Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.

The House having under consideration the question of referring the President's Message to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and the printing of ten thousand copies thereof

Mr. SHERMAN said:

Mr. SPEAKER: I had hoped that the slavery question would not have been thrust upon us during this session. The party with which I have the honor to act was willing to devote the short time until the close of this Congress to other pressing subjects which demand our legislative care; but the President and his supporters here are not content with this course. Upon the first day of the session we were called upon to pass upon the right of Mr. Whitfield to a seat here as Delegate from the Territory of Kansas. This depends entirely upon the validity of the enactments of what is known as the Shawnee Mission Legislature. The House, at the last session, judicially determined, after a full investigation, that these enactments are null and void, by reason of the illegality of the election of that body. When the question is again thrust upon us, the House promptly, without unnecessary debate, adhered to its previous decision. The Democratic party then resorted to the tactics of delay, and have already wasted one week of the session.

he misrepresents the principles and purposes of his political opponents. The ghost of his defeated hopes haunts him at every step, and he seeks to allay the phantom by ceaseless clamor. While writing a document for history his excited mind will not allow him to forget the appeals of the hour. It is true that some indulgence should be extended to him in view of his position. He came into power on a high wave of popular favor. The good wishes of all men accompanied him to the White House; and his promises in his first message quieted even the enmity of his opponents. They were as cheering as his hope was buoyant. He is about to retire, deserted by his own party, by his own State, and, I believe, by his own town. If, under these circumstances, his message had not shown some of the bitterness of disappointed ambition, it would not have been human; but few were prepared for such an exhibition of harmless resentment.

Before this question is disposed of, the President our people have made the ordinary functions of

sends us this extraordinary message. He does not content himself with performing his constitutional duty of giving to Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommending to its consideration such measures as he judges necessary and expedient, but devotes one half of his message to an arraignment of a great and growing party which the errors of his administration have called into being. This course is unusual, and, I believe, is unprecedented; and if followed by his successors, will convert a document heretofore looked for by all our people as an impartial State paper, into a mere partisan

manifesto.

Not only does the President embody in his message a stump speech in defense of his policy, but

It is only to so much of the message as relates to the slavery question that I wish now to call the attention of the House. The conduct of our foreign affairs has been chiefly intrusted to the able Secretary of State, and his direction evinces great sagacity and ability. The routine of the Department has been well enough; for the unbounded prosperity, and energy, and industry of the Government easy. But the gangrene which troubles the President was not occasioned by these, but by the repeal of the Missouri compromise. This was the great error of the Administration -the rock upon which it has split. This is the cause of the troubles in Kansas, and the intense excitement of the country. It is to explain, to extenuate, to mystify the consequences of this error that the President repeats the stereotyped arguments of the recent campaign. Sir, the very existence of the Republican party, which the President so much deplores, is one of the effects of this measure. If it forebodes all the evils he predicts, remember that he rubbed the magic lamp which called it into being. The people of the northern States believe that the tendency and

design of this measure was to extend the sectional institution of slavery into free territory. Against this they protested. To make their protest effectual they formed themselves into a political organization. That this party is confined to the North is no fault of theirs, but rather a reproach to the South, by showing that there the sectional institution of slavery is stronger than parties, compromises, or compacts, when these interfere with their local interests. While the sentiment of opposition to the extension of slavery into the new Territories is universal with the new party, its members were from all the old parties, and embraced persons of opposite views upon the subject of slavery. Thus a very fewperhaps not two thousand in the whole country, who were genuine Abolitionists, and believed that Congress had the power, and that it was its duty to abolish slavery in the States-sympathized with the new party; but, upon the adoption of the Republican platform at Philadelphia, the great majority of them went back to their old love, and supported Gerrit Smith. Of this class not as many voted for Fremont as there were avowed disunionists of a single State voting for Buchanan. There is another class of anti-slavery men, of much greater numbers, influence, and ability, who acted with the new party. They are those who believe that Congress has not only the power, but that it is its duty, to prohibit slavery in the District of Columbia and in the national dock-yards, and also the commerce in slaves between the several States. This class of citizens has been honestly, ably, and fearlessly represented on this floor by my distinguished colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] and perhaps others. Such are their opinions now; but they are no more ingrafted upon the Republican platform than the recent doctrine of Governor Adams, of South Carolina, in favor of reopening the slave trade. The President has no more right to ascribe to the Republican party the views eferred to, than we would have to impute to the Democratic party the desire to reopen the slave trade. The great body of the one million three hundred thousand citizens who voted for Fremont are from the old Whig and Democratic parties, and a large majority of all acquiesced in the compromise of 1850. Their principle and purpose is, simply, opposition to the extension of slavery.

These are simple facts known to every intelligent citizen, and only necessary to be here stated by reason of this singular message. In it the President arraigns the Republican party upon accusations utterly unfounded. It is very common for politicians to misstate the views and purpose of their opponents, and thus bring odium upon them. But it is not usual for the President of the United States to resort to such means, and yet, in this message, he has thus assailed the Republican party. He ascribes to it views that it never entertained, and charges it with purposes which it has again and again disavowed. Thus he says:

"Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected by the laws and usages of the Government they assail, associations have been formed in some of the States of indi

viduals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of slavery into the present or future in choate States of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic institutions of the existing States."

The President here makes a charge, and hell

does it in the form of an innuendo, that the pur pose which the Republican party has avowed is a mere pretense-that they are sailing under false colors. And this language is sent to this House, and we are expected to listen to it patiently, and not open our mouths in reply; and not only that, but to order thirty thousand or forty thousand extra copies to be distributed among the people. Not only does he make this imputation, but he charges us with entertaining sentiments and principles which the Republican party does not and never has entertained. That the charge may be true against individuals I need not deny. Much graver charges may be made against thousands who voted for Buchanan; but of these the President is as quiet as a lamb. He saves his unmannerly imputations for his political enemies. The great mass of the Republican party never held to any sentiment that affects or impairs the constitutional rights of the South. It is made up in a great measure of the conservative elements of the northern States-men of property, men of education, the farmers, mechanics, and laborers-every employment and trade has contributed to its numbers. Those who sanctioned the compromises of 1850, and plighted their faith to, and have observed them entire, heartily act with the Republican party, side by side with those who condemn those measures. Such are the men who compose that great and growing party of the northern States which, in its first contest, swept eleven of them for John C. Frémont, by majorities unparalleled in the political history of the country. These are the men-this is the party which the President of the United States arraigns as pretending to prevent the extension of slavery, but really actuated by an inflamed desire to interfere with slavery in the southern States.

Sir, I say that this charge is unfounded. The people of Ohio-the State which I have the honor, in part, to represent on this floor-do not wish or design to interfere with slavery in any southern State. We do not wish or design to interfere with the relations existing between the white and black races in the slave States. I have observed that the relations existing between these classes in the South are often more kindly in their character than those existing between the same classes in the northern States. But while this is true, the history of civilized nations in the past, the experience of the present age, the theory of our Government, and the natural teachings of the human heart, condemn the institution of master and slave as being injurious to the master, and a crime against the slave. But while such are our convictions of the moral aspect of slavery, we recognize the exclusive right of every State to regulate this matter for itself; and we do not, and never did, claim the power to interfere.

Our claim is this, that in violation of the pledges of the President made at the outset of his Administration, and in violation of the pledges and platforms of the two great parties of the country four years ago, the party acting with the President and his advisers repealed the Missouri compromise, for the purpose of extending slavery into a Territory where it was prohibited, and thus perpetrated what our sense of justice and honor tells us was an infamous wrong. That is all. That is the long and short of it; and it is the only cause which has called the Republican party into being. Again, the President varies his accusation. He the only path to the accomplishment of that design says:

"They seek an object which they well know to he a revolutionary one. They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority; that to them is a foreign object; that it cannot be effected by any peaceful instrumentality of theirs; that for them, and the States of which they are citizens, the only path to its accomplishment is

through burning cities and ravaged fields, and slaughtered

populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign complicated with civil and servile war."

In this paragraph the President repeats, and does not charge directly, but by innuendo, that the Republican party proposes to change the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States. By what authority does he make the allegation? Does he find it in the platform of the Republican party? Does he find it in any resolutions passed by any public meeting held by that party in any of the northern States? Why does he make allegations against that party which they have again and again denied, and which there is not the slighest evidence to prove? Why does he again adopt the offensive form of an innuendo? He says, "They [the Republican party] seek an object which they well know to be unconstitutional." What object? Why not state it manfully, boldly, as a President should? If we have among us more than a million of incipient traitors, why not say so? And yet he does it in this covert way: "They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority." Sir, we seek to promote no such change. If we did we would tell you so. We have no doubt and in this the voice of the civilized world will coneur-that it is the interest of the white men in those States to promote such a change; but we have not the power, and do not intend to do it. Yet upon this groundless imputation the Pressident goes off at a tangent into a fancy sketch of "burning cities," " ravaged fields," and "slaughtered populations." I can imagine the grim smile which marked the countenance of the Secretary of State when he first heard that passage. I can imagine the scene that must have occurred in the Cabinet when this passage came before them for review. I can almost picture the President when he wrote with "fine frenzy rolling"" burning cities, ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations," the work of the Republicans! How vivid the imagination of the President! It is a pity to deny the innuendo, for it is like taking the ghost from the play of Hamlet. Sir, your Yankee newspapers sometimes attribute to our western orators lofty flights of eloquence based upon a very slender foundation; but I submit whether the specimen here furnished by a famed son or the old Granite State does not beat the Hoosiers? The party he describes is about as much like the Republican party as the imaginary giant of the crazy knight of La Mancha was like the windmills he encountered; and I think the President's contest will result like the knight's.

If the President, instead of the language I have quoted, had said: "The last Congress, in violation of good faith, and with the evil design of carrying slavery into free territory, repealed the restriction which forever prohibited it, and that

was through burning cities," &c., he could then, sir, with the eloquence of truth, have narrated scenes which disgrace humanity. "Burning cities!" Why, sir, I know of none except Lawrence and Ossawatomie. I know of no ravaged fields and slaughtered population, except on the plains of Kansas, where scenes were enacted by the sanction of the Executive power which the Democratic party have all over the country been trying to apologize for. These, I say, are the only burning cities, ravaged fields, and slaughtered population of which I am aware; and these have been allowed, yea produced, by the President himself. Not only does the President charge us with principles which we never have advocated, but he ascribes to the Republican party the very results which his own policy has produced:

"Well knowing that such, and such only, are the means and the consequences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educating them to stand face to face as enemies rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends."

Who has endeavored to prepare the people of the United States for civil war? Who but the President of the United States, by teaching them how utterly futile it was and is now to appeal to the law for redress where the law is administered by a weak Executive and by such judges as Lecompte? How could the President provoke such an inquiry, when murder, arson, robbery, and other crimes have run riot in that Territory, and until recently no pro-slavery man has been called to account? Who murdered Dow and Brown and Barbour-who sacked Lawrence and Ossawatomie-who drove the quiet shop-keepers and artisans of Leavenworth from their homes and property-who invented the crime of constructive. treason-who deprived the people of the Territory of the elective franchise-who murdered Buffum, and allowed his murderer to go at large on baildid the Republicans do these or kindred enormities? None, none of them; and yet they seek to deprive the "laws of moral authority!" The friends of the President did all these and much more, and yet they are "law and order" citizens and gentlemen - some of them most upright judges. Until recently they have been as free from fear or danger anger of punishment as you, sir, are from being hanged for the murder of Charles I. The President even does not impute to them the charge of depriving the laws of their moral authority." Sir, the mode in which justice has been administered in that Territory has fearfully aggravated the disorder naturally produced by the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Who is responsible for this? Who but the President? The judges hold office at his will, and his power of removal could at once cure the evil. And yet with this power unemployed the offender arraigns us for his offense, of depriving the laws of moral authority!

But, sir, let us again look at the charge made. What law do we seek to deprive of moral authority? The President does not specify. Can any one name the law? I know of none to which he can refer, unless it is the enactments of the Shaw

nee Mission Legislature. But these enactments this House hold to be null and void; and shall the President say to us that these are laws which we have decided are not laws? The circumstances connected with the election of the body which passed these enactments are now well known to the country. Their character is also well known. They have been denounced as oppressive and disgraceful by the political friends of those who made them, and I am, for one, disposed to plead guilty of seeking to deprive these "laws" of all moral or legal authority. If the President means any other laws, let him specify them.

Again: he says we seek "to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice." I should like to know where and when the Republican party has sought to do this? Never, sir, until this Administration itself gave the ground and cause for it by tampering with a compromise made years ago, and submitted to by all for over a quarter of a century. There never was an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the American people so potent and so offensive in its terms as this very message of the President of the United States. He here arraigns the great majority of the people of the northern States, of his own native State, and of his own town, as either knaves or fools-as either purposely seeking to tear down the Government under which we live, or with doing it indirectly, by sapping the principles upon which it is founded.

However much such a charge as this may gratify a morbid sentiment of ultra men in one section or the other, I ask you if it does not appeal to passion and sectional prejudice? That language has been used, and events have transpired to excite both, none can deny, and none can regret more than I. Invidious comparisons between the wealth, productions, and historical achievements of sister States; violent language in newspapers; the absence of courtesy in debate; private animosities, and restraint of social intercourse, growing out of political differences, are always to be regretted. That these exist, none can deny. But who and what has produced them? What has so aroused and surcharged the surcharged body-politic, that slight friction produces the angry spark? All these spring from the sense of wrong. This was produced by the President and his party, and by his mal-administration in Kansas. He was reckless and bold in producing the storm; and when it came upon him, and actual strife and discord were the result, he was weak, inefficient, timid, and partial.

Again, we are charged with "indoctrinating the people with reciprocal hatred, and educating them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends." When did this process commence? Surely, not when the President commenced his term. Then all was peace and harmony. He tells us so in his first message. The first lesson in this process of alienation was when Mr. DOUGLAS made his famous report. Every act of the President since that time has been a new lesson. The Republican party is a party of defence. It only seeks to place matters precisely where the President found them. The President is at the head and fountain of the stream. Whatever evils flow from it are to be ascribed to him; and I have no doubt that

in his imputations against us he described his own crime and its evil effects.

We are here told that the people of the United States have decided that the repeal of the Missouri compromise was right. Here again I take issue with the President. If this question had been submitted to them, it could not have received three hundred thousand votes in its favor in the northern States. It was only by evading this very question by the nomination of James Buchanan, that the Democratic party avoided an overwhelming defeat.

Mr. CADWALADER. I would ask the gentleman from Ohio, how he can reconcile that proposition with the fact, that the President elect ratified and approved of the bill repealing the Missouri compromise by a public declaration before his election ?

Mr. SHERMAN. True, the President elect subsequently ratified the principle of the bill, but it was well understood that he was originally opposed to it; and his ratification of the principle of the bill was only made after his friends in different sections construed the principle to suit their respective latitudes, and placed upon it constructions entirely diverse. I could readily prove that even the Democratic party, in many northern States, while supporting Buchanan, condemned the repeal. Thus, in some cases, they put in nomination men who voted against the Nebraska bill; and such was the case in the district in which Mr. Buchanan resides. The train of their argument was, that the Democratic party, by throwing overboard Pierce and Douglas in the Cincinnati Convention, put their seal of disapprobation upon the expediency of this measure. By bringing forward Mr. Buchanan, a new man, and who had been absent when the bill passed, they evaded the issue, interposing Sam Weller's favorite plea, "an alibi; and then all over the country the Democratic party put upon their flags, transparencies, and banners, "Buchanan, Breckinridge, and free Kansas." Not only that, but they charged that we Republican members had violated our promises by voting for a law to extend slavery into Kansas by voting for DUNN'S bill; and that if our competitors were elected, they would see that Kansas was made a free State; and that the election of Buchanan would do more to make it a free State than anything else. Such was the line of their argument; and yet we are gravely told, that when a portion of a confiding people believed these charges, and relied upon these promises, and gave their votes for Mr. Buchanan, they thereby approved the administration of Franklin Pierce. "Lay not that flattering unction to thy soul." The conduct of the campaign in the northern States clearly proves that even the Democratic party was compelled to bow down to the stern resolve of our people, that slavery shall derive no advantage from the error of the repeal. I tell gentlemen they are mistaken if they suppose the people of the North of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois will agree to the extension of slavery into Kansas. They expect that Territory to come into the Union as a free State, under all circumstances. I am sure that even those who are opposed to me in politics, and coming from the free States, will admit such to be the expectation of their people. They were led to believe

it will be a free State, and voted under that impression. Had not such been the case, Buchanan and Breckinridge never would have received any of their electoral votes.

The President has not only misrepresented the issue before the people-not only misrepresented the policy and the measures of the Republican party, but he now seeks to throw upon it the consequences of the reopening of the slavery agitation by the repeal of the Missouri compromise. That all the evils which have distracted our counwy for the last two years have grown out of that repeal, every candid man must admit. If this measure had not been agitated, the Abolition party, as it is called, or the party seeking to interfere with slavery in the southern States, could have had no political power. The contest would have been between the Whig and the Democratic party upon such questions of domestic policy as would have arisen in the ordinary administration of the Government. All from the southern States must know that, had it not been for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, this slavery agitation would not have come up for years. It was settled in every portion of the Union.

Mr. QUITMAN. I deny the assertion, that we admit that the repeal of the Missouri compromise was the cause of the agitation.

Mr. SHERMAN. I did not say that all south ern men admit it. I said that their impartial judgments must lead them to that conclusion.

This question of slavery was settled in every State and Territory of this Union. There was not a foot of soil in the broad compass of our country-not a spot of ground over which the national flag was unfurled, where it was not settled. In sixteen free States slavery was prohibited by their constitutions. In fifteen slave States slavery was allowed by local law, and we did not propose to interfere with it. In Oregon and Washington it was prohibited by an act which received the signature of President Polk. In Utah and New Mexico it was prohibited by local law. In the Territory of Missouri it was prohibited by the Missouri restriction.

Thus it was settled in every State and Territory of the Union. I have here the first message which the President delivered to Congress, and I find in it this paragraph:

"That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."

All that the northern people desired of the President was a full and entire compliance with that paragraph. They do not desire to stir up the waters of strife. They had been taught by their greatest statesmen-by Mr. Clay and by Mr. Webster that in every State and in every Territory of this broad Confederacy this question was forever put to rest. When the promise I have read was made, the Democratic party was in the ascendant, and carried every State in this Union except Vermont; for I believe that in Massachusetts they had a Democratic Governor at ane time. And, sir, if that party had fulfilled their pledges, all the old issues would have passed away. All that would have been necessary for the President would have been to observe strictly and truly the language of his first official mesage; but it was not done, and he has reaped the roculte. His policy swept away the Democratic

party in nearly all of the northern States. The few members of that party returned to this Congress are but monuments to mark how strong and deep was the feeling against the repeal. The party has not yet recovered from the blow. Those who left it had a strong attachment for their party. They would have been satisfied with almost any ordinary excuse. The power of the Democratic party was in the North. It has strength there no longer. The Republican party carried eleven of the northern States. The remaining three or four were carried by small majorities by the Democratic party, only by evading the issues made by the President.

I call the attention of the House to a striking evidence of the partiality of the President. He seeks to impute the evils in Kansas to " propagandist colonization" from the northern States. Who commenced that colonization? Had the South nothing to do with it? On the 10th of June, 1854, eleven days after the Kansas-Nebraska bill became a law, persons confessedly citizens of Missouri went into the Territory, and passed what are called the squatter resolutions. All understand what they are. They denied all protection to any man they chose to call an Abolitionist. We all know that the men designated by that opprobrious phrase in western Missouri are not such as my colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS.] They called all men Abolitionists who are against the further extension of slavery. Men with such sentiments were excluded from the Territory, and denied all protection. The propagandist scheme thus commenced was continued by repeated acts of enormity.

We know that thousands of Missourians voted at the first election in the Territory. It is clearly proved that the number of Missourians in the Territory at the second election numbered over four thousand. We know that there was an organize invasion from Missouri, under distinguished leaders, to burn and destroy houses and property in Kansas. These were southern propagandists-propagandists for the purpose of slavery extension. Do you not suppose that such outrages excited the people of the North? Was it imagined imagine that they were not capable of defending their rights and the rights of their fellow-citizens? They saw slavery thus threatened to be forced upon Kansas; they saw brothers, fathers, sons, their relatives and former neighbors, slain without just cause, and they were filled with indignation. What did the President all this while? Event followed event, and he did not interpose to prevent a recurrence of the outrages. He did not interfere until the settlers from the North rose in arms to defend their friends from violent and bloody assault. How, then, can the President talk of emigrant aid societies and propagandist schemes? He did not interpose until the settlers from the North were combined for their own defense. Then he interposed to protect his allies; and I thank him for that interposition. Had he not done so, I believe there would have been a civil war. But this interference should have been sooner. His duty was to see that the laws were fairly executed. He did not execute that duty promptly; and it does not lie in his mouth to accuse the Republican party of having created this agitation, and caused the burning of cities, and the desecration of homes. The accu

« PreviousContinue »