Page images
PDF
EPUB

but the State courts in the slaveholding States, have over and over again decided the same thing.

But, passing from that, I wish to come to another topic which is frequently spoken of, and that is the subject of the dissolution of the Union. From time to time, as various crises have arisen in our political history, every now and then, we have had it put forth, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly, from the South, in their papers, in organizing conventions, in acts of their Legislatures, in protests submitted here by their members of Congress, and in individual declarations, that if such and such things happen, they will go out of the Union. When we regard the time at which these things are stated, the occasion when this language is used, and the manner in which uttered, we cannot possibly mistake its character and purpose. It is really nothing more than this: "We propose to induce you to action by this means; we ask you to be influenced by this consideration." That is a menace. It is threatening. It is an attempt, more or less, to say: "We propose and intend to do something which we think will be an injury to you, and which we think you regard as being a very great injury." This goes upon the ground that the North have not only the particular duty of taking care of this Union, and pre preventing its dissolution, but that it is their duty further to take care and hold their southern brethren, and prevent them from dissolving it. I do not recognize any such duty.

Now I ask gentlemen to reflect for a moment on what is the true English of any menace of that kind. What does it mean? It means this: "I say to you, sir, I have tried to persuade you to do a certain thing; I have tried to convince you that it is best to do it; I have argued with you; and now I say to you that, if you will not do it, I will do to you such and such an injury;" that is to say, "I regard you as one of those men who will grant from your fears and intimidation that which you will not grant from your convictions." That is its language reduced to plain English. How can gentlemen suppose a man of any degree of spirit would act under those circumstances? How does a man, when another threatens him with personal violence, or any other matter of menace, receive it? Does he not say, "Sir, I consider that as treating me as a coward; I consider that as saying to me that I shall do from my fears what I would not do from my judgment, and I cannot do anything in regard to it until that is entirely retracted." Must we suppose that a people would receive such a threat diferently from an honorable gentleman? It is a menace which should not be used.

I cannot say that these things have never had any influence on the northern people. I am somewhat afraid that they have had at times, and in particular sections. I do not know but that I have seen and known men who seemed to be so lost to all proper sense as actually to claim it as a virtue that they had saved the Union. What do you mean by that? "Why, the South threatened to dissolve it, and I really believed they were in earnest, and I was scared, and I did this thing, and I saved the Union!" Men actually claim it as a virtue that they have granted from their fears what their judgment did not approve. I think that time has about gone by; and if the period has not arrived it very soon will, when these matters will at least be seen in their true light.

We were told the other day by the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] that if really the majority of the people, that is, the northern States, should actually adopt the principle of excluding and keeping excluded slavery from the free Territories, and should carry it out in practice, the time would have come when there should be a separation immediately and forever. Suppose that time should come, as is not unlikely. It has frequently occurred to me what would be their declaration of independence? I presume, of course, they would not take a step of that kind without publishing a manifesto to the world. They would declare how it happened, and they would not disguise the facts. I have no doubt if they undertook it they would declare the case struly, and therefore they would make that declaration truthfully.

I take it, too, that they would adopt the old approved form. I do not mean that I think their declaration of independence would contain the assertion that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do not presume it would contain that declaration, because I understand that has been pronounced to be nothing but a set of high-sounding and glittering generalities; and at another time has been pronounced a self-evident falsehood instead of truth. I do not mean to say that I suppose that would be asserted, but I presume the general form would be preserved, and it would begin somewhat after this fashion: "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinion of mankind requires that they should set forth the causes which impel them to the separation." It would then proceed to set forth the causes; and truthfully stated, what would they be? Such a declaration properly worded would be something like this:

"Our fathers, at the time of their Declaration of Independence, and previously and subsequently, adopted the notion that mankind were competent to a popular system of government, and to make such a system of government successful every white man should be free and equal. They long entertained the idea that, in order to carry out that experiment successfully, the Territories of the United States should be entirely and exclusively devoted to the use of the free white laboring population. Slave labor has been excluded from the Territories. They have persisted in this course for more than half a century. African slavery has been abolished in a majority of the old States; but we have retained it-we have realized its blessings-we understand its advantages. It elevates a considerable number of us to a high social, political, and intellectual condition. It has, to be sure, a rather depressing effect on the masses, and especially the laboring masses of the white population; so much so that we, looking at free society as we see it in the mass of our white population, regard it as a failure, and we conclude it also a failure in the North.

"And whereas we consider this relation of master and slave as the best condition of societymost promotive, on the whole, of the advantage of all-we have recently attempted, within a few years, to extend this institution, for the purpose of giving us equal weight with the most populous part of the United States, and have made efforts to introduce it into the Territories where it did

means for those purposes, and having failed to succeed, we declare that we hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war and in peace friends; and we appeal to God for the rectitude of our intentions, and to a candid world to judge of the righteousness of our cause; and we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.":

I suppose their declaration of independence, truthfully drawn, would be thus formed, substantially. The issue which would be made upon it, if any issue should arise-I mean an issue of vio lence and blood-would be this: could the candid world, thus addressed by such a manifesto, or any truthful one, be expected to be found in sympathy with it? On this point, let me read an extract from a speech of Mr. Clay, delivered during the pendency of the compromise measures of 1850:

not before exist, as an element of political power,
and have tried to do this in various ways. We
have not been wanting in attention to our north-
ern brethren on this subject. We have endeav-
ored to annex foreign territory for the purpose
of securing additional slave States. We have
succeeded to a certain extent, with the assistance
of a part of our northern brethren. We have
endeavored to convince them that this is a most
desirable condition of society, which should be
adopted at least in the Territories, and so finally
guide the destinies of the country; but they
obstinately persist in refusing it. We have en-
deavored to persuade and convince them that it was
the best condition, and that they ought to adopt
it; but we have not succeeded in our efforts. We
have not rested with this. We have repealed
agreements made by ourselves to keep a country
exclusively for freedom. We have accomplished
this repeal with the aid of some of them for the
purpose of extending these blessings; yet the
mass of them find fault with it. We opened
Kansas Territory for settlement under a pre-
tended agreement, that we would leave the people
there free, even while a Territory, to settle the
question; and then the men of the North actively
undertook to repeat in that Territory the same
efforts by which they had distributed their pop-
ulation over all the free States, and they actually
formed societies, as they had always done before,
to aid settlers. They exerted all their power to
settle that Territory, to establish their schools
and academies, churches and colleges; and, in
short, took all those steps calculated to exclude
the institution which we cherish. They at-
tempted to do these things by the same peace-
able means by which they had settled other Ter-mercial ancestors."

ritories. We became exasperated; and when
some people from slave States undertook, by
invasion, to elect representatives for this Terri-
tory, we did not interfere to stop it. When
those representatives met, and passed laws to
suit themselves, well calculated to drive out these
people, they would not go out. Proceedings,
under color of these laws, were taken to burn
their towns and destroy their printing-presses.
Laws were made to stop discussion and violence
there, and in the Senate was justified. We called
them by opprobrious epithets, though their exer-
tions had all been directed, for seventy years, to
nothing more nor less than the extension of free
popular government, and the elevation of the free
laboring white community. That has been their
effort from the beginning, in which they still
persist, and we could not stop it. Though all
they have done has been for the advancement of
the free white race of the world, we have said, or
at least our President has said, this is all pretense;
what they say is a false pretense; their real
meaning is to disturb the relation between mas-
ter and slave in the slave States of the Union.
We have called them Abolitionists; we have called
them Black Republicans, as if their efforts were

"But if unhappily we should be involved in war-in a civil war between the two parts of this Confederacy, in which the efforts upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into new Territories, and upon the other side to force its introduction there, WHAT A SPECTACLE SHOULD WE PRESENT TO THE ASTONISHMENT OF MANKIND, IN AN EFFORT, NOT TO PROPAGATE RIGHTS, BUT-I must say, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to excite feeling-A WAR TO PROPAGATE WRONGS IN THE TERRITORIES THUS ACQUIRED FROM MEXICO. It would be war in which we should have no

sympathies-no good wishes; in which all mankind would be against us; in which our own history itself would be against us; for from the commencement of the Revolution down to the present time we have constantly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country, And allow me to say, that, in my opinion, it is one of the best defenses which can be made to preserve the institution of slavery in this country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, of our own American colonial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British come

Mr. President, I have spoken not one word on the morality of slavery, or the relation between master and slave: I desire not to make any remarks upon it. I have treated this subject simply as a political question. I have treated it fairlyI think faithfully, truly, as it ought to be treated. I have given my views, seriously entertained and faithfully expressed.

Now, sir, what is their issue? Can it be expected that, after all the momentum which the progress of liberty has received in our country, increased and accumulated by the additions from the world abroad, a new system of institutions is to be adopted? Can it be expected that the free part of the United States are really to give the lie to all the actions of their fathers? Will they not continue to assert their principles? I think it is rather an unfortunate issue which is attempted to be made by the South. It cannot succeed; and I am inclined to believe, too, that they are gradually coming to that opinion themselves. I can already perceive some evidences and symptoms of a feeling, on the part of the Democracy, that the attempt to extend slavery into the free Territories of the United States will be a failure, and it had better

all directed to emancipation and not to the advance- be seasonably stopped. I cannot but trust and

believe that means will be taken to stop it. If it is done, that will be the end of the Republican party. If it is not stopped, the Republican party must go on, What will be the result at the end of three years can be pretty easily calculated by what has been the result of four months' /

ment of the free white population; and although their desire is to have nothing in the world to do with a black population of any kind, hey wish to be and are exerting themselves to be kept entirely clear of the whole of them. We have charged them with being Black Republicans with black intentions. Now having used all those

marty

work.

Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe.

THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE AND THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

SPEECH OF HON. I. WASHBURN, OF MAINE.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 10, 1856.

1

Mr. WASHBURN, of Maine, said:

do not participate with them in their assaults upon the Constitution, framed and adopted by our fathers, and claiming, for the privileges it has secured and the bless

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not inclined to favor the

⚫ proposition before the House to print an unusu-ings it has conterred, the steady support and grateful

ally large number of copies of this message. The success of the amendment to the motion of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] would be regarded, not unfairly perhaps, as an endorsement by the House of the contents of that extraordinary paper. I propose to state briefly some of the reasons which counsel me not to be a party to such endorsement. The message opens with studied and calumnious misrepresentations of the purposes of a great, growing, and patriotic party, soon to be the dominant party in the Republic; it contains charges against the people of the free States of unfriendly designs and aggressions, running through many years, upon the people of the slave States, and which I believe to be without the slightest foundation in fact; it is full of sophistries and special pleadings, out of place in what should be a respectful and dignified State paper; finally and chiefly, it proclaims doctrines which I must regard as anti-republican and unconstitutional, at war with the theory of our system and the genius of our institutions. The President says:

"Protected by the laws and usages of the Government they assail, associations have been formed in some of the States, of individuals, who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of Slavery into the present or future inchoate States of the Union, are really inflamed with desire to change the domestic înstitutions of existing States."

It is not difficult to understand to whom the President refers in this extract. The Republican party pretend to seek only to prevent the spread

of Slavery into the present inchoate or future inchoate States of the Union-and this, it is not denied, is the party to which he alludes; but while pretending this, and no more, he alleges that its members are really inflamed with a desire to change the domestic institutions of existing States-or, in other words, to abolish Slavery in the States in which it exists. The Republicans

deny and have ever denied this imputation. They

seek only to do that for which they have con. stitutional warrant, and they know and admit that they have no right to interfere with Slavery in the States. But the President tells them and the country that he knows better, and that their pretences are false and hypocritical; that

"To accomplish their objects, they dedicate themselves to the odious task of depreciating the Government organization which stands in their way, and of calumniating, with indiscriminate invective, not only the citizens of par ticular States, with whose laws they find fault, but all others of the huge is throughout the country who

reverence of their children. They seek an object which they well know to be a revolutionary one."

They seek, says this flippant libeller, to revolutionize, to break up, and destroy, the Government under which they live, to subvert the Constitution which claims their steady support and grateful reverence. They well know what they are about. The President does not content himself with saying that the tendency of their opinions and actions is to revolution, but he permits himself to assert that they mean it:

"They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slav-holdin, States, which they would promote, is beyond their lavk ful authority."

They are "perfectly aware" that they are engaged in an unlawful work! The first officer in the Government must entertain a very poor opinion of a large majority of the people in eleven States of the Union, including that in which he was born and educated. They understand, too, that their object is a foreign as well as an illegal one; yet so determined are they to accomplish it, that they are even prepared to resort to the means which he found so successful in subjugating unhappy Kansas, and will push on, though their path lies "through burning cities, and ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign, complicated with civil and servile war." With all their shamming, they are downright disunionists, for they are perfectly aware "that the first step in the attempt" to

emancipate the slaves, (which the President alleges they have already taken,) " is the forcible disruption of a country embracing in its broad bosom a

degree of liberty, and an amount of individual and public prosperity, to which there is no par

allel in history, and substituting in its place hostile Governments, driven at once and inevitably into mutual devastation and fratricidal carnage,

transforming the now peaceful and felicitous men, like the rival monarchies of Europe and Asia,"

brotherhood into a vast permanent camp of armed.

If this indictment can be sustained, the history of the world does not furnish the record of a peo-ple more insatiate and malignant in their wickedness than the one million four hundred thousand men who compose the Republican party of the United States. Not satisfied with destroying the Union, they would follow up this great crime by consummating the work of emancipation among

a people from whom they will have been entirely without due process of law, it becomes our duty to mainseparated. The President continues:

"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."

I would comment upon this extract, did I not feel my utter inability to do justice to the subject. Of course, sir, these charges are untrue. I say of course, because it is morally impossible that they should be well founded. But aside from this, their want of truth can be established by evidence of the strongest character that can be adduced in negation of any groundless charge. Mr. Speaker, where ought candid and just men to go, to find the views and purposes of the Republican party? Where, if not to their platform of principles and duties? And have not we, who are members of that party, a right to claim that we shall be judged by that, in the same manner

tain this provision of the Constitution against attempts to violate it, to prevent the establishment of Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation prohibiting its existence therein. And we deny the authority of Congress. of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

"3. Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Con gress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States, for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in its Territones those twin relies of barbarism, Polygamy and Slavery."

Here, sir, you find that the Republican party resolve that they mean to maintain the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution, and that "the rights of the States, and the Union of the States, shall be preserved." In the face of this declaration, the President informs Congress that they intend to trample upon the rights of the States, and destroy the Union.

They assert that it is the duty of the American people "to prevent the establishment of Slavery in the Territories of the United States, by pos

that other parties are tried by their organic dec-itive legislation prohibiting its existence therein;"

larations and platforms? The Republicans are contented to judge the Democratic party by the platform erected at Cincinnati, and they insist that their party shall be tested by that framed at Philadelphia. But the President charges upon us opinions and aims the very reverse of those contained in that platform. He assumes that we are guilty; that our purposes are criminal; and regards our disavowal of such purposes, and the deliberate and solemn declarations of our real intentions, as false and insincere the shams of a criminal. It has been said that men are unable to ascribe virtues to others, of which they have no conception themselves. It is not impossible that the unprejudiced reader of the message may think that there is a basis of truth in the remark. We claim that our intentions and objects are to be ascertained by reference to the platform carefully constructed by a Convention of delegates from some twenty States of the Union, repre senting as much intelligence, probity, and patriotism, as any Couvention that ever assembled in this country. I will read that platform, so far as it relates to the general question of Slavery; it is as follows:

"This Convention of delegates, assembled in pursuance of a cal addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions,

who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Com promise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into free territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presewing candidates for the offices of President and Vice

President, do

"1. Resolve, That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution, are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the

Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the
Union of the States, shall be preserved.

2. Resolved. That, with our Republican fathers, we

hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that the primary object and design of our Federal Government were to secure those righis to all persons within its exclusive jurisdiction: that as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Stavery in all our nauonal terrnory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, hberty, or property,

and they deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of individuals or associations, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained. They declare that it is the right and duty of Congress, under the Constitution, to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, Polygamy and Slavery. Now, is there anything in all these averments and denials like inequality or injustice that looks to sectionalism or disunion? It will be perceived that the leading, distinguishing principle of the Republican party, upon the general question of Slavery, is folded in the doctrine: that it is the right and the duty of the General Government to prevent the extension of Slavery into free territory. If this be treason, Heaven help us! We are all traitors!

Not only are the principles and purposes of the Republican party fully and clearly expressed in the Philadelphia platform, but they have been repeated a thousand times by the presses and speakers of the party, and in the resolutions of local Conventions, with constant and emphatic disavowals of the wish or purpose to interfere with Slavery in the States. Why should its members alone by singled out, by the President and his party, for reproach and opprobrium? Why are they more obnoxious to censure than the wise, the great, and the good men, whose pathway across our political horizon, from the early morning, is luminous with similar opinions? If holding these opinions justly exposes the Republicans to the imputation of being dishonest and dangerous men, fit to be classed with the "desperate and the damned," what shall save the Father of his Country, the Author of the Declaration of Independence, and the Father of the Constitution, from being placed in the same category ? Were Republican doctrines and designs more constitutional or less pernicious in 1789 or 1820 or 1848, than in 1856? They were among the axioms, the unquestionable truths, and the fixed purposes, of the Fathers; and the Republican party is but acting in the light of their examples, and carrying out their instructions. When its members | men as Adams, Crawford, and Calhoun, approved

remember this, I trust they will be comforted, and be able to bear themselves bravely and decorously against the assaults of one whose calumnies strike so far.

General Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, makes use of the following language:

"Ican only say, there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, [Slavery:) but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is by legislative authority; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shail never he wanting."

Surely this justifies the Republicans in all that they propose to accomplish; for to sincerely wish for the abolition of Slavery is inconsistent with a desire to extend it. The power of the General Government to restrain Slavery is recognised by the act of Congress of the 7th of August, 1789, which was approved by General Washington. In 1784, in the Congress of the Confederacy, Mr. Jefferson reported a resolution to the effect "that after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there should be neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude in ANY of said States, otherwise than in the punishment of crime whereof the said party shall have been duly convicted to have been personally guilty." It will be seen that Mr. Jefferson designed to strike a single and fatal blow to all Slavery extension. That he did not consider the powers of the Government, in this regard, as impaired by the Constitution, is shown by the fact that he approved, as President, many laws-some for the organization of Territorial Governments, with the SlaVery restriction-involving the existence of plenary power in Congress to legislate for the Ter

ritories.

Mr. Madison, who ought to know, from his connection with the Constitution, the objects for which it was framed, and the powers it was designed to confer, has said:

"I hold it essential, in every point of view, that the General Government should have power to prevent the increase of Slavery"-MADISON PAPERS, vol. 3, p 1391.

of thirty-six years ago? To the point that the avowed principles of the Republican party-and we insist, and will insist, that no man should deny that they are its real ones are such as we may maintain and carry out under the Constitution, I would refer the House to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which are full, clear, and decisive upon this point.

Thus have I sustained the position of the Republican party by the authority of every department of the Government, and by their acts, running through a period of sixty years from the date of its organization. I sustain them, too, by the language of the Constitution itself:

"Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belong to the United States"

And if, in the judgment of Congress, a "regula tion" excluding Slavery from the territory (or Territories) of the United States would be wise, salutary, "needful"-would tend to enhance the value of the land as land-to create a market for it-to encourage the settlemeat of the common domain, and to promote the welfare of the people emigrating thereto, and increase the wealth and strength of the whole country-why, in the name of all the canons of interpretation since the invention of language, has it not clear, express, and indisputable power to make such a regulation?

Mr. Speaker, I have another authority to cite, in reply to the wholesale allegations by the President of criminal motives and objects on the part of the Republican party; and while I do not think so much of it as others may, I believe its introduction is fairly allowable for the use which I wish to make of it. It is the authority of the President himself. On page 6, of the pamphlet edition of his message, he says:

"I confidently believe that the great body of those who

inconsiderately took this fatal step are sincerely attached

What, sir! these men attached to the Constitution and the Union, who nevertheless seek an object which "they well know to be revolution

Is it reasonable to believe that Mr. Madison assisted in the formation of a Constitution which, as he understood it, stripped the Government of ary," and who are "perfectly aware" that they all power to prevent the extension of Slavery? can accomplish it only by means which will carry That he did not, is apparent from the official them "through burning cities," (such as Lawsanction which he felt it his duty to give to laws rence, when the agents of the President fired it,) of Congress enacted in the exercise of this author- "ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, ity. The existence of this power was assumed (like those to which he may point as his handiand acted upon by Congress in the acts organ- work on the plains of distant Kansas!) How can izing the Territories of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, these men be sincerely attached to the Union, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Wash- when they are seeking an object which they know ington. It was in virtue of this constitutional must be accomplished by revolution and disunion? right that the Missouri Compromise was passed Sir, it is an old saying, that it is the penalty of in 1820; and I call the attention of the House to error and falsehood to destroy themselves, and

the fact, that the assertion has been made, and, so far as I know, never denied, that at the time of the passage of that Compromise, the President, Mr. Monroe, consulted his Cabinet upon the constitutionality of the measure, and that they were unanimous in deciding that it was within the

constitutional power of Congresss.

Now, sir, why does the President charge the Republican party with being sectionalists and disunionists, and as seeking to revolutionize the country, when its members are only doing what Mr. Monroe and his Cabinet, composed of such

t needs no better illustration than has been fur

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »