« PreviousContinue »
as sustained or authorized the slave-trade in the District. The resolution caused considerable excitement, and a motion to lay on the table was made and lost by one vote. Mr. Lincoln voted against the motion. The resolution was now before the House, but the previous question was pending. Questions of order arose and the House was in great confusion. Mr. Giddings claimed the right to modify his resolution, and the Speaker decided that he had that right. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, appealed from the decision of the Chair. In answer to a question, the Chair stated that if the resolution was modified, a second motion to lay en the table would be in order, whereupon Mr. Stephens withdrew his appeal. Mr. Giddings modified his resolution, and it was again moved that it be laid on the table. This time the motion was successful-ayes 94, nays 88-Mr. Lincoln voting no.
VOTE OF SUPPLIES FOR THE WAR.
On the 17th of February, Mr. Lincoln gave a vote which effectually destroys the assertion of some of his political enemies of this day, that he voted against the supplies for the war in Mexico. The Committee of Ways and Means reported a Loan Bill to raise the sum of sixteen millions of dollars to enable the government to provide for its debts, principally incurred in Mexico. This bill passed a Whig House of Representatives; ayes 192, nays 14, Mr. Lincoln voting for the bill. This vote alone disposes of the slanderous charge that he voted against the supplies because of the war with Mexico.
On the 28th of February Mr. Putnam moved the following preamble and resolution :
"Whereas, In the settlement of the difficulties pending between this country and Mexico, territory may be acquired in which slavery does not exist ; and whereas, Congress, in the organization of a territorial government, at an early period of our political history, established a principle worthy of imitation in all future time, forbidding the existence of slavery in free territory: Therefore,
"Resolved, That in any territory which may be acquired from Mexico, over which shall be established territorial governments, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, should be forever prohibited; and that, in any act or resolution establishing such governments, a fundamental provision ought to be inserted to that effect."
Mr. Putnam moved the previous question.
Mr. Brodhead moved to lay the resolution on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was decided by yeas and nays.
After the roll was called through, Mr. C. J. Ingersoll rose and asked leave to vote. Mr. I. said he was not within the bar when his name was called, but came in before the following name was called. Mr. I. said, if allowed to vote, he would vote aye. His vote was not received.
Mr. Murphy rose and said he was not within the
bar when his name was called, but he asked leave to vote. It being objected to
Mr. C. J. Ingersoll moved to suspend the rules, to allow Mr. Murphy and himself to vote. Disagreed to. The result was then announced, as follows:
Yeas.-Messrs. Green Adams, Atkinson, Barringer, Barrow, Bayly, Bedinger, Birdsall, Black, Bocock, Bowdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Boyden, Brodhead, Charles Brown, Albert G. Brown, Burt, Cabell, Cathcart, Chase, Clapp, Franklin Clark, Beverly L. Clark, Clingman, Howell Cobb, Williamson R. W. Cobb, Cocke, Crisfield, Crozier, Daniel, Dickinson, Donnell, Garnett Duncan, Featherston, Ficklin, French, Fulton, Gaines, Gayle, Gentry, Goggin, Green, Willard P. Hall, Haralson, Harris, Haskell, Henley, Hill, Hilliard, Isaac E. Holmes, George S. Houston, Inge, Iverson, Jackson, Jamieson, Andrew Johnson, Robert W. Johnson, Geo W. Jones, John W. Jones, Kaufman, Kennon, Tho. Butler King, La Sere, Levin, Ligon, Lord, Lumpkin, Maclay, McClernand, McKay, McLane, Mann, Miller, Morehead, Morse, Outlaw, Pendleton, Pettit, Peyton, Phelps, Pilsbury, Preston, Richardson, Richey, Robinson, Roman, Sawyer, Shepperd, Simpson, Sims, Robert Smith, Stanton, Stephens, Thibodeaux, Thomas, Tompkins, John B. Thompson, Robert A Thompson, Toombs, Turner, Venable, Wick, Williams, Wiley, Woodward-105.
Nays.-Messrs. Abbott, Ashmun, Bingham, Brady, Butler, Canby, Collamer, Collins, Conger, Cranston, Crowell, Cummins, Dickey, Dixon, Duer, Daniel Duncan, Dunn, Eckert, Edwards, Embree, Nathan Evans, Faran, Farrelly, Fisher, Freedly, Fries, Giddings, Gott, Gregory, Grinnell. Hale, Nathan K. Hall, Hammons, James G. Hampton, Moses Hampton, Henry, Elias B. Holmes, John W. Houston, Hubbard, Hudson, Hunt, Irvin, Jenkins, James H. Johnson, Kellogg, Daniel P, King, Lahm, William T. Lawrence, Sidney Lawrence, Leffler, LINCOLN, McClelland, McIlvaine, Marsh, Marvin, Morris, Mullin, Nelson, Nes, Newell, Palfrey, Peaslee, Peck, Pollock, Putnam, Reynold, Julius, John A. Rockwell, Root, Rumsey, St. John, Schenck, Sherrill, Silvester, Slingerland, Caleb B. Smith, Truman Smith, Starkweather, Andrew Stewart, Charles E. Stuart, Strohm, Tallmadge, Taylor, Richard W. Thompson, William Thompson, Thurston, Van Dyke, Vinton, Warren, Wentworth, White, Wilmot, Wilson-92,
So the resolution was laid on the table.
Mr. Lincoln voted with the nays.
THE TEN REGIMENT BILL.
On April 3d Mr. Lincoln voted to suspend the rules that the Ten Regiment Bill might be taken up, and again did the same on the 18th of the same month.
June 19, 1848, Mr. Lincoln put himself on record in favor of a protective tariff. Mr. Stewart of Penn., on that day moved a suspension of the rules to enable him to offer the following resolution:
"Resolved, That the Committee of Ways and Means be instructed to inquire into the expediency of reporting a bill increasing the duties on foreign luxuries of all kinds and on such foreign manufactures as are now coming into ruinous competition with American labor." Mr. Lincoln voted in the affirmative.
SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.
On the 28th of July, the famous bill to establish territorial governments for Oregon, California, and New-Mexico, was taken from the Speaker's table as it came from the Senate. The peculiar feature of the bill was a provision in reference to California and NewMexico, prohibiting the territorial legislatures from passing laws in favor or against slavery, but also providing that all the laws of the territorial legislatures shall be subject to the sanction of Congress. It will be remembered that it was this bill which Mr. Webster, who was then in the Senate, opposed in a great speech: using the following language:
"We stand here now at least I do, for one-to say, that considering that there have been already five new slaveholding States formed out of newly-acquired territory, and one only, at most, non-slaveholding State, I do not feel that I am called on to go farther; I do not feel the obligation to yield more. But our friends of the South say, 'You deprive us of all our rights; we have fought for this territory, and you deny us participation in it.' Let us consider this question as it really is; and since the honorable gentleman from Georgia proposes to leave the case to the enlightened and impartial judgment of mankind, and as I agree with him that it is a case proper to be considered by the enlightened part of mankind, let us consider how the matter in truth stands. What is the consequence? Gentlemen who advocate the case which my honorable friend from Georgia, with so much ability, sustains, declare that we invade their rightsthat we deprive them of a participation in the enjoyment of territories acquired by the common services and common exertions of all. Is this true? How deprived ? Of what do we deprive them? Why, they say that we deprive them of the privilege of carrying their slaves, as slaves, into the new territories. Well, sir, what is the amount of that? They say that in this way we deprive them of the opportunity of going into this acquired territory with their property. Their 'property!'-what do they mean by that? We certainly do not deprive them of the privilege of going into these newly-acquired territories with all that, in the general estimate of human society, in the general, and common, and universal understanding of mankind, is esteemed property. Not at all. The truth is just this they have in their own States peculiar laws, which create property in persons. They have a system of local legislation, on which slavery rests, while everybody agrees that it is against natural law, or at least against the common understanding which pre