until he shall, in like manner, have taken a
similar oath; and no juror shall be impaneled in any of
the courts of this State, in any cause in which shall be in
question this ordinance, or any act of the legislature passed
in pursuance thereof, unless he shall first, in addition to the
usual oath, have taken an oath that he will well and truly
obey, execute, and enforce this ordinance, and such act or acts
of the legislature as may be passed to carry the same
into operation and effect, according to the true intent and
meaning thereof.
And we, the people of South Carolina, to the end that it may be
fully understood by the government of the United
States, and the people of the co-States, that we are determined
to maintain this our ordinance and declaration, at
every hazard, do further declare that we will not submit to the
application of force on the part of the federal
government, to reduce this State to obedience, but that we will
consider the passage, by Congress, of any act
authorizing the employment of a military or naval force against
the State of South Carolina, her constitutional
authorities or citizens; or any act abolishing or closing the ports
of this State, or any of them, or otherwise

obstructing the free ingress and egress of vessels to and from
the said ports, or any other act on the part of the
federal government, to coerce the State, shut up her ports,
destroy or harass her commerce or to enforce the acts
hereby declared to be null and void, otherwise than through the
civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the
longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the
people of this State will henceforth hold themselves
absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve
their political connection with the people of the other
States; and will forthwith proceed to organize a separate
government, and do all other acts and things which
sovereign and independent States may of right do.
Done in convention at Columbia, the twenty-fourth day of
November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-two, and in the fifty-seventh year of the
Declaration of the Independence of the United States of
America.

Document 3: What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander
(1851)
A pro-Southern political cartoon in the wake of northern
criticism of the Fugitive Slave Act
in the Compromise of 1850.
Left hand panel titled “North”: (Figures & Dialogue from left to
right)
Federal Marshall “Whew! I think I’d better make myself
scarce!”
Mr. Palmetto (slaveholder) “How are you Mr. Pumpkindoodle,

I’ve come here to take that fugitive slave who
belongs to me, according to the provisions of the U.S. law!
Officer do your duty!”
Mr. Pumpkindoodle (abolitionist) “What! seize my African
brother! never! I dont recognize any U.S. law! I have
a higher law, a law of my own__here Pompey take this pistol
and resist to the death! if he attempts to take you!”
Pompey (slave) “Ye yes sa! I'll try, cause brudders [antislavery
senator from New York William H.] Seward and
[abolitionist William Lloyd] Garrison says its all right; and so
does Parson Squash! But I'm mighty feared.__”
Right hand panel titled “South”: (Figures and Dialogue from
right to left)
Mr. Pumpkindoodle (abolitionist) “Look here Mr. Palmetto
them 'ere goods is mine! They've been stole from me,
and if you dont give 'em up, I'll take the law of the land on
you!" (He is referring to the stacked bolts of fabric on the
counter labeled “"Bay State Shawls,” “Cotton Shirting,”
“Domestic Prints,” “Amoskeag Ticks,” “Lowels Negro
Cloth” and “Hamilton Long Cloth.”)
Mr. Palmetto (slaveholder) “Ah really my dear sir! They are
fugitives from you, are they? As to the law of the
land, I have a higher law of my own, and possession is nine

points in the law__ I cant cotton to you__ Kick out the
abolitionist Cesar.”
Cesar (slave) “Of course Massa__ De dam Bobolitionist is the
wus enemy we poor niggers have got.__”
Document 4: Forcing Slavery Down the Throat of a Freesoiler
(1856)
A political cartoon published in the wake of the 1854 Kansas-
Nebraska Act featuring the
four nominees for the Democratic Party ticket for the 1856
presidential election.
Labeled Figures (left to right): Senator Stephen Douglas,
President Franklin Pierce, James
Buchanan, and Lewis Cass who were all running to be the
Democratic Party nominee for
president in the 1856 election.
Document 5: [excerpt] Dred Scott v. Sanford Majority Decision
(1857)
Supreme Court Justice Roger B. Taney’s 7-2 Majority Decision
in the case of Dred Scott v.

Sanford (March 6, 1857) not only denied Dred Scott his
freedom but established that any
person of African descent, enslaved or free, could not be a
citizen of the United States.
Taney’s decision also nullified the Missouri Compromise of
1820. Scott, a Missouri slave,
traveled to Illinois (a free state), and then to Wisconsin (a free
territory) with his owner,
John Emerson. After returning to Missouri, Emerson died, and
Scott attempted to
purchase his freedom from Emerson’s widow, who refused the
sale. Scott and his wife then
attempted to sue for their freedom on the grounds that their
residence in the free state and
territory had emancipated them. The Court saw otherwise, and
delivered what is
considered to be the worst decision in US Supreme Court
history.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=im
ages&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiZiYns07fZAhVJY6
wKHaWuDkEQjRx6BAgAEAY&url=http://loc.harpweek.com/L
CPoliticalCartoons/IndexDisplayCartoonMedium.asp?SourceInd
ex%3DPeople%26IndexText%3DCass,%2BLewis%26UniqueID
%3D9%26Year%3D1856&psig=AOvVaw21k5wmNsDZpNJHWz

SA6gQF&ust=1519324724102775
This is certainly a very serious question, and one that now for
the first time has been brought for decision before this
court. But it is brought here by those who have a right to bring
it, and it is our duty to meet it and decide it.
The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were
imported into this country, and sold as slaves,
become a member of the political community formed and
brought into existence by the constitution of the United
States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and
privileges, and immunities, guaranteed by that instrument to
the citizen? One of which rights is the privilege of suing in a
court of the United States in the cases specified in the
constitution.
It will be observed, that the plea applies to that class of persons
only whose ancestors were negroes of the African
race, and imported into this country, and sold and held as
slaves. The only matter in issue before the court, therefore,
is, whether the descendants of such slaves, when they shall be
emancipated, or who are born of parents who had
become free before their birth, are citizens of a State, in the
sense in which the word citizen is used in the
constitution of the United States.

The situation of this population was altogether unlike that of the
Indian race. . . . Indian governments were regarded
and treated as foreign governments, as much so as if an ocean
had separated the red man from the white; and their
freedom has constantly been acknowledged, from the time of the
first emigration to the English colonies to the
present day, by the different governments which succeeded each
other.
The words "people of the United States" and "citizens" are
synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both
describe the political body who, according to our republican
institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the
power and conduct the government through their
representatives. They are what we familiarly call the "sovereign
people," and every citizen is one of this people, and a
constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before
us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in
abatement compose a portion of this people, and are
constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not,
and that they are not included, and were not
intended to be included, under the word "citizen" in the
constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and
privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to
citizens of the United States.

It is not the province of the court to decide upon the justice or
injustice, the policy or impolicy, of these laws. The
decision of that question belonged to the political or law-
making power; to those who formed the sovereignty and
framed the constitution The duty of the court is, to interpret the
instrument they have framed. . . .
. . . we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a
State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of
citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means
follow, because he has all the rights and privileges
of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United
States.
It is true, every person, and every class and description of
persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the
constitution recognized as citizens in the several states, became
also citizens of this new political body; but none
other; it was formed by them, and for them and their posterity,
but for no one else. . . . .
It becomes necessary, therefore, to determine who were citizens
of the several States when the constitution was
adopted. . . .
In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the
times, and the language used in the declaration of

independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had
been imported as slaves, nor their descendants,
whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged
as a part of the people, nor intended to be included in
the general words used in that memorable instrument.
They had for more than a century before been regarded as
beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to
associate with the white race, either in social or political
relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which
the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might
justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his
benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary
article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit
could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and
universal in the civilized portion of the white race. . . .
We give both of these laws in the words used by the respective
legislative bodies, because the language in which
they are framed, as well as the provisions contained in them,
show, too plainly to be misunderstood, the degraded
condition of this unhappy race. They were still in force when
the revolution began, and are a faithful index to the
state of feeling towards the class of persons of whom they
speak. . . . They show that a perpetual and impassible
barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and

the one which they had reduced to slavery, and
governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power . . . that
intermarriages between white persons and negroes or
mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and
punished as crimes, not only in the parties, but in the person
who joined them in marriage. And no distinction in this respect
was made between the free negro or mulatto and the
slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed
upon the whole race.
. . . But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race
were not intended to be included, and formed no
part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration; for
if the language, as understood in that day, would
embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed
the declaration of independence would have been
utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they
asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to
which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved
and received universal rebuke and reprobation.
And upon a full and careful consideration of the subject, the
court is of opinion, that, upon the facts stated in the plea
in abatement, Dred Scott was not a citizen of Missouri within
the meaning of the constitution of the United States,

and not entitled as such to sue in its courts and, consequently,
that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the case,
and that the judgment on the plea in abatement is erroneous.
In the case before us, we have already decided that the circuit
court erred in deciding that it had jurisdiction upon the
facts admitted by the pleadings. And it appears that, in the
further progress of the case, it acted upon the erroneous
principle it had decided on the pleadings, and gave judgment for
the defendant, where, upon the facts admitted in the
exception, it had no jurisdiction.
The plaintiff was a negro slave, belonging to Dr. Emerson, who
was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In
the year 1834, he took the plaintiff from the State of Missouri
to the military post at Rock Island, in the State of
Illinois, and held him there as a slave until the month of April
or May, 1836. At the time last mentioned, said Dr.
Emerson removed the plaintiff from said military post at Rock
Island to the military post at Fort Snelling, situate on
the west bank of the Mississippi river, in the territory known as
upper Louisiana . . . situate north of the latitude of
thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north, and north of the State of
Missouri. . . .
In considering this part of the controversy, two questions arise:

1. Was he, together with his family, free in Missouri
by reason of the stay in the territory of the United States herein
before mentioned? And 2. If they were not, is Scott
himself free by reason of his removal to Rock Island, in the
State of Illinois, as stated in the above admissions?
. . . Thus the rights of property are united with the rights of
person, and placed on the same ground by the fifth
amendment to the constitution, which provides that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without
due process of law. And an act of congress which deprives a
citizen of the United States of his liberty or property,
merely because he came himself or brought his property into a
particular territory of the United States, and who had
committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be
dignified with the name of due process of law.
. . . And if the constitution recognizes the right of property of
the master in a slave, and makes no distinction
between that description of property and other property owned
by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of
the United States, whether it be legislative, executive, or
judicial, has a right to draw such a distinction, or deny to it
the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been
provided for the protection of private property against
the encroachments of the government.

Upon these considerations, it is the opinion of the court that the
act of congress which prohibited a citizen from
holding and owning property of this kind in the territory of the
United States north of the line therein mentioned, is
not warranted by the constitution, and is therefore void; and
that neither Dred Scott himself, nor any of his family,
were made free by being carried into this territory. . . .
Document 6: “The Meaning of the Fourth of July for the Negro”
(1852)
Former slave Frederick Douglass spent much of the 1850s
traveling on speaking tours
throughout the North championing the cause of abolitionism.
Enslaved in Maryland,
Douglass escaped slavery in 1838 after several failed attempts.
Once free, Douglass became
a social reformer, orator, and noted abolitionist. People who
read his published work and
heard Douglass speak were often shocked that he was a former
slave, as many believed
slaves lacked the basic intellect needed to deliver thoughtful
arguments on slavery.
Following is his most famous speech delivered on July 5, 1852

in Rochester, New York.
Fellow Citizens, I am not wanting in respect for the fathers of
this republic. The signers of the Declaration of
Independence were brave men. They were great men, too-great
enough to give frame to a great age. It does not often
happen to a nation to raise, at one time, such a number of truly
great men. The point from which I am compelled to
view them is not, certainly, the most favorable; and yet I cannot
contemplate their great deeds with less than
admiration. They were statesmen, patriots and heroes, and for
the good they did, and the principles they contended
for, I will unite with you to honor their memory....
...Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called
upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I
represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great
principles of political freedom and of natural justice,
embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us?
and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble
offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and
express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from
your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative
answer could be truthfully returned to these
questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy
and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's
sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the
claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully
acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish,
that would not give his voice to swell the
hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude
had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a
case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame
man leap as an hart."
But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of
the disparity between us. I am not included within
the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only
reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The
blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in
common.-The rich inheritance of justice, liberty,
prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is
shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought
light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me.
This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I
must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated
temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in

joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony.
Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to
speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let
me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example
of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown
down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that
nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive
lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people!
"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down. Yea! we wept
when we remembered Zion. We hanged our harps upon
the willows in the midst thereof. For there, they that carried us
away captive, required of us a song; and they who
wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs
of Zion. How can we sing the Lord's song in a
strange land? If I forget thee, 0 Jerusalem, let my right hand
forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my
tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth."
Fellow-citizens, above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the
mournful wail of millions! whose chains, heavy and
grievous yesterday, are, to-day, rendered more intolerable by
the jubilee shouts that reach them. If I do forget, if I do
not faithfully remember those bleeding children of sorrow this
day, "may my right hand forget her cunning, and may
my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth!" To forget them, to

pass lightly over their wrongs, and to chime in with
the popular theme, would be treason most scandalous and
shocking, and would make me a reproach before God and
the world. My subject, then, fellow-citizens, is American
slavery. I shall see this day and its popular characteristics
from the slave's point of view. Standing there identified with
the American bondman, making his wrongs mine, I do
not hesitate to declare, with all my soul, that the character and
conduct of this nation never looked blacker to me
than on this 4th of July! Whether we turn to the declarations of
the past, or to the professions of the present, the
conduct of the nation seems equally hideous and revolting.
America.is false to the past, false to the present, and
solemnly binds herself to be false to the future. Standing with
God and the crushed and bleeding slave on this
occasion, I will, in the name of humanity which is outraged, in
the name of liberty which is fettered, in the name of
the constitution and the Bible which are disregarded and
trampled upon, dare to call in question and to denounce,
with all the emphasis I can command, everything that serves to
perpetuate slavery Ñ the great sin and shame of
America! "I will not equivocate; I will not excuse"; I will use
the severest language I can command; and yet not one
word shall escape me that any man, whose judgment is not

blinded by prejudice, or who is not at heart a slaveholder,
shall not confess to be right and just.
But I fancy I hear some one of my audience say, "It is just in
this circumstance that you and your brother
abolitionists fail to make a favorable impression on the public
mind. Would you argue more, an denounce less;
would you persuade more, and rebuke less; your cause would be
much more likely to succeed." But, I submit, where
all is plain there is nothing to be argued. What point in the anti-
slavery creed would you have me argue? On what
branch of the subject do the people of this country need light?
Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?
That point is conceded already. Nobody doubts it. The
slaveholders themselves acknowledge it in the enactment of
laws for their government. They acknowledge it when they
punish disobedience on the part of the slave. There are
seventy-two crimes in the State of Virginia which, if committed
by a black man (no matter how ignorant he be),
subject him to the punishment of death; while only two of the
same crimes will subject a white man to the like
punishment. What is this but the acknowledgment that the slave
is a moral, intellectual, and responsible being? The
manhood of the slave is conceded. It is admitted in the fact that
Southern statute books are covered with enactments

forbidding, under severe fines and penalties, the teaching of the
slave to read or to write. When you can point to any
such laws in reference to the beasts of the field, then I may
consent to argue the manhood of the slave. When the
dogs in your streets, when the fowls of the air, when the cattle
on your hills, when the fish of the sea, and the reptiles
that crawl, shall be unable to distinguish the slave from a brute,
then will I argue with you that the slave is a man!
For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the
Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are
ploughing, planting, and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical
tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building
ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold;
that, while we are reading, writing and ciphering,
acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us
lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors,
orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner
of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in
California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and
cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting,
thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and
children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping

the Christian's God, and looking hopefully for life and
immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove
that we are men!
Would you have me argue that man is entitled to liberty? that he
is the rightful owner of his own body? You have
already declared it. Must I argue the wrongfulness of slavery? Is
that a question for Republicans? Is it to be settled
by the rules of logic and argumentation, as a matter beset with
great difficulty, involving a doubtful application of
the principle of justice, hard to be understood? How should I
look to-day, in the presence of Americans, dividing,
and subdividing a discourse, to show that men have a natural
right to freedom? speaking of it relatively and
positively, negatively and affirmatively. To do so, would be to
make myself ridiculous, and to offer an insult to your
understanding. There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven
that does not know that slavery is wrong for him.
What, am I to argue that it is wrong to make men brutes, to rob
them of their liberty, to work them without wages, to
keep them ignorant of their relations to their fellow men, to beat
them with sticks, to flay their flesh with the lash, to
load their limbs with irons, to hunt them with dogs, to sell them
at auction, to sunder their families, to knock out
their teeth, to burn their flesh, to starve them into obedience

and submission to their masters? Must I argue that a
system thus marked with blood, and stained with pollution, is
wrong? No! I will not. I have better employment for
my time and strength than such arguments would imply.
What, then, remains to be argued? Is it that slavery is not
divine; that God did not establish it; that our doctors of
divinity are mistaken? There is blasphemy in the thought. That
which is inhuman, cannot be divine! Who can reason
on such a proposition? They that can, may; I cannot. The time
for such argument is passed.
At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is
needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the
nation's ear, I would, to-day, pour out a fiery stream of biting
ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and
stern rebuke. For it is not light that is needed, but fire; it is not
the gentle shower, but thunder. We need the storm,
the whirlwind, and the earthquake. The feeling of the nation
must be quickened; the conscience of the nation must
be roused; the propriety of the nation must be startled; the
hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed; and its crimes
against God and man must be proclaimed and denounced.
What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer; a
day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the

year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant
victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your
boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness,
swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and
heartless; your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted
impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow
mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and
thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity,
are, to Him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and
hypocrisy -- a thin veil to cover up crimes which would
disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth
guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are
the people of the United States, at this very hour.
Go where you may, search where you will, roam through all the
monarchies and despotisms of the Old World, travel
through South America, search out every abuse, and when you
have found the last, lay your facts by the side of the
everyday practices of this nation, and you will say with me,
that, for revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy,
America reigns without a rival....
...Allow me to say, in conclusion, notwithstanding the dark
picture I have this day presented, of the state of the
nation, I do not despair of this country. There are forces in
operation which must inevitably work the downfall of

slavery.
"The arm of the Lord is not shortened," and the doom of slavery
is certain. I, therefore, leave off where I began, with
hope. While drawing encouragement from "the Declaration of
Independence," the great principles it contains, and
the genius of American Institutions, my spirit is also cheered by
the obvious tendencies of the age. Nations do not
now stand in the same relation to each other that they did ages
ago. No nation can now shut itself up from the
surrounding world and trot round in the same old path of its
fathers without interference. The time was when such
could be done. Long established customs of hurtful character
could formerly fence themselves in, and do their evil
work with social impunity. Knowledge was then confined and
enjoyed by the privileged few, and the multitude
walked on in mental darkness. But a change has now come over
the affairs of mankind. Walled cities and empires
have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne
away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is
penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its
pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth.
Wind, steam, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no
longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston

to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively
annihilated. - Thoughts expressed on one side of the
Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other….
Document 7: “On the Irrepressible Conflict” (1858)
A leading voice of the early Republican Party, New York
Senator William Henry Seward
delivered the following speech in Rochester, New York on
October 25, 1858. Seward would
later serve as Secretary of State under Presidents Abraham
Lincoln and Andrew Johnson.
. . . .The main subject, then, is whether the Democratic party
deserves to retain the confidence of the American
people. In attempting to prove it unworthy, I think that I am not
actuated by prejudices against that party, or by
prepossessions in favor of its adversary; for I have learned, by
some experience, that virtue and patriotism, vice and
selfishness, are found in all parties, and that they differ less in
their motives than in the policies they pursue.
Our country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two
radically different political systems; the one resting on

the basis of servile or slave labor, the other on voluntary labor
of freemen. The laborers who are enslaved are all
negroes, or persons more or less purely of African derivation.
But this is only accidental. The principle of the system
is, that labor in every society, by whomsoever performed, is
necessarily unintellectual, grovelling and base; and that
the laborer, equally for his own good and for the welfare of the
State, ought to be enslaved. The white laboring man,
whether native or foreigner, is not enslaved, only because he
cannot, as yet, be reduced to bondage.
You need not be told now that the slave system is the older of
the two, and that once it was universal. The
emancipation of our own ancestors, Caucasians and Europeans
as they were, hardly dates beyond a period of five
hundred years. The great melioration of human society which
modern times exhibits is mainly due to the incomplete
substitution of the system of voluntary labor for the one of
servile labor, which has already taken place. This African
slave system is one which, in its origin and in its growth, has
been altogether foreign from the habits of the races
which colonized these States, and established civilization here.
It was introduced on this continent as an engine of
conquest, and for the establishment of monarchical power, by
the Portuguese and the Spaniards, and was rapidly

extended by them all over South America, Central America,
Louisiana, and Mexico. Its legitimate fruits are seen in
the poverty, imbecility, and anarchy which now pervade all
Portuguese and Spanish America. The free-labor system
is of German extraction, and it was established in our country
by emigrants from Sweden, Holland, Germany, Great
Britain, and Ireland. We justly ascribe to its influences the
strength, wealth, greatness, intelligence, and freedom,
which the whole American people now enjoy. One of the chief
elements of the value of human life is freedom in the
pursuit of happiness. The slave system is not only intolerable,
unjust, and inhuman, toward the laborer, whom, only
because he is a laborer, it loads down with chains and converts
into merchandise, but is scarcely less severe upon the
freeman, to whom, only because he is a laborer from necessity,
it denies facilities for employment, and whom it
expels from the community because it cannot enslave and
convert into merchandise also. It is necessarily
improvident and ruinous, because, as a general truth,
communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just
the degree that they practise or neglect to practise the primary
duties of justice and humanity. The free-labor system
conforms to the divine law of equality, which is written in the
hearts and consciences of man, and therefore is

always and everywhere beneficent.
The slave system is one of constant danger, distrust, suspicion,
and watchfulness. It debases those whose toil alone
can produce wealth and resources for defence, to the lowest
degree of which human nature is capable, to guard
against mutiny and insurrection, and thus wastes energies which
otherwise might be employed in national
development and aggrandizement. The free-labor system
educates all alike, and by opening all the fields of
industrial employment and all the departments of authority, to
the unchecked and equal rivalry of all classes of men,
at once secures universal contentment, and brings into the
highest possible activity all the physical, moral, and social
energies of the whole state. In states where the slave system
prevails, the masters, directly or indirectly, secure all
political power, and constitute a ruling aristocracy. In states
where the free-labor system prevails, universal suffrage
necessarily obtains, and the state inevitably becomes, sooner or
later, a republic or democracy.
. . . . Hitherto, the two systems have existed in different States,
but side by side within the American Union. This has
happened because the Union is a confederation of States. But in
another aspect the United States constitute only one
nation. Increase of population, which is filling the States out to

their very borders, together with a new and extended
network of railroads and other avenues,, and an internal
commerce which daily becomes more intimate, is rapidly
bringing the States into a higher and more perfect social unity
or consolidation. Thus, these antagonistic systems are
continually coming into closer contact, and collision results.
Shall I tell you what this collision means? They who think that
it is accidental, unnecessary, the work of interested
or fanatical agitators, and therefor ephemeral, mistake the case
altogether. It is an irrepressible conflict between
opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United
States must and will, sooner or later, become either
entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation. . .
. It is the failure to apprehend this great truth that
induces so many unsuccessful attempts at final compromises
between the slave and free States, and it is the
existence of this great fact that renders all such pretended
compromises, when made, vain and ephemeral. Startling
as this saying may appear to you, fellow-citizens, it is by no
means an original or even a modern one. Our
forefathers knew it to be true, and unanimously acted upon it
when they framed the constitution of the United States.

They regarded the existence of the servile system in so many of
the States with sorrow and shame, which they
openly confessed, and they looked upon the collision between
them, which was then just revealing itself, and which
we are now accustomed to deplore, with favor and hope. They
knew that one or the other system must exclusively
prevail.
Unlike too many of those who in modem time invoke their
authority, they had a choice between the two. They
preferred the system of free labor, and they determined to
organize the government, and so direct its activity, that
that system should surely and certainly prevail. For this
purpose, and no other, they based the whole structure of the
government broadly on the principle that all men are created
equal, and therefore free - little dreaming that, within
the short period of one hundred years, their descendants would
bear to be told by any orator, however popular, that
the utterance of that principle was merely a rhetorical rhapsody;
or by any judge, however venerated, that it was
attended by mental reservation, which rendered it hypocritical
and false. By the ordinance of 1787 they dedicated all
of the national domain not yet polluted by slavery to free labor
immediately, thenceforth and forever; while by the
new constitution and laws they invited foreign free labor from

all lands under the sun, and interdicted the
importation of African slave labor, at all times, in all places,
and under all circumstances whatsoever. It is true that
they necessarily and wisely modified this policy of freedom by
leaving it to the several States, affected as they were
by different circumstances, to abolish slavery in their own way
and at their own pleasure, instead of confiding that
duty to Congress; and that they secured to the slave States,
while yet retaining the system of slavery, a three-fifths
representation of slaves in the federal government, until they
should find themselves able to relinquish it with safety.
But the very nature of these modifications fortifies my position,
that the fathers knew that the two systems could not
endure within the Union, and expected within a short period
slavery would disappear forever. Moreover, in order
that these modifications might not altogether defeat their grand
design of a republic maintaining universal equality,
they provided that two thirds of the States might amend the
constitution. . . .
It is not to be denied, however, that thus far the course of that
contest has not been according to their humane
anticipations and wishes. In the field of federal politics,
slavery, deriving unlooked-for advantages from commercial
changes, and energies unforeseen from the facilities of

combination between members of the slaveholding class and
between that class and other property classes, early rallied, and
has at length made a stand, not merely to retain its
original defensive position, but to extend its sway throughout
the whole Union. It is certain that the slaveholding
class of American citizens indulge this high ambition, and that
they derive encouragement for it from the rapid and
effective political successes which they have already obtained.
The plan of operation is this: By continued
appliances of patronage and threats of disunion, they will keep a
majority favorable to these designs in the Senate,
where each State has an equal representation. Through that
majority they will defeat, as they best can, the admission
of free States and secure the admission of slave States. Under
the protection of the judiciary, they will, on the
principle of the Dred Scott case, carry slavery into all the
territories of the United States now existing and hereafter
to be organized. By the action of the President and Senate,
using the treaty-making power, they will annex foreign
slaveholding States. In a favorable conjuncture they will induce
Congress to repeal the act of 1808 which prohibits
the foreign slave trade, and so they will import from Africa, at a
cost of only twenty dollars a head, slaves enough to
fill up the interior of the continent. Thus relatively increasing

the number of slave States, they will allow no
amendment to the constitution prejudicial to their interest; and
so, having permanently established their power, they
expect the federal judiciary to nullify all State laws which shall
interfere with internal or foreign commerce in
slaves. When the free States shall be sufficiently demoralized to
tolerate these designs, they reasonably conclude
that slavery will be accepted by those States themselves. I shall
not stop to show how speedy or how complete
would be the ruin which the accomplishment of these
slaveholding schemes would bring upon the country. For one,
I should not remain in the country to test the sad experiment.
Having spent my manhood, though not my whole life,
in a free State, no aristocracy of any kind, much less an
aristocracy of slaveholders, shall ever make the laws of the
land in which I shall be content to live. Having seen the society
around me universally engaged in agriculture,
manufactures, and trade, which were innocent and beneficent, I
shall never be a denizen of a State where men and
women are reared as cattle, and bought and sold as merchandise.
When that evil day shall come, and all further
effort at resistance shall be impossible, then, if there shall be no
better hope for redemption than I can now foresee, I
shall say with Franklin, while looking abroad over the whole

earth for a new and more congenial home, "Where
liberty dwells, there is my country." You will tell me that these
fears are extravagant and chimerical. I answer, they
are so; but they are so only because the designs of the
slaveholders must and can be defeated. But it is only the
possibility of defeat that renders them so. They cannot be
defeated by inactivity. There is no escape from them
compatible with non-resistance. How, then, and in what way,
shall the necessary resistance be made,? There is only
one way. The Democratic party must be permanently dislodged
from the government. The reason is, that the
Democratic party is inextricably committed to the designs of the
slaveholders, which I have described. Let me be
well understood. I do not charge that the Democratic candidates
for public office now before the people are pledged
to-much less that the Democratic masses who support them
really adopt-those atrocious and dangerous designs.
Candidates may, and generally do, mean to act justly, wisely,
and patriotically, when they shall be elected; but they
become the ministers and servants, not the dictators, of the
power which elects them. The policy which a party shall
pursue at a future period is only gradually developed, depending
on the occurrence of events never fully foreknown.

The motives of men, whether acting as electors or in any other
capacity, are generally pure. Nevertheless, it is not
more true that " hell is paved with good intentions," than it is
that earth is covered with wrecks resulting from
innocent and amiable motives.
The very constitution of the Democratic party commits it to
execute all the designs of the slaveholders, whatever
they may be. It is not a party of the whole Union, of all the free
States and of all the slave States; nor yet is it a party
of the free States in the North and in the Northwest; but it is a
sectional and local party, having practically its seat
within the slave States, and counting its constituency chiefly
and almost exclusively there. Of all its representatives
in Congress and in the electoral colleges, two-thirds uniformly
come from these States. Its great element of strength
lies in the vote of the slaveholders, augmented by the
representation of three-fifths of the slaves. Deprive the
Democratic party of this strength, and it would be a helpless
and hopeless minority, incapable of continued
organization. The Democratic party, being thus local and
sectional, acquires new strength from the admission of
ever new slave State, and loses relatively by the admission of
every new free State into the Union.

A party is, in one sense, a joint stock association, in which
those who contribute most direct the action and
management of the concern. The slaveholders contributing in an
overwhelming proportion to the capital strength of
the Democratic party, they necessarily dictate and prescribe its
policy. The inevitable caucus system enables them to
do so with a show of fairness and justice. If it were possible to
conceive for a moment that the Democratic party
should disobey the behests of the slaveholders, we should then
see a withdrawal of the slaveholders, which would
leave the party to perish. The portion of the party which is
found in the free States is a mere appendage, convenient
to modify its sectional character, without impairing its sectional
constitution, and is less effective in regulating its
movements than the nebulous tail of the corset is in determining
the appointed, though apparently eccentric, course
of the fiery sphere from which it emanates.
. . . . The history of the Democratic party commits it to the
policy of slavery. It has been the Democratic party, and
no other agency, which has carried that policy up to its present
alarming culmination. Without stopping to ascertain,
critically, the origin of the present Democratic party, we may
concede its claim to date from the era of good feeling
which occurred under the administration of President Monroe.

At that time, in this State, and about that time in
many others of the free States, the Democratic party
deliberately disfranchised the free colored or African citizen,
and it has pertinaciously continued this disfranchisement ever
since. This was an effective aid to slavery; for, while
the slaveholder votes for his slaves against freedom, the freed
slave in the free States is prohibited from voting
against slavery. In 1824 the democracy resisted the election of
John Quincy Adams-himself before that time an
acceptable Democrat and in 1828 it expelled him from the
presidency and put a slaveholder in his place, although
the office had been filled by slaveholders thirty-two out of forty
years.
. . . . Such is the Democratic party. It has no policy, state or
federal, for finance, or trade, or manufacture, or
commerce, or education, or internal improvements, or for the
protection or even the security of civil or religious
liberty. It is positive and uncompromising in the interest of
slavery-negative, compromising, and vacillating, in
regard to everything else. It boasts its love of equality, and
wastes its strength, and even its life, in fortifying the only
aristocracy known in the land. It professes fraternity, and, so
often as slavery requires, allies itself with proscription.
It magnifies itself for conquests in foreign lands, but it sends

the national eagle forth always with chains, and not the
olive branch, in his fangs.
This dark record shows you, fellow-citizens, what I was
unwilling to announce at an earlier stage of this argument,
that of the whole nefarious schedule of slaveholding designs
which I have submitted to you, the Democratic party
has left only one yet to be consummated-the abrogation of the
law which forbids the African slave-trade.
I know-few, I think, know better than I-the resources and
energies of the Democratic party, which is identical with
the slave power. I do ample justice to its traditional popularity.
I know further-few, I think, know better than I-the
difficulties and disadvantages of organizing a new political
force, like the Republican party, and the obstacles it
must encounter in laboring without prestige and without
patronage. But, understanding all this, I know that the
Democratic party must go down, and that the Republican party
must rise into its place. The Democratic party
derived its strength, originally, from its adoption of the
principles of equal and exact justice to all men. So long as it
practised this principle faithfully it was invulnerable. It became
vulnerable when it renounced the principle, and
since that time it has maintained itself, not by virtue of its own
strength, or even of its traditional merits, but because

there as yet had appeared in the political field no other party
that had the conscience and the courage to take up, and
avow, and practise the life-inspiring principle which the
Democratic party had surrendered. At last, the Republican
party has appeared. It avows, now, as the Republican party of
1800 did, in one word, its faith and its works, " Equal
and exact justice to all men." Even when it first entered the
field, only half organized, it struck a blow which only
just failed to secure complete and triumphant victory. In this, its
second campaign, it has already won advantages
which render that triumph now both easy and certain.
The secret of its assured success lies in that very characteristic
which, in the mouth of scoffers, constitutes its great
and lasting imbecility and reproach. It lies in the fact that it is a
party of one idea; but that is a noble one-an idea that
fills and expands all generous souls; the idea of equality-the
equality of all men before human tribunals and human
laws, as they all are equal before the divine tribunal and divine
laws.
I know, and you know, that a revolution has begun. I know, and
all the world knows, that revolutions never go
backward. Twenty, senators and a hundred representatives

proclaim boldly in Congress to-day sentiments and
opinions and principles of freedom which hardly so many men,
even in this free State, dared to utter in their own
homes twenty years ago. While the government of the United
States, under the conduct of the Democratic party, has
been all that time surrendering one plain and castle after
another to slavery, the people of the United States have
been no less steadily and perseveringly gathering together the
forces with which to recover back again all the fields
and all the castles which have been lost, and to confound and
overthrow, by one decisive blow, the betrayers of the
constitution and freedom forever.
Document 8: “Cornerstone Speech” (1861)
Shortly after being elected as Vice President of the Confederate
States of America or
Confederacy, Alexander Hamilton Stephens returned to his
home state of Georgia where
he delivered what became known as the “Cornerstone Speech”
in Savannah, Georgia on
March 21, 1861.
Savannah, Georgia, as reported in the Savannah Republican

At half past seven o’clock on Thursday evening, the largest
audience ever assembled at the Athenaeum was in the
house, waiting most impatiently for the appearance of the orator
of the evening, Hon. A. H. Stephens, Vice-
President of the Confederate States of America. …
MR. STEPHENS rose and spoke as follows: …
… We are passing through one of the greatest revolutions in the
annals of the world. Seven States have within the
last three months thrown off an old government and formed a
new. This revolution has been signally marked, up to
this time, by the fact of its having been accomplished without
the loss of a single drop of blood. [Applause.]
This new constitution, or form of government, constitutes the
subject to which your attention will be partly invited.
In reference to it, I make this first general remark. It amply
secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties.
All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No
citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by
the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great
principle of religious liberty, which was the honor
and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and
secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which
have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have

been preserved and perpetuated. … So, taking the whole
new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my
judgment that it is decidedly better than the old. [Applause.]
.…But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes
for the better, allow me to allude to one other —
though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest,
forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar
institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the
proper status of the negro in our form of civilization.
This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present
revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He
was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a
realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth
upon which that rock stood and stands, may be
doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of
the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of
the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African
was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was
wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an
evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the
general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or
other in the order of Providence, the institution would
be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not

incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that
time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential
guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence
no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional
guarantees thus secured, because of the common
sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally
wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the
equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation,
and the government built upon it fell when the
“storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea;
its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon
the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that
slavery — subordination to the superior race — is
his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new
government, is the first, in the history of the world,
based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
This truth has been slow in the process of its
development, like all other truths in the various departments of
science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who
hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not
generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of
the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years
ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors,

with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All
fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind
— from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of
the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many
instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or
erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics; their
conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that
the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is
entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If
their premises were correct, their conclusions would be
logical and just — but their premise being wrong, their whole
argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a
gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and
ability, announce in the House of Representatives,
with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled,
ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that
it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in
politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the
principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining
slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a
principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the
equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon

his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he
and his associates, in this crusade against our
institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it
was as impossible to war successfully against a
principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I
admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with
him, who were warring against a principle. They were
attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made
unequal.
In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete
throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate
States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is
firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the
ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle
throughout the civilized and enlightened world.
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in
development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the
various branches of science. It was so with the principles
announced by Galileo — it was so with Adam Smith and
his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and
his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated
that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the
time of the announcement of the truths made by him,
admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May

we not, therefore, look with confidence to the
ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our
system rests? It is the first government ever
instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and
the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the
materials of human society. Many governments have been
founded upon the principle of the subordination and
serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are
in violation of the laws of nature. Our system
commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the
white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are
equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro.
Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse
against
Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our
system. The architect, in the construction of buildings,
lays the foundation with the proper material — the granite; then
comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of
our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by
experience we know that it is best, not only for the
superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is,
indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator.
It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of his ordinances, or
to question them. For his own purposes, he has made

one race to differ from another, as he has made “one star to
differ from another star in glory.”
The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is
conformity to his laws and decrees, in the formation of
governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is
founded upon principles in strict conformity with these
laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is
become the chief of the corner” — the real “corner-
stone” — in our new edifice. [Applause.]
I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended
by some that we would have arrayed against us the
civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be
against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of
truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we
contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
[Immense applause.]
Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are
not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see
them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the
civilization and christianization of the barbarous tribes of
Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but
by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that
“in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread,” [applause,]
and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe

themselves. …
But to return to the question of the future. What is to be the
result of this revolution? …
Our growth, by accessions from other States, will depend
greatly upon whether we present to the world, as I trust we
shall, a better government than that to which neighboring States
belong. If we do this, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Arkansas cannot hesitate long; neither can Virginia,
Kentucky, and Missouri. They will necessarily gravitate to
us by an imperious law. We made ample provision in our
constitution for the admission of other States; it is more
guarded, and wisely so, I think, than the old constitution on the
same subject, but not too guarded to receive them as
fast as it may be proper. Looking to the distant future, and,
perhaps, not very far distant either, it is not beyond the
range of possibility, and even probability, that all the great
States of the north-west will gravitate this way, as well as
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, etc. Should they do
so, our doors are wide enough to receive them, but
not until they are ready to assimilate with us in principle.
The process of disintegration in the old Union may be expected
to go on with almost absolute certainty if we pursue

the right course. We are now the nucleus of a growing power
which, if we are true to ourselves, our destiny, and
high mission, will become the controlling power on this
continent. To what extent accessions will go on in the
process of time, or where it will end, the future will determine.
So far as it concerns States of the old Union, this
process will be upon no such principles of reconstruction as
now spoken of, but upon reorganization and new
assimilation. [Loud applause.] Such are some of the glimpses of
the future as I catch them. …
As to whether we shall have war with our late confederates, or
whether all matters of differences between us shall be
amicably settled, I can only say that the prospect for a peaceful
adjustment is better, so far as I am informed, than it
has been.
The prospect of war is, at least, not so threatening as it has
been. The idea of coercion, shadowed forth in President
Lincoln’s inaugural, seems not to be followed up thus far so
vigorously as was expected. Fort Sumter, it is believed,
will soon be evacuated. What course will be pursued toward
Fort Pickens, and the other forts on the gulf, is not so
well understood. It is to be greatly desired that all of them
should be surrendered. Our object is peace, not only with

the North, but with the world. All matters relating to the public
property, public liabilities of the Union when we
were members of it, we are ready and willing to adjust and
settle upon the principles of right, equity, and good faith.
War can be of no more benefit to the North than to us. Whether
the intention of evacuating Fort Sumter is to be
received as an evidence of a desire for a peaceful solution of
our difficulties with the United States, or the result of
necessity, I will not undertake to say. I would fain hope the
former. Rumors are afloat, however, that it is the result
of necessity. All I can say to you, therefore, on that point is,
keep your armor bright and your powder dry. …
Document 9: Gettysburg Address (1863)
On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln consecrated
the battlefield at
Gettysburg with arguably one of the greatest (and shortest)
speeches in American History.
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, on this
continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now
we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether
that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can

long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that
war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final
resting-place for those who here gave their lives,
that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper
that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this
ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled
here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or
detract. The world will little note, nor long remember
what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It
is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so
nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated
to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored
dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
which they here gave the last full measure of devotion—that we
here highly resolve that these dead shall not have
died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth
of freedom, and that government of the people, by
the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

The path to the American Civil War was long and arduous. The
“peculiar institution” known as
slavery was present at the creation of the republic and steeped
into the very fabric of the
Constitution through the Three Fifths Clause. This intimacy
translated into every question about
slavery’s role and future in this country into discussions and
quarrels over the fundamental
nature of our government and the meanings of liberty and
democracy. These documents trace the
philosophical trails of political, economic, social, and cultural
sectionalism that ultimately
erupted into full scale civil war.
Based upon your reading of these selected primary documents
and incorporating such
secondary sources as your textbook and notes, I would like you
to answer the following 5
Questions. Please provide specific examples from these

documents that support your
arguments.
1) Under what grounds does Daniel Webster (Document #1)
oppose the ability of a state to
nullify federal laws, also known as the Doctrine of
Nullification? What justifications does South
Carolina (Document #2) employ to defend their decision to
nullify federal laws? In comparing
these two primary documents, whose arguments regarding the
concept of nullification are most
persuasive to you and why?
2) In examining the 1851 political cartoon (Document #3), how
are Southerners arguing against
Northern protests of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act? To what
extent does this image relate to the
issues raised regarding nullification in Documents #1 and #2?
How does the 1856 political
cartoon (Document #4) relate to the issues arising from the
Kansas-Nebraska Act? To what
extent did slavery complicate the process and politics of
westward expansion in the 1840s and
1850s?

3) How did the Dred Scott Decision (Document #5) support the
doctrine of nullification and
limit the ability of the federal government to restrict the
expansion of slavery? What position did
this Supreme Court decision assign people of African descent in
the United States of America?
What inconsistencies does Frederick Douglass (Document #6)
identify with the founding
principles of the nation and the current status of people of
African descent within it? In what
ways does the Dred Scott Decision confirm and/or challenge
Douglass’ arguments?
4) What is the “irrepressible conflict” according to William H.
Seward (Document #7) and how
does he specifically define the two sides involved? How does
Alexander Stephens (Document
#8) define the Confederacy and why does he believe secession
is justified and necessary? How
does President Lincoln (Document #9) frame the Civil War and
effort to restore the Union as a
moral imperative?

5) In thinking about these primary documents and what you
have learned in your course, should
states have the power to nullify federal laws if they disagree
with them? Why or why not? As
part of your response, provide a specific case or issue (political,
economic, social, or cultural)
within the United States from the end of the Civil War until the
present day where you could
imagine a scenario in which nullification could play out and
reflect upon both the positive and
negative consequences of such action.

Daniel Webster Defends Supremacy of Union and Constitution in 1830 Speech

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Daniel Webster Defends Supremacy of Union and Constitution in 1830 Speech

Similar to Daniel Webster Defends Supremacy of Union and Constitution in 1830 Speech (12)

More from audeleypearl

More from audeleypearl (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Daniel Webster Defends Supremacy of Union and Constitution in 1830 Speech