The Relations of the Federal Government to Slavery: Delivered at Fort Wayne, Ind., October 30th 1860

In Short

Delivered on the eve of the 1860 presidential election, Joseph K. Edgerton’s address is a passionate defense of Stephen A. Douglas’s doctrine of popular sovereignty. Speaking to citizens in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Edgerton surveys the constitutional, legal, and historical arguments regarding federal authority over slavery in the Western territories. He rejects both Northern abolitionism and Southern pro-slavery expansionism, warning that federal intervention threatens to tear the nation apart. The work stands as a vivid, articulate specimen of Northern Democratic rhetoric during the final days before the American Civil War.

The Story

Edgerton opens his speech by setting the high stakes of the 1860 election, defending Stephen A. Douglas against his political detractors. He frames Douglas as a selfless patriot whose principles offer the only path to national preservation. Rebutting radical voices on both sides—ranging from William Lloyd Garrison’s rejection of the Constitution to William H. Seward’s vision of an "irrepressible conflict"—Edgerton insists that the American Union was built on compromise, geography, and constitutional balance rather than moral uniformities enforced from above.

He then leads his audience through a historical recount of the nation's founding documents. Under the original Articles of Confederation, the central government lacked the strength to preserve order, forcing the Framers to construct a new Constitution. Edgerton examines every constitutional clause touching upon slavery, arguing that the Founders recognized it strictly as a creation of local state laws. He asserts that the Constitution confers no power upon Congress to create or abolish slavery in any state or territory, and that historical compromises—such as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787—were unique compacts rather than precedents for perpetual federal meddling.

Tracing the political crises of the 19th century, Edgerton claims that Northern politicians broke the spirit of the Constitution during the Missouri debate by attempting to dictatate local terms to a rising state. He celebrates the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 as crucial course corrections that abandoned arbitrary geographical lines in favor of congressional non-intervention. By allowing territorial settlers to govern themselves, Douglas’s platform upholds Anglo-Saxon democratic traditions and protects the rights of white pioneers against federal dictation.

Turning to the contemporary field, Edgerton breaks down the three competing campaigns of 1860. John C. Breckinridge’s Southern wing seeks to use federal power to protect slavery everywhere, while Abraham Lincoln and Seward’s Republican party aim to use federal power to extinguish it. Edgerton dismisses Lincoln as a mere figurehead fronting for radical abolitionists whom he labels the aggressive "Zouaves" of the Republican movement. He concludes with a fervent plea for Douglas's non-interventionist middle path, warning that a Republican victory will inevitably plunge the nation into disunion and civil war.

How It Unfolds

An appeal for a fallen leader Edgerton introduces his speech as a vindication of Stephen A. Douglas, portraying him as a misunderstood statesman who sacrificed personal popularity to preserve the Union. He urges voters to look past partisan hatred and evaluate Douglas's constitutional consistency.

The founding compacts examined Analyzing the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of 1787, the speaker demonstrates that the federal system was designed solely for national purposes. Local domestic matters were explicitly left under the jurisdiction of the individual states.

The lessons of territorial history Edgerton reviews the Northwest Ordinance and the Missouri Compromise to show that early restrictions on slavery were specific contractual arrangements rather than broad grants of federal legislative authority over territorial domestic life.

The victory of non-intervention Highlighting the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Edgerton argues that Congress correctly established self-government as the central rule for Western settlers. He praises Douglas for codifying this democratic principle into law.

The three-way struggle for the Union The address contrasts the platforms of 1860, rejecting Breckinridge's pro-slavery federal protectionism and Lincoln's anti-slavery federal intervention. Edgerton identifies Douglas's doctrine of local popular sovereignty as the only constitutional option remaining.

A warning of imminent ruin Edgerton ends with a stark prediction of disunion if the Republican party wins the presidency. He implores the electorate to reject sectional fanatacism and preserve the compromise system crafted by the Founders.

The People

• Stephen A. Douglas — The Democratic senator from Illinois and presidential candidate. Edgerton views him as an unselfish patriot whose championing of popular sovereignty represents the true path to national peace. He wants to secure territorial self-governance, faces intense opposition from both Northern and Southern radicals, and ends up remembered as a martyr for the Union.
• Abraham Lincoln — The Republican nominee for president in 1860. Portrayed by Edgerton as an obscure politician elevated to hide the radical ambitions of his party, he seeks to restrict slavery through federal power, standing directly in opposition to territorial self-determination.
• William H. Seward — The prominent Republican senator from New York. Edgerton positions him as the actual ideological commander of the anti-slavery movement whose rhetoric of an "irrepressible conflict" drives the country toward civil war.
• John C. Breckinridge — The Southern Democratic candidate representing the pro-slavery wing. He wants federal legal guarantees for slavery across all federal territories, standing as the Southern counterpart to Northern federal interventionists.

In Its Own Voice

"The Constitution which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensible."

George Washington's words from 1787 serve as Edgerton's foundational mandate for political compromise over ideological purity.

"I had rather that the 'rivulet of African slavery' flow on for five hundred years to come, than to see around me the fragments of a dissevered Union."

Edgerton explicitly states his priority: preserving the constitutional framework of the United States takes precedence over immediate efforts to eradicate slavery.

"Rather let freeborn white men govern them in their own way, unawed by Federal armies sustaining Lecompton Constitutions, and I have no fear of the domestic institutions that will be formed in the territories..."

The author encapsulates his core faith in local popular sovereignty as the safest mechanism for settling territorial controversies.

What It's Really About

At its heart, Edgerton's speech is an argument about the nature of federalism and the limits of central authority. The text wrestles with whether the United States is a single consolidated nation with a moral mandate to shape its territories, or a league of sovereign states bound by a strict constitutional compact. Underneath the immediate electoral panic of 1860 lies a fundamental legal question: can a democratic republic survive when regional moral convictions collide with statutory law? Edgerton insists that peace requires strict adherence to constitutional neutrality, arguing that federal attempts to resolve moral questions inevitably destroy the voluntary spirit of the Union.

Why Read It Today

Modern readers interested in the political origins of the American Civil War will find this speech an insightful, primary-source window into the Northern Democratic mindset on the eve of conflict. It offers a clear, unvarnished look at how moderate Northern voters rationalized non-intervention on the slavery issue in order to preserve the federal system. Edgerton's prose is structured, direct, and representative of mid-nineteenth-century political oratory.

Reading the text requires navigating period assumptions that modern audiences will find uncomfortable. Edgerton openly defends white supremacy, frames self-government primarily in terms of white territorial settlers, and treats human bondage as a secondary concern next to constitutional mechanics. Yet these elements are precisely what make the speech historically valuable: it demonstrates how constitutional law and racist assumptions intersected in the antebellum North. For students of American history, constitutional law, or political rhetoric, Edgerton's address provides a vivid snapshot of a nation moments before its collapse.