« PreviousContinue »
tice and fraternity all their constitutional obligations. If you can submit to them that evidence, I feel confident that, with the evidence that aggression is henceforth to cease, will terminate all the measures for defence. Upon you of the majority section it depends to restore peace and perpetuate the Union of equal States; upon us of the minority section rests the duty to maintain our equality and community rights; and the means in one case or the other must be such as each can control.
SENATOR FOSTER.—I was singularly unfortunate, Mr. President, in being so misunderstood by the Senator from Mississippi. I surely have made no party appeal, and have made no charge against any party as reasonable at all for the evils now existing in our country. I did, it is true, say that our Federal Government was in the hands of the Democratic party. Is it not true? I did not make the assertion in any offensive sense. I did not couple it with any intimation that that party was at all responsible for the evils under which we are now laboring. Having alluded to that fact, I said that a Senator connected with that party, and representing as gallant and as patriotic a State as belongs to the Confederacy, came forward with a resolution looking toward the restoration of peace and harmony in the country, and that in that state of things, although its phraseology was not entirely acceptable to me, and although it would be made far more acceptable by the amendments proposed to it by the Senator from New York, still, if the amendments proposed proved unacceptable to the Senator from Kentucky, I would vote for his resolution as it was, without amendment, for the reason that, under those circumstances, I considered it my duty to aid in the restoration of peace and harmony to the country.
Sir, if that is a party appeal, or if that is making a party charge, I have misunderstood and now greatly misunderstand the English language in its plainest and most obvious forms and words. My object was to show that I was ready to discard all these considerations, and discard them fully and absolutely, and I am sorry that I was so misunderstood.
SENATOR GREEN.-Mr. President, I am a little surprised, and not only a little but greatly surprised, that the Senator from Mississippi should deem it his duty to make use of language which I think so very unparliamentary in characterizing suggestions thrown out for the purpose of superinducing reflection, as quack nostrums. There are medical quacks: men who expect to accomplish results without means. So in political science there are quacks who, seeing the diseased condition of the patient, will do nothing to relieve him. But he is not a quack who, as an advising physician, does not administer medicine, but, having considered the condition of the patient, suggests a proper subject for consideration. The Senator from Mississippi has a right to condemn my suggestion, to oppose it, to vote against it; but to call it a quack remedy is such an expression as I have seldom heard in this Senate chamber. So, in regard to my friends from California; so in regard to others. We are making suggestions; we are hoping that reflection may set in, and that a proper consideration may devise something—to do what? To build up a central military despotism? No; but to maintain constitutional rights according to the plan of the Constitution as given to us by our fathers. Is there a Senator from any State in this Union who will rise in his place and say he wants more than that? If he does want more, I, for one, do not agree with him.
If my friend will read the fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution, he will find it says this: It is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the States against invasion without any application upon the part of the Executive, without any application upon the part of the legislature. When domestic violence springs up, and you want to quell that with Federal power, Federal power cannot be exerted until the legislature or Executive demands it. But when invasion is about to occur, the Federal power is adequate to it without any request.
Is that military despotism? If it is, Madison and Washington and Pinckney and Hamilton established that Government. To call any proposition building up a military despotism amounts just to this: we are going out of the Union, right or wrong; and we will misrepresent every proposition made to save the Union.
SENATOR LATHAM.—Mr. President, my friend from Mississippi, in his allusion to me, either misunderstood me or unintentionally did me great injustice. I did not say, because I did not think it-and, if I did say it, I did not intend so to be understood—that the State which I had the honor here in part to represent would think it any cause whatever for separation because of her failure to obtain the great measure to which I alluded. I merely said this: that it would weaken her attachment, but would not certainly destroy her allegiance to the Government at any time or in any sense.
SENATOR DAVIS.—I am very happy indeed to hear the explanation of my friend from California. He will find, however, upon examining the report, I think, that I understood his language. I am happy to find I did misunderstand his meaning, and very glad to be corrected.
The Senator from Missouri has taken special offence at my use of the word “quackery,” as contrary to the usage of the Senate. I will not quarrel with him about it; and, if he is satisfied, will agree that he is a learned pundit; that he is the highest authority on parliamentary etiquette; that he is the highest authority on political merit; but I cannot consent to his construction of the Constitution. When he selects a clause from the Constitution, which he reads with peculiar emphasis, and invites me to study—that clause in the Constitution which authorizes, or rather requires the Federal Government to repel invasion—I have but to refer him to the history of the Government for the meaning of that clause. Was it to establish a military cordon surrounding the States? Was it to raise battlements, whose armaments should frown terrifically down upon the people of a State? No, not at all, sir. It was to repel foreign aggression. That power was delegated when these States united for common defence. It was to bind their separate forces into one whole; so that the power of all might be used against any common enemy that invaded either of them; not the invasion of one State by another. That was a thought which would have deterred from union; that is the sad reflection which experience alone could have suggested to our minds. The Senator from Missouri, therefore, uses the phrase of the Constitution in a meaning which it cannot have; in an intent which our fathers had not; and does to them the great injustice of believing that, while they were sweeping away even the barriers to the freest trade between the States, they were providing to build up military cordons to keep the people apart.
CHARLES SUMNER (Mass.).-Mr. President, I offer to the Senate a piece of testimony of direct and most authoritative bearing upon the present state of the Union. If I may adopt the language of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Davis) it will help us to make the diagnosis of the present disease in the bodypolitic.
I hold in my hand an unpublished autograph letter, written by General Jackson, while President of the United States, and addressed to a clergyman [the Rev. Andrew J. Crawford) in a slaveholding State:
"WASHINGTON, May 1, 1833. ["Private.]
“My DEAR SIR: ... I have had a laborious task here, but nullification is dead; and its actors and courtiers will only be remembered by the people to be execrated for their wicked designs to sever and destroy the only good government on the globe, and that prosperity and happiness we enjoy over every other portion of the world. Haman's gallows ought to be the fate of all such ambitious men, who would involve their country in civil war, and all the evils in its train, that they might reign and ride on its whirlwinds and direct the storm. The free people of these United States have spoken, and consigned these wicked demagogues to their proper doom. Take care of your nullifiers; you have them among you; let them mect with the indignant frowns of every man who loves his country. The tariff, it is now'and he italicizes or underscores the word "now" "known, was a mere pretext.
The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question.
(SUMNER] LETTING THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG
These are the words of a patriot slaveholder of Tennessee, addressed to a patriot clergyman of a slaveholding State, and they are directly applicable to the present hour. Of practical sense, of inflexible purpose, and of various experience, Andrew Jackson saw intuitively the springs and motives of human conduct, while he loved his country with a firm and all-embracing attachment. Thus inspired, he was able to judge the present and to discern the future. The tariff, in his opinion, was a pretext only; disunion and a Southern confederacy the real object. “The next pretext,” says he-and you, sir, will mark the words—“will be the negro or slavery question.” These, sir, are his words, not mine. This is his emphatic judgment. These words and this judgment now belong to history; nor can they be assailed without assailing one of the greatest examples that a slaveholding community has given to our common country.
JAMES Dixon (Conn.).—There is a class of men, small in numbers and in influence, who assume that the present controversy is a conflict, as they say, of two civilizations; that it cannot be reconciled; that freedom or slavery must now perish. The great body of those whom I represent do not thus believe. We believe that there is no conflict of systems of labor in the different States which is incompatible with the peaceful existence of our Union. We believe that the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States may still revolve in harmonious spheres, and that, if the question of slavery shall destroy our Union, it will not be because it could not be satisfactorily and rightfully adjusted, but because the statesmen of the day are incompetent to the task.
ALBERT G. BROWN (Miss.).—Mr. President, I cannot vote for the resolution introduced by the Senator from Kentucky; and I desire, in a single word, without making a speech, to state the reason. Things have reached a crisis. The crisis can be met only in one way effectually, in my judgment; and that is for the Northern people to review and reverse their whole policy upon the subject of slavery. I see no evidence anywhere of any such purpose. On the contrary, the evidences accumulate all around, day by day, that there is no such purpose. In their newspapers, in the action of so many of their legislatures as have assembled, in the speeches of their Senators, with but one or two rare exceptions, we have accumulated evidence that there is no purpose on the part of the Northern people to reverse their action or their judgment upon this question. The Southern States do not expect that they are going to do it; and, having despaired of that reversal of judgment and that change of conduct, they are proceeding in the only mode left them to vindi. cate their rights and their honor. I cannot vote for the resolution of my friend from Kentucky because it would be an intimation-darkly given, it is true, but yet an intimation—to my State which is moving, that there is a hope of reconciliation. I do not believe there is any such hope. I see no evidence upon which to base a hope. I see, through this dark cloud that surrounds us, no ray of light. To me it is all darkness, midnight gloom.
If the same spirit could prevail which actuates the Senator