Page images
PDF
EPUB

forward, and that all his energies will be devoted to repealing this bill, and overthrowing the principles upon which it is based.

"Let the American people understand this subject in its true bearing; let the North once be disabused of the false impression that the South desires any ad vantage over it, or any unequal share of the privileges of the Government; let our friends in the Northern States once be convinced that all we ask and desire is the simple privilege of being let alone; and can we ask less? Blest or cursed, as you please, with an institution which we find established among us when we were born, and which will probably exist when we descend to our graves, an institution which is so firmly knit among us that it cannot be torn out without tearing up the very heart-strings of society, is it wonderful, is it unreasonable, is it not most reasonable, that we should ask gentlemen from other sections of the Confederacy simply to let us alone? WE ASK OF YOU THE PASSAGE OF NO LAW; WE ASK OF YOU THE ENACTMENT OF NO STATUTE, ANY FURTHER THAN TO PUT US BACK JUST IN THAT POSITION OCCUPIED BY OUR FATHERS WHEN THEY ACTED UPON THE PRINCIPLE WHICH WE NOW INVOKE, OF LEAVING EACH SECTION OF THE CONFEDERACY FREE TO ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ITS OWN INTERNAL DOMESTIC INSTITUTIONS. AND PROMOTE ITS OWN HAPPINESS AS IT SEES PROPER. Here is then a second great principle which I see in this bill, and for the establishment of which, I say, as other Senators have said upon this floor, I will sacrifice this amendment and a thousand others like it.

[ocr errors]

But this is not all. The Senator from Georgia (Mr. TooмBS) to-day spoke of a third principle, and he anticipated me in that respect. There is the great funda mental principle of American liberty contained in the provisions of the bill. It is that principle which laid the foundation of American independence. It is that principle for the establishment of which we owe so many blessings to the memory of our revolutionary sires-ay, sir, to our ante-revolutionary sires. They first planted on this continent the germ which has grown up into a lofty tree, that with its spreading branches overshadows and protects the nation. They first enunciated in the face of the civilized world, in the face of the then almost omnipotent English Parliament, the principle that man had a right to self-government. They first declared that it was against the inherent rights of mankind for a government to legislate for the local interests of a distant dependency. They declared-and it is upon that your Revolution is founded that the people of the United States, although colonial dependencies of Great Britain, were entitled to representation in the British Parliament, or to be exonerated from the duties of British subjects. ALL THAT IS ASKED NOW IS THE EXTENSION OF THIS SAME PRINCIPLE TO THE TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES. Here, then, is another third great principle, it is a great measure of conciliation between conflicting opinions in different parts of the confederacy conflicting opinions which have found their enunciation upon this floor. The honorable Senator from Michigan, (Mr. CASS,) in a speech replete with sound argument and true Republican principles, the force of which it would be difficult to answer, has advocated in this Senate the doctrine that there is an inherent right under the Constitution of the United States, in the people of the Territories to govern themselves. He denies the constitutional power of Congress to legislate for those Territories. The Senator from Indiana, (Mr. PETTIT,) and the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. BADGER,) differ in opinion from him; but as the Senator from Georgia said this morning, both agree that it is unwise to exercise the power in contradiction to the will of the people, even if we admit its existence. We find, then, that this principle of the independence and self-government of the people in the distant Territories of the Confederacy, harmonizes all these conflicting opinions, and enables us TO BANISH FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS ANOTHER FERTILE SOURCE OF DISCONTENT AND EXCITEMENT."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 33d Cong., vol. 29, page 767.)

Extract from the speech of Hon. J. M. MASON, of Virginia, in the Senate of the United States, May 25, 1854:

"Then, Mr. President, where do we stand? Here is a bill repealing and forever annulling a measure always odious to the South, and offensive to its honor, voluntarily brought forward from a quarter where the majority resides; and is the South to reject it because it contains also, an incidental policy on a different principle, which we do not approve? For one, sir, with a clear, unhesitating judgment, I answer, NO! "Mr. President, I am not going to discuss this question of squatter sovereignty, on which my honorable friend from Michigan, (Mr. CASS,) appears to be so very sensitive

I do not recognize the inhabitants of a Territory as a political community at all. The very act of Congress which provides a government for the Territory is a negation of the right of the inhabitants to do it for themselves. They are mere occupants of the public domain, nothing else. And it has been only because Congress deemed it expedient to give them a right of legislation, reserving to itself a power of revision, that the Territories have any political existence whatever. But when Congress delegate the power to them, it is a mere delegation, and how Congress measures it out is a matter of EXPEDIENCY, NOT OF PRINCIPLE. And from the experience which the Southern States have had of the tendencies of Congress heretofore, on the subject of slavery, I do not know that we may not quite as safely trust the people, come from where they may, as the Congress of the United States, with that institution.

"I say, then, Mr. President, to sum up, this bill is objectionable in some of its features, it is true. It is objectionable in that feature of it, for one, which does not deny to the people, the right to legislate on the subject of slavery. It is also objectionable in that clause of it which provides, that foreigners-those not naturalized-shall participate in the political power of the Territory. These, however, are questions of expediency alone. There is no principle, far less any constitutional law, involved in them; and if we can get the other and higher principle established on your statute-book, that henceforth power is denied to the Congress of the United States to legislate for the exclusion of slavery BY YIELDING THE QUESTION OF EXPEDIENCY, I do not think we shall be rebuked for a BAD BARGAIN."—(See vol. 29, Appendix Cong. Globe, page 774.)

And again, on the 11th December, 1856, Mr. MASON said:

"I wish to make an explanation in which I have more interest than anybody else, in reference to some remarks on this very topic which were interpolated into the debate at the time when the Senator from Maine (Mr. FESSENDEN) occupied the floor, and which seem to have been the subject of misrepresentation. These remarks were in reference to the much disputed question of squatter sovereignty. It has been supposed, not only in the Senate, but elsewhere, that I mean to admit a power in territorial legislation to prohibit slavery in a Territory. The remarks which I made, may have been for all that I know, correctly reported in the Globe. I did not revise them. Here they are:

"The territorial government was so organized there, as to admit itizens of all the States, whether free or slave, to take their property into the Territories; and when they organized themselves, or were organized under the law, into a legislative body, then to determine for themselves, whether this institution should exist amongst them or not. The specific difference is, that under the Kansas law, citizens from the slaveholding States might go into the Territory with their property; citizens from the free States might go there, holding no such property, and when they got there, and met in common council as a legislative body, they should determine whether the institution should prevail; whereas, the party which the honorable Senator is now representing here, declares that in the organic law creating the government in the Territory there shall be a prohibition in limine that no slaves shall go there."

"These remarks had reference to the subject matter of a previous debate, and to positions I then maintained; but occupying the floor by the courtesy of the Senator entitled to it, I was necessarily brief, and may have left my meaning obscure.

"The previous debate had reference to the issues raised by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and what I intended to say, and in a more elaborate form, would have said, was this, that those with whom I act, HAVE UNIFORMLY DENIED ANY POWER WHATEVER IN CONGRESS, TO LEGISLATE ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES. The Kansas bill was intended to delegate to the occupants of the Territories whatever power Congress possessed over all subjects of rightful legisla tion; but of course, it could delegate no more; and when we denied that Congress possessed any power to legislate on the subject of slavery, we of course denied that the Territorial legislature could have it, because Congress could not delegate what it does not possess. I did not amplify to show what the Kansas bill shows on its face that, in order to make the meaning more specific, the power to legislate on any subject, was by the terms of the bill referred to the Constitution; and express power was given by an appeal to the Supreme Court, to determine whether the legislature could, or could not rihtfully legislate on the subject of slavery. I could not occupy the time which belonged to the Senator from Maine, to elaborate the idea; but I referred to the Kansas bill to determine what power was conceded, and, of course, when we determined as our judgment that the Constitution gave to Congress no power to legislate on the subject of slavery, it followed that the bill could not delegate such power to a Terri

to dal legislature; but, as on the other side, it was claimed that Congress did possess the power; the bill immediately referred the question to the Constitution, and the JUDICIARY where we had been always willing to send it. I desired to say this only, that I might not be, as I have been misinterpreted. I am indebted to the courtesy of the Senator from New Hampshire in yielding me the floor for this purpose."—(See Corp. Globe, 3d Sess., 33d Cong., page 92.)

Extract from a speech of the HoN. JAMES A. BAYARD, of Delaware, in the Senate of the United States, May 25, 1854:

The honorable Senator from Louisiana (Mr. BENJAMIN,) stated three principles as embodied in the bill. In the first place it repeals an ideal arbitrary line which Conted to create and foster sectional differencies in the country. I admit that it be that. But is that a principle or is it merely a repeal of an act of Congress may be again enacted, and which whether repealed or permitted to remain, will have no practical effect on the future political condition of the country to which it applies, whether as States or Territories? THE SECOND, THAT IS THE GREAT PRINCIPLE OF THE BILL, IS THE RENUNCIATION BY CONGRESS OF ALL AUTHORITY TO LEGISLATE IN REGARD TO THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY, EITHER FOR ITS ESTABLISHMENT OR ITS PROHIBITION, beyond the two articles contained in the Constitution which delegate two express powers in relation to slavery, one to prohibit the slave trade and the second to provide for the reclamation of fugitive slaves who may escape into other States where slavery is not recognized by law.

"I agree with the honorable Senator from Louisiana as to the importance of this principle; it seems to include within it the necessity for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise line. The honorable Senator from Virginia, (Mr. MASON,) assumes substantially the same position, placing the importance of the bill on the single ground that it establishes the principle of NON-INTERVENTION BY CONGRESS with the institution of slavery in the TERRITORIES, as well as the States of this Union. Mr. President I consider that an important principle; and if I supposed that the effect of this bill would be TO REMOVE FROM THE HALLS OF CONGRESS ALL ÄGITATION IN REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY HEREAFTER; if I supposed that it would bury forever hereafter this whole question of abolition, I would sacrifice almost any of the other opinions which I entertain in order to vote for the bill."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, vol. 29, p. 775.)

Extract from remarks of the HON. GEORGE E. BADGER, of North Carolina, in the Senate of the United States, on the 15th February, 1854:

The clause as it stands is ample. It submits the whole authority to the Territory to determine for itself. That, in my judgemnt, is the place where it ought to be put. IF THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES CHOOSE TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY SO FAR FROM CONSIDERING IT AS A WRONG DONE TO ME OR TO MY CONSTITUENTS I SHALL NOT COMPLAIN OF IT. IT IS THEIR BUSINESS." (See Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 33d Cong., vol. 28, Part 1, page 422.) Again, on the 2d of March, 1854, Mr. BADGER said:

"Mr. President, the matter is clear. Some of us think-the distinguished Senator from Michigan (Mr. Cass) is of opinion that to the people of the territories alone belongs this power. Now I do not agree with him, I think with the honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. PETTIT,) that Congress has plenary power of government to legislate over these territories. But with regard to that question we have agreed some of us because we thought it the only right mode, and some because we think it a right mode, and under existing circumstances the preferable mode―TO CONFER THIS POWER UPON THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES."-(See Appendix Congressional Globe, vol. 29, page 287.)

Extract from a speech of the Hon. Mr. PETTIT, of Indiana, (lately appointed Chief Justice of Kansas,) in the Senate of the United States, on the 20th February, 1854:

"There is one provision in this bill however, which in order that the bill may harmonize with provisions already adopted upon that subject, it would seem to me ought to be stricken out. It will be recollected that the people are expressly author. ized to legislate upon all subjects whatsoever, slavery included. They may either es tablish or abolish it at their pleasure and at their will if the Constitution of the Uni

ted States allows it. Such is my understanding of it and such is my desire that it should be. But to make the question plainer and clearer and to rid it of all diffi. culties, I will suggest, if I do not move, the striking out of the following provision in the sixth section:

"That all laws passed by the Assembly, and approved by the Governor, shall be submitted to the Congress of the United States, and if disapproved shall be null and of none effect.'

[ocr errors]

My desire is to authorize the people of the territory to legislate upon all legiti mate subjects of legislation, without let or hindrance by this Government.""-(See Appendix to Congressional Globe, 1st session, 33d Congress, vol. 29, page 212.)

The provision referred to by Mr. Pettit in reference to the laws being disapproved by Congress was subsequently stricken out.

Extract from a speech of the Hon. A. P. BUTLER, of South Carolina, delivered in the United States Senate, March 2, 1854. (See Appendix Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 33d Congress, vol. 29, page 292.)

"Now, I believe that under the provisions of this bill and of the Utah and New Mexico bills, there will be a perfect carte blanche given to the Territorial Legislature to legislate as they may think proper. I am willing, as I said before, to trust the discretion and honesty and good faith of the people upon whom we devolve this power; but I can never consent that they can take it of themselves, or that it belongs to them without delegating it; for I think they are our deputies-limited controllable deputies, not squatter sovereigns.. I am willing to say that the people of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas shall be deputed by Congress to pass such laws as may be within their constitutional competency to pass, and nothing more. Is not that an honorable, fair, liberal trust to an intelligent people! I am willing to trust them, I have been willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailed, and I am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to the idea of the gentleman, may possibly be revived."

Extract from a speech of the Hon. R. M. T. HUNTER, of Virginia, delivered in the United States Senaté, February 24, 1854:

"The bill provides that the Legislatures of these Territories shall have power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legislation, consistently with the Constitution. And if they should assume power's which are thought to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the courts will decide that question wherever it may be raised. There is a difference of opinion among the friends of this measure, as to the extent of the limits which the Constitution imposes upon the Territorial Legislatures. This bill proposes to leave these differences to the decision of the courts. To that tribunal I am willing to leave this decision, as it was once before proposed to be left by the celebrated compromise of the Senator from Delaware, (Mr. CLAYTON,) a measure which, according to my understanding, was the best compromise which was offered upon this subject of slavery. I say, then, that I am willing to leave this point, upon which the friends of the bill are at difference, to the decision of the courts."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 33d Cong., vol. 29, p. 224.)

Extracts from a speech of the Hon. ROBERT TOOMBS, of Georgia, in the Senate of the United States, February 28, 1856:

"We who passed this Kansas bill, both at the North and the South, intend to maintain its principles; we do not intend to be driven from them by clamor nor by assaults, nor by falsehoods, nor by any other invention of its faithless and impotent assailants. These principles we expound for ourselves. We intend that the actual bona fide settlers of Kansas shall be protected in the full exercise of all the rights of freemen; that unawed and uncontrolled they shall freely, and of their own will, legislate for themselves to every extent allowed by the Constitution, while they have a Territorial government, and when they shall be in a condition to come into the Union, and may desire it, that they shall come into the Union with whatever republican constitution they may prefer and adopt for themselves; that in the exercise of these rights they shall be protected against insurrection from within and invasion from without. The rights are accorded to them without any reference to the result, and will be maintained, in my opinion, by the South and the North. I stood upon this ground in the passage of the bill; I shall maintain it with fidelity and honor to the last extremity."

*

*

*

[ocr errors]

"Against all these conflicting efforts and opinions, the friends of the Constitution, justice, and equality have hitherto held, and will continue to hold, the scales of justice even and unshaken. We still tell all the owners of this public domain to enter and enjoy it, both in the North and the South, with property of every sort, exercise the full powers of American freemen; LEGISLATE FOR YOURSELVES TO ANY AND EVERY EXTENT, AND UPON ANY AND EVERY SUBJECT ALLOWED BY OUR COMMON CONSTITUTION. The Federal Government will protect you against all who attempt to disturb you in the exercise of these invaluable rights; and when you have become powerful and strong enough to bear the burdens, and desire it, we will admit you into the family of sovereigns without reference to your opinions and your action upon African slavery. Decide that question for yourselves, and we will sustain your decision, because it is your right to make it. This is the policy of the Kansas bill; it wrongs no man-no section of our common country."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1st Sess., 34th Cong., vol. 83, p. 116.)

In alluding to the same subject in the Senate, on the 9th of July, 1856, Mr. ТOOMBS again said:

I thought it was the duty of the Government to protect slave property in the Territories until they should come into the Union as States, and then let them do as they pleased. There was not a large party to sustain this doctrine; but I believed it was right then, and believe so now. But a large portion of the South and a great number of the North, true national men, said: 'LET US LEAVE THE PEOPLE OF THE TERRITORIES TO PASS ON THIS AND ALL OTHER DOMESTIC RELATIONS AS FAR AS THE CONSTITUTION WILL ALLOW." I AGREED TO IT. Congress adopted it and incorporated it into the bills of 1850. The Senator from Maine says it is not there. I offer him this evidence: three-fourths of the Senate, and those who supported those measures, say it is there. He has opposed both, but he undertakes to construe our meaning for us. I do not consider him a good expounder of others creeds."-(See Appendix Cong. Globe, 1 Sess., 34 Cong., vol. 33, p. 870.")

Extracts from the speech of Hon. S. A. SMITH, of Tennessee, delivered in the House of Representatives, June 25, 1856:

"The controlling minds in that hour (1850) which tried the strength of the band which binds us, (CASS, CLAY, AND WEBSTER,) found no solution of the problem which they were compelled to solve, but in the great fundamental principle which relieved our fathers from like difficulties in the formation and adoption of the Constitution itself.

"For twenty years this question had agitated Congress and the country without a single beneficial result. They resolved that it should be transferred from these halls, that all unconstitutional restrictions should be removed, and that the people should determine for themselves the character of their local and domestic institutions under which they were to live, WITH PRECISELY THE SAME RIGHTS, BUT NO GREATER THAN THOSE WHICH WERE ENJOYED BY THE OLD THIRTEEN STATES.

"Excitement was intense and clamor loud, but the sober judgment of the people ratified the constitutional action of their representatives,

"In 1854 the same question was presented when the necessity arose for the organization of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, AND THE IDENTICAL PRINCIPLE WAS APPLIED FOR ITS SOLUTION. I, for one, as a Southern man, did not accept it with reference to any result which it might probably produce. I accepted it because it was constitutional, just, and safe. I accepted it because I believed it to be the only principle which could secure the legitimate rights of all sections of the Union. It had not merely the convictions of my own judgment to sustain it, but it had the sanction of the patriotism and wisdom of the Revolutionary fathers. If this great principle of popular sovereignty be justly carried out and sacredly maintained, it will give in time to come what we have enjoyed in the past—union, strength, prosperity, and happiness. If it be struck down by passion, fanaticism or sectional prejudice, in either section of the Confederation, I will not permit myself to contemplate the woes that await us."

*

*

*

"I say here, as a Southern man, and I believe the sentiment will be sanctioned by nearly every Southern representative on this floor, that if a bill were introduced in Congress to establish slavery in Kansas or any other Territory of the United States, I should unhesitatingly vote against it. And this I would do notwithstanding I honestly believe African slavery to be a moral, a social, and a political bless

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »