Report on James C. Allen Speech

Report of J.C. Allen's Speech.

He commenced by saying that

having been chosen as the standard bearer

of his party for the Chief Executive Office

in the State, he proposed from time to time to

discufs the political questions of the day before the

people of Illinois. He did not intend, however,

on this occasion to speak in relation to our State

affairs, but simply contented himself with say

ing, that, if called to preside over the people

of Ills. he should endeavor to act, as he had

always done in all his public functions, so

as to [subserve?] the interests of the state.

He next proceeded to say that he would

discufs some of the great questions that agita

ted the people of the country. "The scenes pass

ing around us are of no ordinary character

and no common occurrence. They have a

deep and abiding interest." Heretofore, he

said, there had been a lack of interest on

the part of the people in public questions,

but it is not so now. "A spirit of inquiry

was abroad in the land" of the most

marked and unusual character.

"The question of the Union and its perpetuation

is commanding, & ought to command the

serious attention of every citizen and patriot." It is

different in this country from what it is in other

countries: there the power generally rests in the

hands of a King, here it rests upon the

shoulders of all the people alike. "The ques

tion of slavery is the controlling question of the

day, the one which overrides all other questions,

and upon the settlement of which the exis

tence of the Union depends." "Permit me

here, however, to say that I am no slavery

propagandist. I repeat that I am no

slavery propagandist. The fact that I

have preferred to settle in a Free State,

is evidence that I prefer a Free State to a

Slave State. But I do not believe that be

cause I am a citizen of a Free State with

such feelings I have a right to inter

meddle in the local affairs and

institutions of Sister States. I have no bus

inefs to meddle with the affairs of my neigh

bors. The Doctrine of Non Intervention is the

great doctrine of the Constitution" and the

Union can only be maintained and peace

preserved by adhering to that doctrine.

Our Republican friends pretend to follow

the doctrines of Madison, Jefferson and

others of the earlier & more peaceful times

of the Republic. "Now that is not so. I

deny that from the adoption of the Constitution

down to 1819 & 1820 there was any intervention

of Congress either to prohibit to establish

slavery in the Territories of the United States,

I repeat the assertion, and I defy successful

contradiction of that proposition." Our Re

publican friends reply that Congrefs did intervene

in the matter, because it accepted the grant

of the North Western Territory from Virginia with

a clause in the deed of cession excluding

slavery from that Territory. Now the answer to

that assertion is plain and easy. When that

grant was made by Virginia, it was before

the present Constitution was framed, and

under the old Congrefs of the Confederation

and therefore proves nothing at all.

But the Republicans say that Congrefs after the

adoption of our present Constitution ratified

that ordinance of 1787 which had ex

cluded slavery. Now that is not so. (A

voice calls out for proof &c) "I was saying

that when the Republicans claim that the

ordinance of 1787 was ratified by the Govern

ment of the United States, it was not borne

out by the record of history. The act to which

they refer, does not bear any such con

struction, does not sustain their assertions

and cannot be so construed by any rational

man." Again the Republicans claim

that they stand with Jefferson upon the

question of slavery in the Territories. "They claim

that the Federal Government has the con

stitutional power, and ought to exercise it,

to prohibit slavery in the Territories. Now I

admit that Jefferson was opposed to the insti

tuition of slavery, and that many of the other

good and great men of the past (i.e. of

Jefferson's time) were also opponents of the

Institution of slavery. So are thousands of others

good & great men of the present time: but

that is a very different thing from op

posing the Constitution of the United States!

Jefferson their apostle, tells us that the pas

sage of the Missouri Compromise (the first inter

vention of Congrefs with slavery) came upon him

the sound of a Fire Bell in the night & that

it tended to produce sectional parties

sectional jealousy, sectional discords.

That is in the 7th Vol. of Jefferson's [illegible]

Yet Republicans say (grand flourish of trum

pets, wagging & shaking of his head) that

they stand upon the same ground with

Jefferson & Madison. In 1819 & 1820,

Congrefs did Intervene in the question of

slavery in the Territories by the passage of

the Missouri Compromise. Previous to that

time, the North & South had got along

harmoniously and on terms of peace & good

will with each other. Since then we

have had agitation and sectional strife.

The earlier times of the [Country?] had been

marked by peace & harmony. Afterwards we

had agitation, and such men as

Giddings & Lovejoy. As we have had

no peace & harmony between the North

& the South since the old policy was

changed (i.e. Non Intervention) so we shall

have none until the that policy is

returned to & restored.

In 1850 the old policy was reestablished

by the efforts of patriotic Whigs and Dem

ocrats, of a Clay, a Webster and

a [name?] &c. Then the abolitionists of

the North were put down "and the

Seccefsionists of the South, who opposed

these Compromise Measures, were over

whelmingly defeated." ([illegible]

Johnson particularly by Howell Cobb)

But the Republicans say the occupy the [active?] posi

tion of Henry Clay upon the slavery question.

Now no man who has sense enough to

know what Clay's opinions were upon

that question will say so. Clay denounced

the Wilmot Proviso, its authors and those

who advocated it. He opposed any

such policy of Intervention with slavery ei

ther North or South of any line, & declared

that it ought to be left to the people

of each [illegible] to be settled ac

cording to their interests & feelings &

according to the dictates of experience.

This was in 1850. That was the position of

Clay and it was the position of the Whig

Party in 1850. It is true that Clay said

that slavery did not exist

in Utah or New Mexico, and could not

exist there without municipal law to

protect it. I doubt not that Clay was

opposed to the institution of slavery, that

I believe is generally admitted, but he did

not advocate Congressional Intervention against

slavery (illegible] Clay on Mexican laws, Missouri

Compromise, tribute to Ord of 1787 & Bill to abolish

slave trade in Dist. Col. in 1850)

Allen next quotes Fillmore and his Albany

speech in 1856 to show that Fillmore then

regarded the Reps as an aggressive, sectional

party & to be condemned by all good

citizens. His position not right.

Is there any thing, he asks, in the conduct

of the Republican Party during the past 4 years,

to cause Fillmore men to change their

position & attitude toward the Republican

Party? To cause them to join this

Sectional Party of the North? The Reps

talk about preserving the Union, and in

their Platform at Chicago say the Union

must & shall be preserved (Allen speaks

of this with derision). They also declare for

a Protective Tariff for the sick Ironmongers

of Pennsylvania & for the Wool [Growers?]

of the West. They try thus to catch men

of all opinions, interests & sentiments.

About Jefferson again - Allen returns to

him in no logical order or connection, &

says that "Jefferson advocated the dis

[illegible] of slavery over a large Territory,

because it tended in his opinion to amelior

ate & extinguish the Institution. But the

Reps say, as Senator Wilson says they want to

restrict slavery, on order that they may

"smother it out". The Reps want Republican

Congressmen to pass laws for the Territories, but

the people can much better regulate

their affairs for themselves. Yet Reps

deny this position. Still they know Congrefs

permits the Territories to pafs laws about

larceny, robbery, & other crimes, about

the relation of husband & wife, guardian

& Ward, & they don't object to it. But

they contend that the people of the same

Territories are not fit to determine

what relations shall subsist between

a white & a nigger"! (Big point and

crazy applause among the "Bare Foots")

But the Reps say slavery is aggressive and

must be checked. Yet when the Union

was formed there were 12 Slave States and

only one Free State. Why did not the 12

Slave States "crush out" the single Free

State? Now we have 18 Free States & but

15 Slave States. Does that look oppres

sive? Most of our emigration goes to the

Territories from the North & will do so.

"My competitor, Yates, a good fellow by the way,

I am glad to say, but I believe not much of

a Politician, charges that the South tried

to force slavery upon Kansas through Atchinson

& the Blue Lodges of Mo! but the fact is

that anti Slavery men from the North went

there with Sharpe's Rifles to drive Pro

slavery men out & Fire Eaters from the

South with Revolvers to drive the

Abolitionists out. "And Lincoln

who had no word of praise for

our gallant soldiers in Mexico, and who de

nounced the Mexican War in which

they fought as unjust & unconstitutional

and all our brave soldiers as mur

ders by implication (exact words) could

subscribe $50 to help "Jim Lane" drive

the Pro Slavery men out of Kansas!

But he could neither thank nor give money

to our suffering & destitute soldiers!

Allen now eulogizes Douglas to the skies,

and says that after the ordeal through

which Douglas has passed since '54, [illegible] no

man, no Republican can doubt his

integrity, his sincerity in his public cause.

On this point, Allen gets off much [illegible]

gas, & bombastic high falutin that "ne'er can be repeated". Gates says the Demo

cratic Party is dead. That is an old story, and

was told when Jefferson lived, &

Jackson & Polk & Pierce. It has been pro

nounced dead many times, but it still lives

yet. "Its principles are eternal as

truth itself". (Here Allen clapped the Cli

max, got choked for more eloquence

to finish his sentence, & stopped short!)

Yates says Jackson went in for Liberty, Equal

ity & Fraternity, & that such was Democracy

then in his time. So it is now.

When the Reps go in for Liberty, Equality &

Fraternity, they mean Liberty, Equality and

Fraternity with the "niggers" & not with their

own race: but the Democrats go in for

these doctrines for white men. (noisy applause & drunken yells here)

He does not intend to attack Yates

personally or say any thing disrespectful

of him, but in 1849 Yates was elected to

Legislature from Morgan County. He took

an oath to support the Constitution of Ills.

which required the Legislature to pafs a law

excluding Negroes from the state yet he

voted against a law to carry into effect

this provision of the Constitution which he had

sworn to support. "A [name?] [illegible]

offered resolutions denouncing our Free Negro

or Black laws as unchristian and disgrace

ful, and Yates voted for it. Yet these

laws! Kept negroes from voting, sitting

on Juries, intermarrying with whites &c!

He (Yates) made a speech in Congrefs

in which he denounced the slave holders

of the South as robbers and guilty of almost

every species of crime! "If these facts

do not prove Yates to be an

Abolitionist, then there never was one"

After making such a speech in Congrefs

he came back to this District with 10,000

Republican majority & was rejected. The

rest of the speech was made up of ridicule of [illegible]

and of his [illegible] &c &c

J. C. Allen

Speech at Jacksonville