STANTON'S REPLY TO REAGAN.

229

reported. The report was made the Special | and, if she cannot get her rights in, she will Order for Monday, January 21st.

Reagan's Assault.

have them out of the Union. The Northern States have done nothing to show the Southern States that they shall have security in the Union, because to give Southerners their constitutional rights would be to disband the Republican party; but, by the violation of the Constitution they are enabled to make war on the South. In reviewing parts of Mr. McClernand's speech Mr. Reagan said: One accepts independence, with all its consequences, rather than base submission and eternal ruin.

Mr. McClernand remarked that his position was that of a Unionist, opposing both extremes in North and South.

Mr. Reagan replied, that he knew the position of the Illinois member, individually, but asked him to consider what it was which had brought the South to its present condition. If their rights had not been denied, no disunion would have been raised. He referred to the history of Texas, and the means by which she won her independence, and spoke of the recent alleged insurrections in that State. He charged that the Methodists were all emissaries of the spirit of incendiarism-that it was their ministers, their members, who had sought to light the fires of insurrection in that State.

In the House, Tuesday, Mr. Reagan, (Democrat) of Texas, having the floor, proceeded to define his views. The speech gave rise to a spirited debate, in which Mr. Stanton, of Ohio, showed an unflinching determination not to be rode down, nor to suffer gross libels on the North to pass uncontradicted. Mr. Reagan said he came to the Capital with the hope that such measures might be brought forward by those who have the power to control the question, as would assure the South of future security. The Republicans have held sullenly back, and declared that they have no terms of peace to offer. In view of such facts four States have already gone out of the Union, and others are rapidly seceding. Unless, by the 4th of March, something is done to arrest this movement, we will see but few Southern States in the Union. The irrepressible conflict had culminated too soon for its authors-behold the result! They mean to effect the humiliation and desolation of the South, or a dissolution of the Union. They have reached that logical end. He proceeded to show that the condition of the Negroes, in no portion of the world, could compare favorably in blessings with those of our own country. Would the North, if they were freed, accept them as freemen? No. You would fight the South with all your energy and power against such an influx, and yet you demand the South to liberate 4,000,000 of slaves, and break up the social order, and commercial and political prospects, and retain the Negro element among us. You never consider the relative position of the two races, and what is to be the end of your conduct. He spoke of the destruction of manufactures and commerce which would be produced by the abolition of Slavery. The cry of treason had been raised against certain States, and the blockade of their ports threatened; but if this be attempted those concerned will, like Union cannot be preserved except by its absolute a famous general, find a fire in front as well disorganization and destruction. Now, as a mere as in the rear. He knew no Southern State political organization, he cared nothing for any parthat asked more than its constitutional rights, ty. They are all secondary and subordinate considand, so far as Texas is concerned, she is un- erations with me. But the principles on which this alterably determined never to submit to less; Government was founded, by whatever party they

Stanton's Reply.

This charge called up Mr. Stanton. He pronounced the imputations of the Texas member to be an unwarrantable libel on the Methodists. They were not incendiaries, not fanatics, not inciters to crime and debauchery. As a society they doubtless did regard African Slavery as unwise, unchristian, and immoral, and it was probable that whereever the members of it might go, they would carry that opinion with them. He added:

"The speech of the gentleman from Texas is rather extraordinary in this, that when he seeks, as he says, some measure of conciliation from this side of the House that shall avoid civil war and disunion, he at the same time announces to the political organization which elected the President, that this

1

Stanton's Reply.

STANTON'S REPLY TO REAGAN.

not capture your slaves without
special provisions, recognized by
the States surrendering the per-
son escaped. Under this same provision of the Consti-
tution you follow from one State to another indented
apprentices who escape from their masters, to whom
they are bound for a term of years; you follow a
child who is supposed by law to owe you service,
and you may follow a wife, who, according to the
same legal fiction, owes you service, and reclaim
them under the same provision. Will you claim that
children and wives are property within the meaning
of the provisions of the Constitution? Yet they are
covered by this same provision. The doctrine I put
forth here is sustained by all the eminent statesmen
of the country that have given an opinion upon this
question, from the organization of the Government,
that Slavery is a local institution, depending upon
local State laws, and has no existence outside the
State within which it exists.

The Constitution of the United States is the law of
the land, and all State Constitutions and State laws
coming in conflict with it are null and void. I desire
to know upon what principle we can exclude Slavery
from the Free States, or prevent any man coming in
with slaves and making a Free State his domicile?
Indeed, if Slavery existed by virtue of the Constitu-
tion we could not prevent him. I cannot prevent a
man from Kentucky going with his Bourbon whiskey
or his Durham cow across to Ohio and settling there,
because it was his constitutional right to do so, and
Ohio could not invade that right; and if slaves be
property in the same sense, as you contend, how can
we prevent you from coming to Ohio and domiciling
and holding your slaves as property there? Gen-
tlemen claim that this is the Constitution, and that
if it is not it ought to be so."

231

Stanton's Reply.

and control over the slave
while there. Now, if a gentle-
man go into a Free State with
his slaves, and the slaves become rebellious, has he
not a right, according to his constitutional claim, to
subdue that rebellious disposition, and to reduce them
to obedience, and to inflict reasonable correction? Is
not that so? Very well; by what light is that law to
be regarded but by the law of the State from whence
he came? Now, suppose a man brings a slave into
a Free State, and a controversy arises between
them, the slave refusing obedience to the master,
the latter undertakes to inflict chastisement upon
him, and he is resisted. In that case the slave may
be killed, and the master is forthwith indicted for
murder. On trial it is claimed that the master was
exercising his constitutional right in inflicting rea-
sonable chastisement, and the Courts of the Free
States must recognize the law of the Slave States in
defining and punishing the crime. Again, if you
take slaves into a Free State, I claim you take them
there con amore, and the slave ceases to be part of
your property. Now, a Southern planter, having
purchased goods in New York, goes there and takes
his slave with him. The master gets into debt to
the merchant, who files his affidavits, and has a writ
issued, and gets an attachment, and arrests the
slave, being property, and subjects him to sale for
the satisfaction of the master's debt. Again, sup-
pose a slaveowner goes into a Free State and con-
tracts debts, and dies there before they are paid,
and leaves three or four slaves behind him. His
creditors take out the letters of administration, and
can seize upon the slaves as property, and can sell
them in satisfaction of the debt. Now, when you
have established this state of things, I want you to
know how much you will fall short of making this
one grand consolidated Slaveholding Confederacy?
There is an essential difference between the two or
ganizations, indeed, because one claims all these

rights for the slaveholders, and the others resist
them as unconstitutional. And yet we are told by
the gentleman from Texas that unless the Republi-
can organization disbands itself, and recognizes
these constitutional demands, civil war must come,
and the Government must be overthrown."

Stanton's closing remarks succeeded in set

This severe and forcible application of principle to practice created some stir on the Southern side of the House. It was by far the most searching because the most practical exposé of the assumptions of right in slaves as property under the Constitution. The speaker was interrupted by Mr. Crawford, of Geo., and Reagan, of Texas, but he fastened upon them the logical deductions of their claims of property-that of taking and hold-ting the Georgia members at loggerheads in ing it in Free as well as in Slave States or Territories. The argument on this point is so clear and strong that we quote it :— "When you go into a Free State not regulated by the laws of the State where you come fromfor they deny the right of a master to exercise control over the slave-you claim to carry with you into a Free State the right to exercise dominion

the matter of the forts' seizure. Crawford said the seizure was justifiable, and Georgia held herself responsible for the act. Hill, (of Geo.) said the State had not seized any portion of the public property. It was a mob which had committed the act. He disclaimed, for Georgia and its State Government, any responsibility for the act. Mr. Crawford

Stanton s Reply.

insinuated that Mr. Hill did | secession sentiments, if there was not a radi not know what he was talk-cal change in Northern public opinion. He ing about. Mr. Love, (of consumed the time up to the hour allotted Geo.) said both gentlemen were wrong, as the for the consideration of the Pacific Railway forts were seized for self defence. If the State bill, when the question passed over. Mr. did not secede they would be returned. Mr. Crittenden persisted in pressing the subject Hardeman, (of Geo.) said the country was in the of the paramount importance of the State of crisis of a revolution-that, in fact, a revolu- the Union, but the Pacific Railway bill kept tion was going on. In view of the fact, the the floor up to adjournment. Executive of the State had seized the forts in advance, and the people would sustain him in the act.

Stanton adverted to the seizure as a wanton act of war-that it inaugurated war, and Georgia must assume the responsibility. He declared his willingness and wish yet to adjust matters. He thought the people of the South loyal, but that they were laboring under the most shameful misapprehensions regarding the dominant party and its policy. Garrison and other men like him are now gloating over the ruin they have contributed so largely to bring about. With such men are united, hand in hand, the men in Charleston, who are seeking to overthrow the Government and to drench the country in blood. Gentlemen from the revolutionary districts must be perfectly aware that the Federal Government cannot surrender its power to a rebellious demand. The thing is utterly impossible. If it did it would be an act of imbecility, and an utter abandonment of all Government, and an abdication of its executive power. Gentlemen must see that that mode of separation can lead to nothing but civil war and bloodshed. If they are determined to do this, and resist by force of arms, and refuse time for consulting the popular will-the only source of true power-as to what shall be done in this emergency, they must take the consequences on their own heads.

Mr. Stanton's words called up Rust, of Arkansas; Adrian, of New Jersey; Anderson, of Missouri, and Garnett, of Virginia. The latter gentleman had the floor upon adjournment.

In the Senate, Tuesday, Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, being the Special Order, were under consideration, when Clark, of New Hampshire, moved an amendment by offering, as a substitute, his resolutions (see p. 184.] Mr. Green, of Missouri, expressed ultra pro

In the Senate, Wednesday (January 16th), the Vice-President presented a message from the President, announcing the Senate resolution, relating to his appointment of Joseph Holt, to perform the duties of the office of Secretary of War, made vacant by the resignation of Secretary Floyd. He fully set forth the legal reasons for the step.

Mr. Rice (Democrat), of Minnesota, offered a resolution for the appointment of a Special Committee of Seven by the Senate, with instructions to inquire into the expediency of the passage of a general act for the admission of new States, and the readjustment of the limits of California, Minnesota and Oregon. "First: New Mexico shall be bounded on the North by the 37th degree of latitude; East by Texas; South by Texas and the Mexican boundary; and West, by the 114th degree of longitude.

46

Bill for Admitting
New States.

Second: Kansas, including the present Territories of Kansas, East of longitude 140; a small portion of New Mexico, North of latitude 37, and that portion of Nebraska which lies South of latitude 43.

"Third: An enlargement of the jurisdiction of Minnesota, to embrace the proposed Territory of Dakota, and the portion of Nebraska lying North of latitude 43.

"Fourth: An enlargement of the jurisdiction of Oregon, so as to merge and include the Territory of Washington.

"Fifth: A readjustment of the State of California, so as to include that portion of Utah and New Mexico, lying West of longitude 114."

Mr. Bigler then called up the Crittenden resolutions, by a motion to set aside all other business, which prevailed, by a vote of 27 to 20. The speeches of the day were by the members from Rhode Island, Messrs. Simmons and Anthony, both of whom expressed, in the strongest terms, the necessity for sustaining the Union and the Constitution, at all hazards. Both approved of Mr. Clark's amendment; viz., that the Constitution was

MR. GARNETT'S SPEECH.

† A synopsis of these resolutions read as follows: First, The people of Ohio believe that the pre-restore confidence between the States. servation of this Government is essential to the peace, prosperity, and safety of the American people. "Second, The General Government cannot permit the secession of any State without violating the bond and compact of union.

"Seventh, All Union men condemn the secession ordinances.