Page images
PDF
EPUB

car sus, under the lead of the honorable Senator from Illinois, who introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill, it was found that the Democrats from the North and the Democrats from the South could not agree in principle. The Democrats from the South then took the position that the Constitution of the United States was plain and clear. The rights of the people of the South were placed upon that instrument. I agree with the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) that we have nothing to do in this controversy with natural rights or natural principles. Those rights and those principles, which lie at the foundation of social organization and civil government, were proper subjects of examination and consideration with the fathers. They did take them into consideration. They decided them. They have given us a chart by which now we are bound all to direct our course; and that chart is the Constitution of our country. Resting the rights of the South upon that Constitution, when the discussions arose upon the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Senators from the South who met in caucus, or in convention, or in primary meeting, if you choose so to say, all agreed, without a dissenting voice, that, by the true construction of the Constitution of the United States, the Territories belonging to the United States were the common property of all; that each State had equal rights in those Territories; that amongst those rights was the right of the citizens of the different States to emigrate to those Territiories with their property of every nature and kind; and, when there, we contended that there was no power under heaven that could drive us out of those Territories, or deprive us therein of the protection of the Constitution and the laws, until the people of the Territory should make a constitution and form a State.

guide and a pole star by which the Democratic party could guide the ship of State, a sudden and alarming heresy sprung up in the North, and something was said about the right of the Legislature of the Territories not to destroy Slavery; not to abolish it; not to confiscate by direct legislation the rights of the citizens of the South who might find themselves in the Territories with their property, but, by a side blow, by indirection, and by failure to perform duty, by "unfriendly legislation," to do that which constitutionally they had no power to do by any direct effort of legislative will. Now, sir, the Cincinnati platform, with which the gentleman from North Carolina seems to be so much in love, and which he thinks is sufficient for the constitutional rights of the South, would be sufficient for that purpose, is sufficient for that purpose properly construed but when the delegates of a great party, assembled together from all portions of the Confederacy, recently met, and the proposition was made to them to adopt the Cincinnati platform, it was made under what circumstances, and with what view? It was made with a knowledge of every man in that Convention that two distinctly opposite interpretations were put upon that platform one at the South, and the other at the North.

Mr. Clingman.-The Senator will allow me to ask him if these two opinions were not upon whether a Territorial Le gislature could legislate for or against Slavery? Are those the opinions to which he refers?

Mr. Benjamin.-The opposite constructions are put in several points. One point is, whether the Territorial Le gislature has a right to abolish Slavery in the Territories or not, before forming a State Constitution; and another is, whether or not it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect the rights of the people of the South in the Territories. Upon those two points opposite interpretations and opposite principles exist, and were developed in the Charleston Convention.

Mr. Clingman.-I will answer the gentleman when he is Mr. Pugh.-Do I understand the gentleman to say that every member of the Convention agreed that the platform had received two interpretations, or that it was susceptible of it?

Mr. Benjamin.-I understand that opposite interpretations were plainly and openly given to that platform in Convention, by men whose good faith no man has ever yet disputed to my knowledge.

Mr. Pugh. I do not think that was the ground of the difference of opinion at all. I said there never were two interpretations that could be fairly given to it; that the platform purposely, in the language of the Senator from North Carolina, referred that question to judicial tribunals; that the difference of opinion arose upon the judicial question; it did not arise upon the platform; and that consequently it was a false accusation. I say that certainly in no unkind spirit to the Senator; but I say the platform is not susceptible of two interpretations; that it referred a controversy to arbitration. There might be a difference of opinion as to the particular arbitration of it, but there was none as to the terms of submission.

The Senator from Illinois did not agree with us in that. He has been consistent. The Senator from Illinois held that there was a power in the people of a Territory; he believed in Popular Sovereignty; he believed in some inherent right in the people when assem-through. bled, even in the original inchoate shape in which they come as emigrants to the Territories, to pass laws to govern themselves; to mold their own Institutions, as he phrased it, and included in that power the right to act against Slavery. We could not agree. Morning after morning we met, for the purpose of coming to some understanding upon that very point; and it was finally understood by all, agreed to by all, made the basis of a compromise by all the supporters of that bill, that the Territories should be organized with a delegation by Congress of all the power of Congress in the Territories, and that the extent of the power of Congress should be determined by the courts. Firm in our belief of our rights, conscious that in the Constitution we had guaranty enough; knowing that it was impossible for a judicial tribunal to make other than one decision, we said that we would stand by that decision when made; and if it should be determined by the Supreme Court of the United States that there was a power in this Government to deprive the people of the South of their fair share of the common Territories of the Union, if that power in this Government existed in Congress, and if Congress delegated all its power to the Territories, we would stand by the decision and agree that we asserted a right that found no warrant in the Constitution; and, on the other hand, our brother Democrats of the North, and the Senator from Illinois at their head, agreed that if the Supreme Court of the United States should determine that the Congress of the United States had no power to interfere with Southern rights in the Territories, if, consequently, we had had not the power that we could delegate at all, then the Democrats of the North would join us in showing respect and obedience to that decision, and stand with us on the principle that we advocated as the true one. None of us supposed at the time that the decision would come so quick. None of us knew of the existence of a controversy then pending in the federal courts that would lead almost immediately to the decision of that question. We provided in the Kansas act itself; we introduced an express clause having for its avowed object to bring that question before the courts for decision,

Well, sir, the question did come before the courts, and the Supreme Court of the United States, in the decision in the Dred Scott case, has determined-gentlemen say it is no decision-as doctrine, or as opinion, or in some way has declared that the Congress of the United States has no power so to legislate as to destroy the rights of the people of the South in their slave property in the Territories, and the judges have said as a proposition, so clear that it required no argument, that the Congress possessing no such power, it was plain that it could give none to the Territorial Legislature. I do not understand that the gentlemen from the North, the members of the Democratic party, controvert that.

Mr. Benjamin.-I read, Mr. President, with as much attention as I was capable of, everything that occurred in that convention, and I saw the statement over and over again made in the convention, and not controverted, that different opinions were put upon that platform in different parts of the country.

Mr. Pugh.-I certainly controverted it for one. I do not recollect who else may have stated it. It may have been repeated a great many times; but I did controvert it.

Mr. Benjamin.-Now, sir, I say, in relation to that Cincinnati platform, which the Senator from North Carolina seems to think ought to have amply sufficed the South, and to have sufficed the Democratic party, these two opposite interpretations were known to be, intended to be given to it. Further, I say this: I say it was avowed at Charleston, over and over again, that if a construction was given to that platform by which it should be clearly stated that the people of the South were entitled to have their slaves protected in the Territories against any direct interference, either by Congressional or Territorial legislation; if that was avowed; if the doctrine of the party was asserted to be that the Legislature of the Territory, whilst a Territory existed in its inchoate organization, had no right to interfere with Slavery, then it was said, again and again, that no northern State could be carried upon that ground.

Mr. Clingman.-On the question as to whether a Territorial Legislature could legislate against Slavery or for it, I ask the Senator whether that would not necessarily be a question which a court must determine; that if the Legislature legislated or acted in any way, could we, by our opinions, settle it; or is it not, from necessity, a judicial question?

But at a time when we supposed that we all at length Mr. Benjamin.-The Senator is directing me entirely stood upon one common platform; that we had at last a'out of the line of my argument. I must beg him to allow

me to proceed in my line. That is not at all what I am at. It has no reference at all to my line of argument.

I say this: I say that distinctly opposite interpretatations, or distinctly opposite principles, if you choose, in relation to Southern rights under the Constitution, were avowed at Charleston, by men professing all to be Democrats; and that, in my judgment, it is a brand upon the good faith of the Democratic party, it is an imputation upon their honor, it is unworthy of them, and unworthy of us all, that we should go before the people of this country and ask their votes in favor of one party or another, with the avowed purpose of presenting opposite interpretations or opposite sets of principles in the two sections of the Confederacy, as being the principles of a common party, and forming a common party creed. I say that I will never be a party to any such contest as that. If I go into an electoral contest, I want to know the principles of the party with which I act, and I want, before the people of my State, before the people of the country, to declare those principles, to stand by them, to find them written in letters of light, so that no man can dare misconstrue them, and by them to stand, and with them, if need be, fall.

That I understand to have been the position of the delegation of Louisiana at Charleston. Taking that position, determined that they would not palter to public prejudices by using words in any double sense; that all they did and all they said must go forth to the country incapable of misconstruction; when they found it impossible to have the principles upon which alone they could go into the Presidential contest, stated thus clearly and thus plainly, they withdrew, rightly withdrew, honorably withdrew. I applaud them; I approve them; I stand by them. I think they did as became high-minded and honorable citizens. I think the State will show itself grateful to them for their act.

[ocr errors]

Now, the honorable Senator says he is willing to go with Democrats upon almost any platform; that almost any one that we can elect would be preferable to the adversaries against whom we are to be opposed.

Mr. Clingman. I said any of those proposed. I alluded to those proposed in the Convention.

Mr. Benjamin.-I suppose so. Now, Mr. President, I am not willing to go for any man, I do not care whether his name has been proposed or not, who is not willing to stand upon a platform of principle, of constitutional principle. I am willing to go for any man, whether named or not, who will pledge his honor to stand faithfully and squarely upon a platform of sound principles; and when a platform of sound constitutional principles shall be adopted by a Democratic Convention, satisfactory to me, with my views of constitutional right, and satisfactory to my people-principles satisfactory to my people, I say; I care not for men-then you may put upon that platform any man who can stand upon it honorably, and I will vote for him; I will maintain him; I will canvass my State in his behalf; I will spend all my time and all my breath in his cause, wherever, whenever, and however, I may be asked by his friends. That far, sir, I am willing to go; but I have no stomach for a fight in which I am to have my choice between a man who denies me all my rights openly and fairly and a man who admits my rights but intends to filch them. I have no choice there.

as he said, had erred more through ignorance than design. Mr. Benjamin then defended the Democratic Senators from the charge of having undertaken to dictate to the Charleston Convention what sort of platform it should make. When the Kansas bill was before the Senate, the Senator from Illinois called a caucus of Democratic Senators every morning to decide on their action for the day. The late Senatorial caucus had done no more than that. Yet for this it had been charged with seeking to diminish the Senator's chance for success. Mr. Benjamin next examined Mr. Douglas's charge that seventeen Democratic States had adopted a platform looking to the dissolution of the Union, and had placed themselves under the lead of Mr. Yancey, an avowed disunionist. His State had vcted for that platform, and he should vote for the Senate resolutions, and he denied that the Senator from Illinois had correctly stated the meaning of either. Nobody here wanted to make a slave code, a slang term which Mr. Douglas had picked up from the Republicans, nor to force Slavery on an unwilling people. The attacks upon the Democratic Senators were wanton and unprovoked, and he should repel them. The Senator had defended his consistency at great length, which was not the issue between them. The issue was that the Senator from Illinois had made a bargain and had violated it. To prove this he should not go further back than 1857, up to which time the Senator from Illinois was looked upon by the Democratic party with pride and favor. Why was it that a Senator who had thus been treated with favor should now be separated from his former associates? That he had passed over in his speech, and he (Benjamin) would supply the deficiency.

Mr. Benjamin then went into a history of the Kansas act, pointing out the differences between Democrats and Republicans and Douglas Democrats. At that time the Democrats being unable to agree as to the power of the people of the Territories, it was agreed to refer the subject to the Courts and to abide by the decision. He never had attacked the Senator's consistency. It was his consistency that constituted his great crime-adhering still to views which he had agreed to abandon when the Court decided the question, and which the Court had decided against him. This he charged was bad faith. The Senator no longer worshipped at the Democratic shrine, but had wandered forth after strange gods. The Senator from Illinois had admitted that he made this bargain, and yet he had been engaged since 1857 in trying to explain away, in conjunction with the Republicans, the decision of the Court, and to render it useless in case it should be affirmed. He quoted from the Dred Scott decision to show that the principle of right to slave property in the Territories was decided by it. On this point he argued at great length to show that Congress had full power over the Territories within the limits of its constitutional power; that the Constitution forbid the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories by Congress; and as the Territorial Government derived all its powers from Congress, the Territorial Legislature could not do more than Congress could. No sooner was this decision made than it was attacked by the Republicans, and the Chief-Justice assailed as having colluded with the President of the United States. The Senator from Illinois got over his bargain by saying that he did not agree to abide by the decision in the Dred Scott case; but when the case was carried up from the Territorial Courts to the Supreme Court, he would obey that. This was an afterthought, Mr. Lincoln for a seat in the Senate. To save himself first announced in the canvass of 1858, when pressed by from defeat, he introduced his theory as to the power of Mr. Benjamin said, when we met here in December, the people in the Territories. [Mr. Benjamin then read the public mind was greatly disturbed by the irruption of from the discussions between Messrs. Lincoln and Douglas a band of fanatics into a State of the Union, with the to show that the former was much more candid in his ansavowed intent to liberate the slaves. A large number of wers than the latter, and he confessed he was not such an resolutions have been offered, all relating to the relation ultra Anti-Slavery man as he supposed.] Mr. Douglas of the General Government to Slavery in the States and told us here that he would abide the decision of the Court, Territories. The large number and variety of these re- but at home he turns his back on his promise, repudiates solutions, required that those who professed to belonging his words, and tells his people that he has so arranged the to the same party should meet, in order to harmonize Kansas bill that in spite of the decision the people of the and act in concert. A meeting of Democratic Senators Territories can keep slaves out. To be twice deceived was therefore held to accomplish this purpose. The by the same man would be to make them dupes and fools. Senator from Illinois, in a speech occupying two days, Even Mr. Lincoln was shocked at his profligacy, and had presented the extraordinary spectacle of advocating charged him with bad faith. The election came off, and his own claims to the Presidency, and denouncing those though Mr. Douglas was successful by the arrangement who had dared to express their views on subjects before of the Legislative Districts, Mr. Lincoln beat him 4,000 on the Senate. The Senator from Illinois assumed that he the popular vote. [Mr. Benjamin next read from Mr. was the embodiment of the Democratic party, and that Douglas's Harper's Magazine article, to show that he had all who opposed him were rebels. He arraigned other absolutely copied Mr. Lincoln's arguments of 1858, and Senators, and charged them and the representatives of claimed them as discoveries of his own. Mr. Benjaseventeen States at Charleston as being on the high road min warned Mr. Douglas that the tendencies of his docto disunion. After having thus assailed everybody, he trines were to drive him back, step by step, to the Black announced that he had only spoken in self-defense, and Republican camp.] We already find him using the argu with princely magnanimity agreed to forgive those who, ments and quoting the language of the Republican party

BENJAMIN ON DOUGLAS.

After Mr. Douglas's famous speech of May 15th and 16th, on these resolutions, Mr. Benjamin addressed the Senate again, speaking of Mr. Douglas as follows:

On the 24th May, the vote was taken on the rst of Mr. Davis's series of resolutions, which was adopted, 36 to 19, the yeas being all Deand mocrats, except Messrs. Crittenden, of Ky., Kennedy, of Md., Americans. The nays were all Republicans. The second resolution was then read, when Mr. Harlan (Rep., of Iowa) offered to add the following as an amendment: But the free discussion of the morality and expediency of Slavery should never be interfered with by the laws of any State, or of the United States; and the freedom of speech and of the press, on this and every other subject of domestic and national policy, should be maintained inviolate to all the States,

NAYS.-Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-18.

Yeas all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy; nays all Republicans

The fourth resolution was adopted, 35 to 21, the negatives being all Republicans, except Mr. Pugh, Dem., of Ohio.

Mr. Clingman offered an amendment, in the form of the following resolution, to follow the 4th of Mr. Davis's series:

Resolved, That the existing condition of the Territories of the United States does not require the intervention of

This amendment was rejected, 20 to 36, as fol-Congress for the protection of property in slaves.

lows:

YEAS.—Messrs. Bingham, Chandler, Clark, Collamer, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, King, Simmons, Sumner, Ten Eyck, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-20.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown,

Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick,
Green, Gwin, Hammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson,
Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy,
Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk,
Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs,
Wigfall, and Yulee-36.

The amendment was debated at considerable

length; but, without taking the question, the Senate adjourned.

On the following day, the amendment was adopted, 26 to 23, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, Chandler, Clark, Clingman, Collamer, Crittenden, Dixon, Doolittle, Foot, Grimes, Hale, Hamlin, Harlan, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Latham, Polk, Pugh, Simmons, Ten Eyck, Toombs, Trumbull, Wade, and Wilson-26.

NAYS.-Messrs. Benjamin, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Hammond, Hunter, IverYeas all Republicans; nays all Democrats, ex- son, Lane, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Powell, cept Crittenden and Kennedy, Americans. Rice, Saulsbury, Sebastian, Slidell, Wigfall, and Yulee

The second resolution was then adopted, 36 to 20, the vote being exactly the reverse of that on Mr. Harlan's amendment.

The third resolution of the series was adopted, 36 to 18, as follows:

YEAS.-Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Brown, Chesnut, Clay, Clingman, Crittenden, Davis, Fitzpatrick, Green, Gwin, Pammond, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Arkansas, Johnson of Tennessee, Kennedy, Lane, Latham, Mallory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell, Pugh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Thomson, Toombs, Wigfall, and Yulee 36.

23.

Yeas all Republicans, except Messrs. Bigler, Bragg, Clingman, Crittenden, Johnson (Tenn.), Kennedy, Latham, Polk, Pugh, and Toombs; Nays all Democrats.

The fifth resolution of the series was then adopted, 35 to 2, Hamlin and Trumbull, the Yeas being all Democrats, except Crittenden and Kennedy. The seventh and last of the series was then adopted, 36 to 6, Mr. Ten Eyck, Rep., of New Jersey, voting Yea

JUDGE BATES'S PLATFORM.

IMPORTANT CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTER FROM JUDGE BATES ON THE POLITICAL QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

ST. LOUIS, March, 1860.

The HON. EDWARD BATES-Sir: As you may have learned from the public prints, the Republicans of Missouri met in Convention, in this city, on Saturday, the 10th instant, to make a declaration of their principles, elect delegates to the National Republican Convention, and complete a State organization. All of this the Convention executed, in a manner wholly satisfactory to its members. It also commended you, by resolution, to the National Republican party, as one well worthy to be the standardbearer of that party in the coming Presidential election. This fact the undersigned have pride and pleasure in communicating to you, knowing that throughout your life you have carried out, as far as a private citizen might, the sentiments contained in the resolutions adopted on Saturday, and a copy of which we inclose. But as you have voluntarily remained in private life for many years, your political opinions are consequently not so well understood by the Republican party at large as by the Republicans of Missouri.

Inasmuch as the delegation from this State to the Chicago Convention intend to present your name to that body as a candidate for the Presidency, we, in common with many other Republicans of Missouri, desire to procure from you an exposition of your views on the engrossing political questions of the time. We hope that notwithstanding your well-known relucta ice to appear before the public in the light of a Presidential aspirant, you will not

refuse to answer the following interrogatories, which, in our judgment, involve all the issues pending between the two political parties of the country.

1st. Are you opposed to the extension of Slavery?

2d. Does the Constitution of the United States carry Slavery into the Territories, and, as subsidiary to this, what is the legal effect of the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred

Scott case?

3d. Are you in favor of the colonization of the free colored population in Central America?

4th. Do you recognize any inequality of rights among citizens of the United States, and do you hold that it is the duty of the Federal Government to protect American citizens at home and abroad in the enjoyment of all their constitutional and legal rights, privileges, and immunities?

5th. Are you in favor of the construction of a railroad from the Valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, under the auspices of the General Government?

6th. Are you in favor of the measure known as the Homestead bill?

7th. Are you in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas, under the Constitution adopted at Wyandot?

[blocks in formation]

RESPONSE OF

JUDGE BATES.
ST. LOUIS, March 17, 1860.

To Messrs. P. L. For, Editor of The Missouri Democrat; Dr.
BERNAYS, Editor of the Anzeiger; and other gentlemen:

SIRS: B. Gratz Brown, Esq., as President of the Missouri State Convention, which sat in St. Louis on the tenth of this month, has officially made known to me the proceedings of that body, and by them I am enabled to know some of you as Delegates to the Chicago Convention, representing the Republican party of Missouri.

I have received your letter propounding to me certain questions (seven in number) which you suppose will cover most, if not all, the grounds of controversy, in the approaching Presidential election.

With pleasure I will answer your questions. But before doing so, allow me to glance at the peculiar circumstances in which I am placed, and the strangeness of the fact that I, a mere private man, am called upon to make avowals and explanations, with any view to take me from the shades of private life and place me at the head of the nation. I came to this frontier in my youth, and settled in St. Louis when it was a village. All my manhood has been spent in Missouri, and during all that time I have followed a profession which left my character and conduct open to the observation of society. And while it has been my constant habit freely to express my opinion of public measures and public men, the people of Missouri, of all parties, will bear me witness that I have never obtrusively thrust myself forward in pursuit of official honors. I have held no political office, and sought none, for more than twenty-five years.

The Territories, whether acquired by conquest or peaceable purchase, are subject and subordinate; not them, and the National Government has power to persovereign like the States. The nation is supreme over mit or fo.bid Slavery, within them. Entertaining these views, I am opposed to the extension of Slavery, and in my opinion, the spirit and policy of the Government ought to be against its extension.

2. Does the Constitution carry Slavery into the Territories? I answer no. The Constitution of the United States does not carry Slavery into the Territories. With much very into all the States. But it does not carry Slavery more show of reason may it be said that it carries Slaanywhere. It only acts upon it, where it finds it established by the local law.

It is

In connection with this point, I am asked to state my views of the Dred Scott case, and what was really determined by the Supreme Court in that case. my opinion, carefully considered, that the Court determined one single point of law only, that is, that Scott, the plaintiff, being a negro of African descent (not necessarily a slave), could not be a citizen of Missouri, and therefore could not sue in the Federal Court; and that for this reason, and this alone, the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction of the cause, and no power to give which the Supreme Court had of the cause was for the judgment between the parties. The only jurisdiction purpose of correcting the error of the Circuit Court, case. This power the Supreme Court did exercise, by in assuming the power to decide upon the merits of the setting aside the judgment of the Circuit Court upon ment for or against either party. the merits, and by dismissing the suit, without any judgSupreme Court did, and all that it had lawful power This is all that the

to do.

Under these circumstances, I confess the gratification which I feel in receiving the recent manifestations of the respect and confidence of my fellow-citizens. First, the Opposition members of the Missouri Legislature declared their preference for me as a candidate; then followed the learned judges should have thought that their duty I consider it a great public misfortune that several of my nomination by a Convention composed of all the elements of the Opposition in this State; and, now, the Re-required them to discuss and give opinions upon various publicans of Missouri, in their separate Convention, just disposed of by the court. All such opinions are extra questions outside of the case, as the case was actually held in St. Louis, have reaffirmed the nomination, and proposed, by their delegates, to present me to the Na-judicial and of no authority. But beside this, it appears tional Convention, soon to be held at Chicago, as a can- judges are political questions, and therefore beyond the to me that several of the questions so discussed by the didate for the first office in the nation. These various cognizance of the judiciary, and proper only to be considemonstrations in my own State are doubly gratifying to dered and disposed of by the political departments. If I me, because they afford the strongest proof that my am right in this, and it seems to me plain, the precedent name has been put forward only in a spirit of harmony is most unfortunate, because it may lead to a dangerous and peace, and with the hope of preventing all division conflict of authority among the coördinate branches of and controversy among those who, for their own safety the Government. and the public good, ought to be united in their action.

For all this I am deeply grateful, and, as far as concerns me personally, I must declare in simple truth, that if the movement go no further and produce no national results, still I am paid and overpaid for a life of labor, and for whatever of zealous effort and patient watching I have been able to bestow in support of a line of governmental policy which I believe to be for the present and permanent good of the country.

3. As to the colonization of the free blacks.

For many years I have been connected with the American Colonization Society, of which the rising young State of Liberia is the first fruit. I consider the object both humane and wise, beneficent alike to the free blacks who emigrate, and to the whites whom they leave behind. But Africa is distant, and presents so many obstacles to rapid settlement, that we cannot indulge the hope of draining And now, gentlemen, I proceed to answer your ques-off in that direction the growing numbers of our free black tions, briefly indeed, but fully, plainly, and with all possible frankness. And I do this the more willingly because I have received from individuals many letters (too many to be separately answered), and have seen in many public journals articles making urgent calls upon me for such a statement of views.

1. Slavery-Its extension in the Territories.

On this subject, in the States and in the Territories, I have no new opinions-no opinions formed in relasion to the present array of parties. I am coeval with the Missouri question of 1819-20, having begun my political life in the midst of that struggle. At that time my position required me to seek all the means of knowledge within my reach, and to study the principles involved with all the powers of my mind; and I arrived at conclusions then which no subsequent events have induced me to change. The existence of negro Slavery in our country had its beginning in the early time of the Colonies, and was imposed by the mother country against the will of most of the colonists. At the time of the Revolution, and long after, it was commonly regarded as an evil, temporary in its nature, and likely to disappear in the course of time, yet, while it continued, a misfortune to the country, socially and politically.

Thus was I taught, by those who made our Government, and neither the new light of modern civilization, nor the discovery of a new system of constitutional law and social philosophy, has enabled me to detect the error of their teaching.

Slavery is "a social relation "-a domestic institution. Within the States, it exists by the local law, and the Federal Government has no control over it there.

population. The tropical regions of America, I think,
offer a far better prospect both for us and for them.
4. As to any inequality of rights among American citizens.
such as are expressly laid down in the Constitution.
I recognize no distinctions among American citizens but
And

I hold that our Government is bound to protect all the
citizens in the enjoyment of all their rights, everywhere
and against all assailants. And as to all these rights,
there is no difference between citizens born and citizens
made such by law.

5. Am I in favor of the construction of a railroad from the Valley of the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean, under the aus pices of the General Government?

Yes, strongly. I not only believe such a road of vast importance as the means of increasing the population, wealth and power of this great valley, but necessary as the means of national defence, and of preserving the integrity of the Union.

6. Am I in favor of the measure called the Homestead bill? Yes; I am for guarding the public lands, as well as possible, from the danger of becoming the subject of common trade and speculation-for keeping them for the actual use of the people-and for granting tracts of suitable size to those who will actually inhabit and improve them.

7. Am I in favor of the immediate admission of Kansas under the Wyandot Constitution?

I think that Kansas ought to be admitted without delay, leaving her, like all the other States, the sole judge of her own Constitution.

Thus, gentlemen, I believe I have answered all your inquiries in a plain, intelligible manner, and, I hope,

your sutisfaction. I have not attempted to support my answers by argument, for that could not be done in a short letter; and, restraining myself from going into general politics, I have confined my remarks to the particular subjects upon which you requested me to write. Your obliged fellow-citizen,

EDWARD BATES.

JUDGE BATES'S LETTER

IN SUPPORT OF LINCOLN.

ST. LOUIS, June 11, 1860.

O. H. BROWNING, Esq., Quincy, Ill. DEAR SIR: When I received your letter of May 22d, I had no thought that the answer would be so long delayed; but, waiving all excuses, I proceed to answer it now.

Under the circumstances of the case it ought not to have been doubted that I would give Mr. Lincoln's nommation a cordial and hearty support. But in declaring my intention to do so, it is due to myself to state some of the facts and reasons which have a controlling influence over my mind, and which I think ought to be persuasive arguments with some other men, whose political opinions and antecedents are, in some important particulars, like my own.

There was no good ground for supposing that I felt any pique or dissatisfaction because the Chicago Convention failed to nominate me. I had no such feeling. On party grounds, I had no right to expect the nomination. I had no claims upon the Republicans as a party, for I have never been a member of any party, so as to be bound by its dogmas, and subject to its discipline, except only the Whig party, which is now broken up, and its materials, for the most part, absorbed in other organizations. And thus I am left, alone and powerless, indeed, but perfectly free to follow the dictates of my own judgment, and to take such part in current politics as my own sense of duty and patriotism may require. Many Republicans, and among them, I think, some of the most moderate and patriotic of that party, honored me with their confidence and desired to make me their candidate. For this favor I was indebted to the fact that between them and me there was a coincidence of opinion upon certain important questions of government. They and I agreed in believing that the National Government has sovereign power over the Territories, and that it would be impolitic and unwise to use that power for the propagation of negro Slavery by planting it in Free Territory. Some of them believed also that my nomination, while it would tex. o soften the tone of the Republican party, without any abandonment of its principles, might tend also to generalize its character and attract the friendship and support of many, especially in the border States, who, like me, had never been members of their party, but concurred with them in opinion about the government of the Territories. These are the grounds, and I think the only grounds, upon which I was supported at all at Chicago.

As to the platform put forth by the Chicago Convention, I have little to say, because, whether good or bad, that will not constitute the ground of my support of Mr. Lincoln. I have no great respect for party platforms in general. They are commonly made in times of high excitement, under a pressure of circumstances, and with the view to conciliate present support, rather than to establish a permanent system of principles and line of policy for the future good government of country. The Conventions which form them are transient in their nature; their power and influence are consumed in the using, leaving no continuing obligation upon their respective parties. And hence we need not wonder that platforms so made are hardly ever acted upon in practice. I shall not discuss their relative merits, but content myself with saying that this Republican platform, though in several particulars it does not conform to my views, is still far better than any published creed, past or present, of the Democrats. And as to the new party, it has not chosen to promulgate any platform at all, except two or three broad generalities which are common to the professions of faith of all parties in the country. No party, indeed, dare ask the confidence of the nation, while openly denying the obligation to support the Union and the Constitution and to enforce the laws. That is a common duty, binding upon every citizen, and the failure to perform it is a crime.

To me it is plain that the approaching contest must be between the Democratic and the Republican parties; and, between them, I prefer the latter.

The Democratic party, by the long possession and abuse of power, has grown wanton and reckless; has

[ocr errors]

corrupted itself and perverted the principles of the G vernment; has set itself openly against the great home interests of the people, by neglecting to protect their industry, and by refusing to improve and keep in order the highways and depots of commerce; and even now is urging a measure in Congress to abdicate the constitu tional power and duty to regulate commerce among the States, and to grant to the States the discretionary power to levy tonnage duties upon all our commerce, under the pretense of improving harbors, rivers, and lakes; has changed the status of the negro slave by making him no longer mere property, but a politician, an antagonist power in the State, a power to which all other powers are required to yield, under penalty of a dissolution of the Union; has directed its energies to the gratification of its lusts of foreign domain, as manifested in its persistent efforts to seize upon tropical regions, not because those countries and their incongruous people are necessary, or even desirable, to be incorporated into cur nation, but for the mere purpose of making Slave States, in order to advance the political power of the party in the Senate and in the choice of the President, so as effectually to transfer the chief powers of the Government from the many to the few; has in various instances endangered the equality of the coördinate branches of the Government, by urgent efforts to enlarge the powers of the Executive at the expense of the Legislative depart ment; has attempted to discredit and degrade the Judiciary, by affecting to make it, at first, the arbiter of party quarrels, to become soon and inevitably the passive registrar of a party decree.

In most, if not all these particulars, I understand the Republican party (judging it by its acts and by the known opinions of many of its leading men) to be the exact opposite of the Democratic party; and that is the ground of my preference of the one party over the other. And that alone would be a sufficient reason, if I had no other good reasons, for supporting Mr. Lincoln against any man who may be put forward by the Democratic party, as the exponent of its principles and the agent to work out, in practice, its dangerous policies.

The third party, which, by its formation, has destroyed the organization of the American and Whig parties, has nominated two most excellent men. I know them well, as sound statesmen and true patriots. More than thirty years ago I served with them both in Congress, and from that time to this I have always held them in respect and honor. But what can the third party do toward the elec tion of even such worthy men as these against the two great parties which are now in actual contest for the power to rule the nation? It is made up entirely of portions of the disintegrated elements of the late Whig and American parties-good materials, in the main, I admit, but quite too weak to elect any man or establish any principle. The most it can do is, here and there in par ticular localities, to make a diversion in favor of the Democrats. In 1856, the Whig and American parties (not forming a new party, but united as allies), with entire unanimity and some zeal, supported Mr. Fillmore for the Presidency, and with what results? We made a miserable failure, carrying no State but gallant little Maryland. And, surely, the united Whigs and Americans of that day had a far greater show of strength and far better prospects of success than any which belong to the Constitutional Union party now. In fact, I see no possiblity of success for the third party, except in one contingency-the Destruction of the Democratic party. That is a contigency not likely to happen this year, for, badly as I think of many of the acts and policies of that party, its cup is not yet full-the day has not yet come when it must dissolve in its own corruptions. But the day is coming, and is not far off. The party has made itself entirely sectional; it has concentrated its very being into one single idea; negro Slavery has control of all its faculties, and it can see and hear nothing else—" one stern, tyrannic thought, that makes all other thoughts its slaves!"

But the Democratic party still lives, and while it lives, it and the Republican party are the only real antagonistic powers in the nation, and for the present, I must choose between them. I choose the latter, as wiser, purer, younger and less corrupted by time and self-indulgence.

The candidates nominated at Chicago are both men who, as individuals and politicians, rank with the foremost of the country. I have heard no objection to Mr. Hamlin personally, but only to his geographical position, which is thought to be too far North and East to allow his personal good qualities to exercise their proper influence over the nation at large. But the nomination for the Presidency is the great controlling act. Mr. Lincoln, his character, talents, opinions and history will be criticised by thousands, while the candidate for the Vice-Presidency will be passed over in comparative silence.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »