Page images
PDF
EPUB

immediate and eternal.

Congress has the power. He could not say that, ❘ and prepared to execute them, it would necessariif the Constitution did not give it. If the Con-ly result in a dissolution of the Union, and then, stitution denied the power, how could the Judge so far as the South was concerned, it should be say that Congress possessed it? He had the Constitution in view when writing this opinion. Sir, the doctrine now advanced is a new and modern discovery. Congress formerly possessed and exercised this power, and nobody doubted it. For the first fifty years of the Government, the power was undisputed. It is a new discovery that Congress does not now possess it.

But, sir, let me resume the consideration of the message. The President tells us that "it was imputed" that the measure of which he is speaking, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, "originated in the conception of extending the 'limits of slave labor beyond those previously as'signed to it; and that such was its natural as ' well as intended effect; and these baseless assump' tions were made in the Northern States the ground ' of unceasing assault upon constitutional right." Here the President informs us that the charge made against those who repealed the Missouri Compromise, that it was intended or conceived with the purpose of extending the limits of Slavery beyond those previously assigned to it, was a baseless assumption.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I wish to examine that position. It is this-I will endeavor to state it in the language of the Senator that if the Republican party came into power with the principles which they avowed, it would necessarily result in the dissolution of the Union, and that, so far as he and the South were concerned, it should be immediate and eternal. Now, what principles did we avow? Is there any one hostile to the South? I say we avow no principle upon this subject about which we are now speaking, except those avowed by Thomas Jefferson himself, by Washington, and by Monroe. Is it any cause for a dissolution of the Union, that a particular man is elected President? Manifestly not; and the Senator from Virginia does not contend for that.

Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to ask him a question? Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. RUSK. He and others have attributed the sentiment on which he is now commenting so eloquently, to the Southern States. I desire to ask him if he does not know that it had its origin in the Northern States with one of the candidates for the Presidency? Did he not first make the declaration that the event alluded to would dissolve the Union?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am not the defender of any third party, whose candidate may have made declarations as to the dissolution of the Union. I say that the great Fremont party entertain and avow no such sentiment.

Now, what does the Senator from Virginia tell us? He says that under the Constitution the South has a right to a legitimate expansion of Slavery, and it is the right to expand the institution upon which he insists. When we charge that the design was to extend Slavery into the free Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, the President says it is a baseless assumption. The Senator from Virginia informs us that he insists on the right to the expansion of Slavery. Who is right? He tells us, further, that the people in four of the Northern States united in keeping out of power that party which would have severed the Union into fragments. How would they have severed it into fragments, I should like to know? Did they propose to dissolve it? Did Mr. HALE and Mr. SEWARD. That is fair. they propose to encroach on the rights of the Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not care who makes States? They declared that the rights of the the charge that the election of Colonel Fremont States should be preserved. How were they to the Presidency would dissolve the Union. I going to dissolve the Union? Was it in any say it is a baseless charge; and manifestly it

other way than this: It has been stated here, to-day, in the Senate, that if Colonel Fremont were elected, the Union must be and ought to be dissolved! Because a particular man is elected President of the United States, is that any reason for dissolving the Union?

Mr. MASON. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. MASON. What I said was this: that if that party came into power avowing the purposes which they did avow, it would necessarily result in a dissolution of the Union, whether they desired it or not. It was utterly immaterial who was their President; he might have been a man of straw; I alluded to the purposes of the party. What I said in the letter to which one of the Senators has alluded, and what I said substantially in the remarks which I have made in this debate, was merely that if the party came into power avowing the purposes which they avowed,

Mr. RUSK. The Senator misunderstands me. I do not ask him to defend Mr. Fillmore; but I ask him to make the charge, not against the South, but against the individual who committed the offence.

could not prevail, come from what party it may. The Senator from Virginia does not put himself now on the fact of any particular man being elected, but on the principles avowed. To that I will pay attention in a moment; but I wish first to dispose of the clamor which has been raised in some parts of the country, that the election of a particular man is a cause for a dissolution of the Union.

Why, sir, neither Colonel Fremont nor any other person can be elected President of the United States except in the constitutional mode; and if any individual is elected President in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, is that cause for a dissolution of the Union? Assuredly not. If it be, the Constitution contains within itself the elements of its own destruction. The great principle lying at the bottom of the institutions of the country, and of the Constitution itself, is, that we must acquiesce in the decision of the majority, constitutionally expressed, in the selection of

1

officers; and until the person elected does some overt act violating the Constitution, until he sets on foot some measure destructive of the Govern ment, the fact that he is elected President in the constitutional mode affords no reason whatever for the dissolution of the Union. Then would there have been any reason for its dissolution, if the Republican party had succeeded with its avowed sentiments?

Now, what were its avowed sentiments on the subject of Slavery? Opposition to its extension; opposition to the spread of Slavery into the Territories, and a declaration of the right of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United States. Is that a cause for a dissolution of this Union? I know that the Senator has said that it matters not to him whether the interference is with Slavery outside of the States or within the States; but I think the cases are very different. I think we have no right, and that there is no intention, on the part of the great body of the people of the North, to interfere with Slavery in the States; but I think there is an intention to prevent its extension outside of States into free Territories; and there is a very great difference between these positions.

united to keep out of power this party, and among them the State of Illinois is named. Sir, the State of Illinois endorses no such sentiments as those avowed by the Senator from Virginia. You could not get the friends of Mr Buchanan in Illinois to discuss the question of the expansion of Slavery. They said that Kansas would be a free State; that it was a libel on them, when we charge that the effect, the purpose, the object, of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, was to open Kansas to Slavery. They said, "Slavery will not go there; Kansas will be a free State;" and they discussed other questions, and were very far from discussing this question of the expansion of Slavery. The great party which it is said has triumphed, was not willing to put itself on that issue; but we find it at Cincinnati overturning and casting aside all the veterans who had done service in the Kansas-Nebraska fight, and taking up another gentleman, simply because he had not been mixed up with it-a gentleman who had been abroad, who had nothing g to do with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and the opening of Kansas to Slavery. He was nominated for that reason; and it is as apparent as the noonday sun, that if he had been identified with that measure, he could not have been elected. Take the State of Illinois, which Mr. Buchanan has carried, but not by a majority vote; he is in a minority in that State of nearly thirty thousand. Thirty-seven thousand votes were cast in that State for Mr. Fillmore. The speakers in his favor denounced the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, denounced the extension of Slavery into Kansas, as openly, as strongly, and as boldly, as did any supporter of Colonel Fremont; but they insisted that Mr. Fillmore was the better man for the Presidency. They cast their votes for him under that impression.

Well, sir, if the prevalence of these opinions be a cause for a dissolution of the Union, which should be immediate and eternal, why, I ask, was not this Government dissolved the year of its formation? How did it happen that the very first Congress which ever met under the Constitution of the United States adopted and reaffirmed that ordinance excluding Slavery from the whole Northwest? Why was not the Union then dissolved? Ifit is a cause in 1856 for a dissolution of the Union to exclude Slavery from Kansas and Nebraska, was it not a cause in 1789, when Slavery was excluded from the Territory now covered by the States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Michigan? Why, I ask again, in 1820, when Mr. Monroe was President of the United States, was not the Union dissolved immediately and eternally? Slavery was then by act of Congress excluded from the free Territory from which we now wish to exclude it. If this be a reason for dissolving the Union now, was it not a reason for dissolution then? How did Mr. Monroe, from the State of Virginia, himself approve a bill excluding it from that Territory? Why, sir, it is manifest that the public sentiment of this country has very much changed, if this is a cause for dissolution of the Union now. In Nebraska bill; the other nominating Colonel former times, these acts of Congress excluding Bissell denounced and condemned it. Who is Slavery from the Northwest and from the Terri-elected? Colonel Bissell triumphantly, and the tories of Kansas and Nebraska were deemed whole Republican State ticket; and that, too, judicious and proper acts of legislation, voted for notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fillmore by the South, and carried by Southern votes. ticket voted for. Now we are told that the same legislation is Do you claim Illinois as endorsing the repeal canse for a dissolution of the Union. This shows of the Missouri Compromise, and sustaining the how the Constitution, which our fathers made, administration of Franklin Pierce? If he had and understood, and have put into operation, is been the candidate, or any man identified with proposed to be changed and subverted in these him in his policy, he would have been beaten as modern times. Sir, it was no cause for a disso- badly as was the manin the instance where there lution of the Union in 1789; it was none in 1820; were but two persons in Illinois running for a it is none to-day, and, in my judgment, it would State office, that of State Treasurer. It so haplead to no such consequences. pened that we had but two candidates for that But it is said that four of the Northern States office. One was Mr. Moore, "honest John

But how was it when a man was brought up, identified with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the opening of Kansas to Slavery? How was it when Colonel Richardson came before the people of Illinois as the nominee of the Buchanan party for Governor-a man who had taken an active part in the repeal of the Missouri Compromise-and there came up in opposition to him a gentleman who was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska bill? The respective conventions which nominated these gentlemen passed resolutions on this subject. The one nominating Colonel Richardson endorsed the

Moore," as he has been called, the old Treasurer, | Senate., If we had been able to do so, and could

a popular man, and deservedly so, but identified with the party which approved the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Against him, the Republican candidate was Mr. Miller, who was elected by more than twenty-one thousand majority. Here, where there were but two candidates running, you see what was the public sentiment of that State on this issue. Although its electoral vote is cast for Mr. Buchanan, it is cast by a large minority of the voters of the State. So it is on the Congressional ticket; a majority of thousands is given for the Republican Republican candidates. I protest

that the State of Illinois never has endorsed and never will endorse the spread of Slavery over free Territories. The only difficulty which we had was in getting the people to decide upon that issue. The trouble was, that we could not bring up the opposite party to the advocacy of those doctrines which are proclaimed here in the

we have had the benefit in the State of Illinois, during the canvass, of the speech which the Senator from Virginia has delivered here to-day, I think that even the electoral vote of Illinois (though so cast now by a minority of its voters) would not have been cast for Mr. Buchanan.

[ocr errors]

I shall take another time, when I have had a further opportunity to examine this message of the President, to comment further upon it. On the present occasion I will not longer detain the Senate. My object in rising was chiefly to protest against the baseless as assumptions" in this message, and the (as I think) unwarranted assumptions made by Senators here, when they undertake to attribute to the great Republican party, which sustained Colonel Fremont, any hostility to the rights of any of the States of this Union, or to the institution of Slavery in any of the States.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 8, 1856.

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.

« PreviousContinue »