Page images
PDF
EPUB

them. The one is express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believes in the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that Constitutional right, slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to pass laws unfriend

he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitution of the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy that Constitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Constitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can he withhold it without violating his oath? And more especially, canly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim he pass unfriendly legislation to violate his fugitive. I do not know how such an his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sort argument may strike a popular assembly, of talk about the Constitution of the United like this, but I defy any body to go before States! There has never been as outland- a body of men whose minds are educated ish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable man on earth. I do not believe it is a Constitutional right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperly made and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those who go for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of all force while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man.

to estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota of difference between the Constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive, and the Constitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott decision is correct. I defy any man to make an argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the Fugitive Slave

tionist in the nation as Douglas, after all.

I suppose most of us (I know it of my-law. Why, there is not such an Aboliself) believe that the people of the Southern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law-that is a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available to them without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is

a

- at least

MR. DOUGLAS'S REPLY.

Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks

barren right" which needs legislation by saying that there is not such an Abolibefore it can become efficient and valuable tionist as I am in all America. If he could to the persons to whom it is guarantied. make the Abolitionists of Illinois believe And as the right is Constitutional I agree that, he would not have much show for that the legislation shall be granted to it the Senate. Let him make the Abolition-and that not that we like the institutionists believe the truth of that statement and of slavery. We profess to have no taste his political back is broken. for running and catching niggers His first criticism upon me is the expresI profess no taste for that job at all. Why sion of his hope that the war of the Adthen do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave ministration will be prosecuted against me law? Because I do not understand that and the Democratic party of this State with the Constitution, which guaranties that vigor. He wants that war prosecuted with right, can be supported without it. And vigor; I have no doubt of it. His hopes if I believed that the right to hold a slave of success, and the hopes of his party dein a Territory was equally fixed in the Con-pend solely upon it. They have no chance stitution with the right to reclaim fugitives, of destroying the Democracy of this State I should be bound to give it the legislation except by the aid of federal patronage. He necessary to support it. I say that no man has all the federal office-holders here as his can deny his obligation to give the neces- allies, running separate tickets against the sary legislation to support slavery in a Ter- Democracy to divide the party, although ritory, who believes it is a Constitutional the leaders all intend to vote directly the right to have it there. No man can, who Abolition ticket, and only leave the greendoes not give the Abolitionists an argu- horns to vote this separate ticket who rement to deny the obligation enjoined by fuse to go into the Abolition camp. There the Constitution to enact a Fugitive Slave is something really refreshing in the law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abo- thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of lition argument ever made. I say if that prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the Dred Scott decision is correct, then the first war I ever knew him to be in favor of right to hold slaves in a Territory is equal-prosecuting. It is the first war I ever ly a Constitutional right with the right of knew him to believe to be just or Constia slaveholder to have his runaway returned.tutional. When the Mexican war was No one can show the distinction between being waged, and the American army was

surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on the right spot.

When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies-that it was a slander -and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat on the stand, and said, "Here, Ficklin, tell the people that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had served in Congress with him, stood up and told them all that he recollected about it. It was that when George Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought forward a resolution declaring the war unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. "Yes," said Lincoln, "I did." Thus he confessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right; but charged that I had slandered him by saying that he voted against the supplies. I never charged him with voting against the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was not in Congress when they were voted. The war was commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. During the same session we voted more men and more money, and at the next session we voted more men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln entered Congress we had enough men and enough money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to vote for any more. When he got into the House, being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin, and prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, and that it was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed to the declaration of a war, another and very different thing to take sides with the enemy against your own country after the war has been commenced. Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles had been fought; our citizens, who were defending the honor of their country's flag, were surrounded by the daggers, the guns and the poison of the enemy. Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he declared that the American soldiers ought to be welcomed by, the Mexicans with bloody hands and hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that the war was unconstitutional and unjust; and Ash

mun's resolution, Corwin's speech, and Lincoln's vote, were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a Mexican party in the Congress of the United States who were doing all in their power to aid them. That a man who takes sides with the common enemy against his own country in time of war should rejoice in a war being made on me now, is very natural. And in my opinion, no other kind of a man would rejoice in it.

Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal today about his being an old line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition districts. How much of an old line Henry Clay Whig was he? Have you read General Singleton's speech at Jacksonville? You know that Gen. Singleton was, for twenty-five years, the confidential friend of Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, when the Constitutional Convention of this State was in session, the Whig members were invited to a Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in-law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry Clay overboard and take up Gen. Taylor in his place, giving, as his reason, that if the Whigs did not take up Gen. Taylor the Democrats would. Singleton testifies that Lincoln, in that speech, urged, as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard, that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect of cutting Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. He further states that when they got to Philadelphia to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) out of the Convention because he insisted on voting for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great joy when he found the mangled remains of the murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old line Clay Whig! Gen. Singleton testifies to the facts I have narrated, in a public speech which has been printed and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig.

What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln ever advocate? He was in Congress in 1848-9, when the Wilmot proviso warfare disturbed the peace and harmony

of the country, until it shook the founda- | that our fathers made this Government divition of the Republic from its centre to its ded into free and slave States, recognizing circumference. It was that agitation that the right of each to decide all its local quesbrought Clay forth from his retirement at tions for itself. Did they not thus make Ashland again to occupy his seat in the it? It is true that they did not establish Senate of the United States, to see if he slavery in any of the States, or abolish it could not, by his great wisdom and expe- in any of them; but finding thirteen States, rience, and the renown of his name, do twelve of which were slave and one free, something to restore peace and quiet to a they agreed to form a government uniting disturbed country. Who got up that sec- them together, as they stood divided into tional strife that Clay had to be called upon free and slave States, and to guaranty forto quell? I have heard Lincoln boast that ever to each State the right to do as it he voted forty-two times for the Wilmot pleased on the slavery question. Having proviso, and that he would have voted as thus made the government, and conferred many times more if he could. Lincoln is this right upon each State forever, I assert the man, in connection with Seward, Chase, that this Government can exist as they Giddings, and other Abolitionists, who got made it, divided into free and slave States, up that strife that I helped Clay to put down. if any one State chooses to retain slavery. Henry Clay came back to the Senate in He says that he looks forward to a time 1849, and saw that he must do something when slavery shall be abolished everyto restore peace to the country. The Union where. I look forward to a time when each Whigs and the Union Democrats welcomed State shall be allowed to do as it pleases. him the moment he arrived, as the man for If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is the occasion. We believed that he, of all not my business, but its own; if it chooses men on earth, had been preserved by Di- to abolish slavery, it is its own businessvine Providence to guide us out of our not mine. I care more for the great prindifficulties, and we Democrats rallied under ciple of self-government, the right of the Clay then, as you Whigs in nullification people to rule, than I do for all the negroes time rallied under the banner of old Jack-in Christendom. I would not endanger the son, forgetting party when the country was in danger, in order that we might have a country first, and parties afterward.

perpetuity of this Union, I would not blot out the great inalienable rights of the white men for all the negroes that ever existed. And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln Hence, I say, let us maintain this Governtold you that the slavery question was the ment on the principles that our father; only thing that ever disturbed the peace made it, recognizing the right of each Stat and harmony of the Union. Did not nulli- to keep slavery as long as its people deter. fication once raise its head and disturb mine, or to abolish it when they please, the peace of this Union in 1832? Was But Mr. Lincoln says that when our faththat the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? ers made this Government they did not Did not disunion raise its monster head look forward to the state of things now exduring the last war with Great Britain?isting; and therefore he thinks the doctrine Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln? The peace of this country has been disturbed three times, once during the war with Great Britain, once on the tariff question, and once on the slavery question. His argument, therefore, that slavery is the only question that has ever created dissension in the Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators are enabled now to use this slavery question for the purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard to all things else, the principle that I advocate, making each State and Territory free to decide for itself, ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws, and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through the whole list with the same effect. I say that all these laws are local and domestic, and that local and domestic concerns should be left to each State and each Territory to manage for itself. If agitators would acquiesce in that principle, there never would be any danger to the peace and harmony of the Union.

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by attacking the truth of my proposition,

was wrong; and he quotes Brooks, of South Carolina, to prove that our fathers then thought that probably slavery would be abolished by each State acting for itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose they did not foresee what has occurred, does that change the principles of our Government? They did not probably foresee the telegraph that transmits intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the railroads that now form the bonds of union between the different States, or the thousand mechanical inventions that have elevated mankind. But do these things change the principles of the Government? Our fathers, I say, made this Government on the principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitution, and allowed the people of each to apply to every new change of circumstances such remedy as they may see fit to improve their condition. This right they have for all time to come.

Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he did not at all desire to interfere with sla

very in the States where it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say that down here. Let me ask him then how he expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction every where, if he does not intend to interfere with it in the States where it exists? He says that he will prohibit it in all the Territories, and the inference is, then, that unless they make free States out of them he will keep them out of the Union; for, mark you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might apply (he forgot that as usual, etc.); he did not say whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Territories now in existence into the Union on the principle of Clay's Compromise measures on the slavery question. I told you that he would not. His idea is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories and thus force them all to become free States, surrounding the slave States with a cordon of free States and hemming them in, keeping the slaves confined to their present limits whilst they go on multiplying until the soil on which they live will no longer feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as the French general did the Algerines when he smoked them out. He is going to extinguish slavery by surrounding the slave States, hemming in the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do that in the name of humanity and Christianity, in order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to the moral sense of justice and to the Christian feeling of the community to sustain him. He says that any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the position of the king who claimed to govern by divine right. Let us examine for a moment and see what

the identical principle asserted by George III. and the Tories of the Revolution.

I ask you to look into these things, and then tell me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan in his letter of acceptance), have the right to decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. The point upon which Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply this, that slaves being property, stand on an equal footing with other property, and consequently that the owner has the same right to carry that property into a Territory that he has any other, subject to the same conditions. Suppose that one of your merchants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand dollars' worth of liquors to Kansas. He has a right to go there under that decision, but when he gets there he finds the Maine liquor law in force, and what can he do with his property after he gets it there? He cannot sell it, he cannot use it, it is subject to the local law, and that law is against him, and the best thing he can do with it is to bring it back into Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes to Kansas, as Col. Jeff. Davis said in his Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, you must take them there subject to the local law. If the people want the institution of slavery they will protect and encourage it; but if they do not want it they will withhold that protection, and the absence of local legislation protecting slavery excludes it as completely as a positive prohibition. You slaveholders of Missouri might as well understand what you know practically, that you cannot carry slavery where the people do not want it. All you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as they please; if they want slavery let them have it; if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to encourage it.

we

My friends, if, as I have said before, principle it was that overthrew the Divine will only live up to this great fundamental right of George the Third to govern us. principle, there will be peace between the Did not these colonies rebel because the North and the South. Mr. Lincoln admits British parliament had no right to pass laws that under the Constitution on all domes concerning our property and domestic and tic questions, except slavery, we ought not private institutions without our consent? to interfere with the people of each State. We demanded that the British Govern- What right have we to interfere with ment should not pass such laws unless they slavery any more than we have to interfere gave us representation in the body passing with any other question? He says that them, and this the British government this slavery question is now the bone of insisting on doing, we went to war, on contention. Why? Simply because agitathe principle that the Home Government tors have combined in all the free States to should not control and govern distant col- make war upon it. Suppose the agitators onies without giving them representation. in the States should combine in one-halfof Now, Mr. Lincoln proposes to govern the the Union to make war upon the railroad Territories without giving them a represen- system of the other half? They would thus

Sup

other

controlling their property and domestic pose one section makes war upon any concerns without their consent and against peculiar institution of the opposite their will. Thus, he asserts for his party and the same strife is produced. The only

section

remedy and safety is that we shall stand by themselves and when the people of the the Constitution as our fathers made it,States have so acted as to convince us that obey the laws as they are passed, while they will not regard our constitutional they stand the proper test and sustain the rights, then, and then for the first time, decisions of the Supreme Court and the arises the doctrine of secession in its pracconstituted authorities. tical application.

Speech of Hon. Jefferson Davis, Senator from Mississippi,

On retiring from the United States Senate. Delivered in the Senate Chamber January 21, 1861.

A great man who now reposes with his fathers and who has been often arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union advocated the doctrine of Nullification because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of the severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgment.

Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our government and the inalienable rights of the people of the States will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so if it were otherwise, and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent, on an occasion so solemn as this. It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of I therefore say I concur in the action of a State to secede from the Union. There- the people of Mississippi, believing it to fore, if I had not believed there was justi- be necessary and proper, and should have fiable cause; if I had thought that Missis-been bound by their action if my belief sippi was acting without sufficient provoca- had been otherwise; and this brings me tion, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action. I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession so often confounded are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union and against the agents of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself denies the right of the agent thus to act and appeals to the other States of the Union for a decision; but when the States

The

at the important point which I wish, on
this last occasion, to present to the Senate.
It is by this confounding of nullification
and secession that the name of a great
man whose ashes now mingle with his
mother earth, has been invoked to justify
coercion against a seceding state.
phrase "to execute the laws was an ex-
pression which General Jackson applied to
the case of a State refusing to obey the
laws while yet a member of the Union.
That is not the case which is now presented.
The laws are to be executed over the Uni-
ted States, and upon the people of the Uni-
ted States. They have no relation with
any foreign country. It is a perversion of
terms, at least it is a great misapprehension
of the case, which cites that expression for
application to a State which has withdrawn
from the Union. You may make war on
a foreign State. If it be the purpose of
gentlemen they may make war against a
State which has withdrawn from the
Union; but there are no laws of the Uni-
ted States to be executed within the limits
of a Seceded State. A State finding her-
self in the condition in which Mississippi
has judged she is; in which her safety re-
quires that she should provide for the

« PreviousContinue »