Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

huhind them, and there was no reason for believing that they had lost any of their intelligence or patriotism by the wayside while crossing the isthmus or the plains. It was also believed, that after their arrival in the country, when they had become familiar with its topography, climate, productions, and resources, and had connected their destiny with it, they were fully as competent to judge for themselves what kind of laws and institutions were best adapted to their condition and intérests. as we were who never saw the country and knew very little about it. To question their competeucy to do this was to deny their capacity for selfgovernment. If they have the requisite intelligence and honesty to be intrusted with the enactment of laws for the government of white men, I know of no reason why they should not be deemed competent to legislate for the negro. If they are sufficiently enlightened to make laws for the protection of life, liberty, and property-of morals and education--to determine the relation of husband and wise, of parent and child-I am not aware that it requires any higher degree of civilization to regulate the affairs of master and servant. These things are all confided by the Constitution to each State to decide, for itself; and I know of no reason why the same principle should not be extended to the Territories. My votes and acts have been in accordance with these views in all cases, except the instances in which I voted under your instructions. Those were your votes, and not mine. I entered my protest against thein at the time before and after they were recorded-and shall never hold myself responsible for then."

then held by the Senator from Mississippi were to become the rule of action in the southern States. I know not what he' meant; but the country understood and believed, so far as I know, that the fate of the Union depended upon the result of those States agreeing to acquiesce or not acquiesce. I do not doubt the attachment of the Senator from Mississippi to this Union; I do not doubt his devotion to his country. His services in the field and in the cabinet and in the Senate have proved his attachment; but I do believe that if he had been sustained in his appeal to the people of Mississippi against the compromise measures of 1850, the Union could not have been preserved. He appealed to Mississippi. General Foote was the standard-bearer of the friends of the compromise measures of 1850; the Senator [Mr. DAVIS] the standardbearer of his own views as he has expressed them in the Senate! The world knows the result. Mississippi decided against the Senator, [Mr. DAVIS,] and in favor of his opponent. Mississippi rebuked this doctrine of intervention, and placed her Foote upon it.

interventionists of Alabama against the compromise measures of 1850; but Alabama, like Mis-" sissippi, told Mr. Yancey and his co-interventionists to obey the laws of the land and acquiesce in the principle of non-intervention as affirmed in the measures of 1850.

Mr. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, after that speech, made under the circumstances to which How was it in Alabama? There Yancey led I have referred, more than half a million off, and was sustained by the same body of men copies were circulated throughout the country that lately attempted to break up the Charleston! by order of the great national committee of New convention. The same Yancey who avowed the York, which became alarmed lest the Union same doctrine of intervention at Baltimore in should be dissolved a speech which was laid 1848, when it was voted down by his own party, on the tables of Senators at the opening of the-that same Yancey boldly bore the flag of the session, and received a wider circulation and more approval than any speech of my whole life. In view of these facts, I submit whether it is fair to charge me with having for the first time, at Freeport, in 1858, asserted the doctrine that the people of a Territory can decide this question for themselves? I told the people of Chicago, in 1850, that In Georgia, too, the battle raged all along the the compromise measures rested on the great fun-line, as the Senator from that State [Mr. TOOMBS] ! damental principle that every people ought to can bear testimony. He found it necessary to form possess the right to manage their own domestic a union of Union men against the opponents of concerns in their own way; that the people of the compromise measures of 1850. The battle the States possessed the power, and the people raged fiercely and savagely. You, sir, [adof the Territories ought to have it; that all my dressing Mr. TOOMBS,] and your associates, were votes had been cast in accordance with that prin- denounced as submissionists because you sus-'* ciple, except when acting under their instruc-tained the principle of non-intervention as aftions; that those votes were the votes of those who instructed me, and not my own, and that I would never hold myself responsible for them. Is it fair for Senators to quote those votes, given under those circumstances? The Legislature of Illinois was elected a short time afterwards. When they assembled, they passed resolutions approving of the compromise measures of 1850, and instructing the Senators from that State, in all new territorial organizations, to incorporate the principle that the people of a Territory should decide the slavery question for themselves. Thus, sir, I was sustained in my appeal to my own people in justification of my opposition to the views of the Senator from Mississippi. How was it with his appeal to his people? The country has not forgotten, and will not soon forget, with what anxiety all America looked to Mississippi, to Alabama, to Georgia, to South Carolina, to know whether or not the submissionists --as the friends of those measures were sneeringly called-were to be sustained and the Union saved, or whether the ideas now proclaimed and

firmed in the compromise measures of 1850. They were not going to submit-no, not they; but when the election came, Georgia decided " against them, and in favor of the compromise measures, if I recollect right, by about twentyone thousand majority. Then, instead of being the fire-eaters, they themselves in turn became the submissionists; but they submitted by compulsion of their own people. The people of Georgia told the Senator before my eye [Mr. IVERSON] that he must submit to the doctrines which he taught in his speech of 1848, when General Cass was the candidate for the Presideney.

So in South Carolina. Your Rhetts led the forces there against the compromise measures. The gallant and patriotic Butler, who, although he had opposed the measures as a Senator, feeling that it was his duty to sustain the constituted authorities, on the other hand, led those who were in favor of acquiescing in the action. of Congress. And South Carolina herself decided against those men who were going to break

[ocr errors]

up parties and the Union on this question of in- Territories. When the party came together, we, tervention and non-intervention.

[blocks in formation]

the friends of the compromise measures of 1850,
we, the friends of non-intervention, were mag-
nanimous and tolerant. We made no issues upon
those who had differed with us; we. were gene-
rous and forgiving; we did not remind them of
their faults, nor of their humiliation.
We re-
cognized them as our equals. We never expected
to be told that we were to be pursued to the death,
and that "no quarter" was to be granted to us
whenever you got the accidental power to inflict
revenge. We are tolerant. If we succeed now,
we do not propose to proscribe anybody because
of a difference of opinion, so long as he remains
in the Democratic organization and supports its
nominees.

Mr. President, having shown that General Pierce was nominated and elected on this prin ciple of non-intervention; that he stood pledged by every dictate of honor and fidelity to carry it out in good faith, I will now proceed to show how it was carried out in the enactment of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. At that time the Senate of the United States had a chairman of the Committee on Territories who did unquestionably reflect the sentiments of the body, and of the Democratic party in the body. It having be come necessary to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, the Committee on Territories, through me as its chairman, on the 4th of January, 1854, made a report to this body, accompanied by a bill. In this report we set forth distinctly the principles upon which it was proposed to organize these Territories. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read an extract from that report, to show what were those principles. Mr. PUGH read as follows:

Mr. DOUGLAS. I am aware that Mr. Rhett was not in the Senate at that time; but Mr. Rhett's opinions were known then as well as they are now; and he led the men who were not willing to submit to the compromise measures of 1850, and was rebuked by his own people, and he became a submissionist perforce. Here you have the verdict of the American people, north and south, in favor of the doctrine of non-intervention. The southern interventionists, who had been defeated and overthrown at home, at last came to the conclusion that they, too, would submit, not from choice, but because they could not help it; and they said then to us, "Let us reunite the Democratic party, and present a united front against the abolitionists of the North." We said to them, "Gentlemen, although you have erred; although you have erred egregiously on this question, in resisting non-intervention, we will forgive you, "In the judgment of your committee, those measures [the if you will come up to Baltimore and acquiesce compromise measures of 1850 were intended to have a far more comprehensive and enduring effect than the mere adin a resolution establishing non-intervention for justment of the difficulties arising out of the recent acqui the future." We received the Senator from Mis-sition of Mexican territory. They were designed to establish sissippi on the terms, as we supposed, of acqui- certain great principles, which would not only furnish ade escence in the compromise measures of 1850, quate remedies for existing evils, but, in all time to come, avoid the perils of a similar agitation, by withdrawing the and the affirmance of non-intervention as the question of slavery from the halls of Congress and the po rule of the party in the future. We granted litical arena, and committing it to the arbitrament of those him "quarter" after he had been condemned, for, its consequences. With a view of conforming their ac who were immediately interested in, and alone responsible and was ready for execution tion to the settled policy of the government, sanctioned by the approving voice of the American people, your committee have deemed it their duty to incorporate and perpetuate, in their territorial bill, the principles and spirit of those measures."

Mr. DAVIS. I scorned it then, and scorn it

now.

"From these provisions it is apparent that the compro mise measures of 1850 afrin and rest upon the following propositions:

Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes, sir; as I scorned his threat not to grant "quarter" the other day. I After presenting and reviewing certain prolike the spirit that animates him to scorn "quar-visions of the bill, the committee conclude as ter." But, sir, the convention at Baltimore, follows:nevertheless, did ratify and confirm these compromise measures as containing the rule of action of the party. He will not deny that the convention, by a unanimous vote, decided in favor of the compromise measures; that General Pierce was nominated for President on that issue; that he was elected on that issue and none other; that he never would have been elected but for that issue; and that the Senator from Mississippi became Secretary of War by virtue of the

same issue. These are stubborn facts. He never could have been Secretary of War if the Democratic nominee had not been elected. General Pierce could not have been elected or nominated if he had not stood upon the issue of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in States and

"First. That all questions pertaining to slavery in the Territories, and in the new States to be formed therefrom, are to be left to the decision of the people residing therein, by their appropriate representatives, to be chosen by them for

that purpose.

"Second. That all cases involving title to slaves, and questions of personal freedom, are referred to the adjudica tion of the local tribunals, with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Third. That the provision of the Constitution of the United States in respect to fugitives from service is to be carried into faithful execution in all the organized Terri tories the same as in the States. The substitute for the bill which your committee have prepared, and which is commended to the favorable action of the Senate, proposes to carry these propositions and principles into practical opera tion, in the precise language of the compromise measures

of 1850."

Mr. DOUGLAS. It appears, from these ex- the Missouri compromise because it was incontracts from the report of the Committee onsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Territories, that we did not propose to mislead Congress with slavery in the States and Terriany man, or to permit any man to be misled, in tories, as affirmed in the compromise measures regard to the principle on which the proposed of 1850. There is the assertion, that the com territoriál action was to be based. The princi- promise measures were inconsistent with inter ples were distinctly set forth: first, that the vention for any purpose; that it was necessary slavery question was to be banished forever to establish non-intervention, without any excepfrom the Halls of Congress, and remanded to tion or other qualification, in order to carry out the people of the Territories who were imme- the principle of the compromise measures of diately interested; secondly, that all questions 1850; and we repealed the Missouri compromise involving the title to slaves, and matters of merely for the purpose of applying that prinpersonal freedom, were referred to the adjudi- ciple and banishing the slavery question from eation of the local tribunals, with a right of Congress, and remanding it to the people of the appeal to the Supreme Court of the United Territories. That was the object, the only States. Here non-intervention was established object, for which we ever repealed it. Every as an invariable rule of action; the Territories Senator who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill were to legislate as they pleased, so that they declared by his vote that non-intervention was did not violate the Constitution; and if they the rule in the compromise measures of 1850. passed any law impairing, or injurious to, the He is estopped from denying it; and it was well rights of property in slaves, suit should be understood, at the time, that we were making an brought in the local court of the Territory, with endorsement of the principle of the compromise a right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the measures of 1850; and we insisted that we United States; and that we would abide the would never repeal the Missouri restriction until result of such decisions. Then the fugitive we had that recognition. I remember well that slave law was to be faithfully executed and car- when southern Senators, who had opposed the ried into effect. Can any man have an excuse compromise measures of 1850, came to me and for not knowing that the true intent and mean- asked me to strike out the words "being inconing of the Kansas-Nebraska act was, that Con- sistent with the principle of non-intervention by gress renounced forever all right or pretext for Congress with slavery in the States and Terriinterfering with slavery in the Territories, either tories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850. to establish, prohibit, or protect? Remember, commonly called the compromise measures," I the questions to be referred to the courts were asked them why? They told me they had voted such questions as should arise under the terri- against the measures of 1850, and this seemed torial enactments, and the cases all were to go to stultify them, by compelling them to affirm into the local courts, with a right of appeal. them. I said, in these consultations, "You have Certainly, if gentlemen did not understand the agreed to withdraw your opposition and acprovisions of the bill, it was not the fault of the quiesce, and I must have it inserted in the bill, committee that reported it. that we repeal the Missouri restriction only for the purpose of carrying out the principle of nonintervention;" and there are men within the hearing of my voice to whom these reasons were given. It was considered as rather a bitter pill to those who had opposed the compromise measures of 1850; but we insisted that they should swallow it as the only condition on which we would pass such a bill. We had the recognition. of the principle, and we had the pledge of honor of every Senator who voted for the KansasNebraska act, that he would stand by the doctrine of non-intervention in all time to come. The Journal shows it. We took his bond, and recorded it on the Journal; it still exists, and will be imperishable.

I insist that the terms of the bill are still more explicit on this point. Having given notice, in the report, of what we intended to do, and how we intended to do it, and for what purpose we put the provision in the bill itself in language so plain that he who runs may read, there can be no excuse for not understanding it. In the fourteenth section of the bill we provided:

"That the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850. commonly called the 'compromise measures,' is hereby declared inoperative and void; it being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

There you find several distinct propositions affirmed in the body of the bill-that is the provision of the bill which the late Colonel Benton denounced as being a mere stump speech; because the draughter of the bill was careful enough to incorporate the distinct propositions which it was intended to carry out. We did not mean to leave it in doubt. In the first place, the principle announced was, that we repealed

What else is asserted?

"It being the true intent and meaning of this act not w legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom."

That does not tell what the intent was, but what was not the intent. What was the intent?

"But to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

That was the intent. Every man who voted for the bill declared, on his oath, that that was the intent: non-intervention by Congress; the people left free to do as they pleased, so that they did not violate the Constitution, and the

That is the
The record shows

courts to find out whether they violated the Con-
stitution of the United States or not; but Con-
gress never to interfere in any case.
way we agreed to this bill.
it. I have no controversy with any man who
was not a member of the body at the time the
bill passed, nor with any man who has changed
his opinions since and will avow the change; but
I assert that, beyond cavil, beyond dispute, be-
yond pretext, the object was, as avowed in the
bill itself non-intervention by Congress with
slavery in the States and Territories; and I
cannot permit it to be said, without reply, that
non-intervention meant only that Congress should
not establish or prohibit slavery, and did not
mean that it should not protect it. Sir, the
record shows that it did mean that Congress
should never interfere for any purpose, either to
protect, prohibit, or abolish.

That very question was raised by a Senator from Michigan, Mr. Stuart, while the bill was pending, after this proposition which I have read had been voted in. He said that while we had stated the principle correctly, still the effect of the bill would be, by repealing the Missouri compromise, to revive the old French laws protecting slavery, and that thus we should have intervened in the very act of non-intervening, by reviving a law for the protection of slavery. That was his opinion. Mr. Stuart laid down the proposition, as a lawyer, that to repeal a repealing act revived the former act; and hence when we repealed the Missouri compromise we revived the French law that had become void when that compromise was established. That eminent lawyer and jurist, Mr. Badger, of North Carolina, replied that Mr. Stuart had properly stated the common law rule on that subject, but that the civil law rule was different; that wherever the civil law existed, if you repealed a repealing act, it did not revive the former act, and hence that no amendment was necessary on that point. After consultation, an amendment was prepared, which is known to the country as the Badger amendment, the object of which was to declare that Congress should not protect slavery itself, nor do any act by which it should be protected, contrary to the will of the people; that Congress would not only not protect it, but would not do any thing that would cause a revival of any law that would protect it-the object being to leave the Territories a white sheet of paper, with nothing but the Constitution upon it, and to say to the people, "Go and write on it what you please; slavery, if you want it; and no slavery, if you do not want it." It was to be, in the classic language of that day, a clean tabula rasa. The way we understood it, the way the people understood it, was the way it reads now. Let me call your attention to the Badger amendment, to show that that proviso was put in for the express purpose of declaring that Congress would not even permit any old law which would protect slavery to be revived. That amendment first was in the very language that it should not revive any law which would protect or establish slavery. It was modified so' as to read in these words:

"Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be contrued to revive or put in force any law or regulation which

may have existed prior to the act of the 6th of March, 1820 either protecting, establishing, or abolishing slavery."

I

That is to say, Congress will do neither; each is inconsistent with non-intervention. These I well remempropositions were all in the bill. ber the history of the Badger amendment. When I found it necessary to put it in, to satisfy the scruples of some men as to whether the repeal of the Missouri restriction would not revive the old French law, I, as chairman of the committee, having charge of the bill, went to every Senator in the body friendly to the measure, who was then present, to know whether it was satisfactory, and that, too, after the debate; and every single Senator, North and South, who was then present, and friendly to the bill, agreed to that amendment in those precise words. I remember the last one whom I consulted. saw Mr. Badger entering from the door of the cloak-room at the corner. He had been out, He said, "Yes, it and I went to consult him. is right. I suggested to him that I had seen every Senator, going over all the names, who was friendly to the bill, and every one had 66 Now," agreed to it. "Certainly," said he. said I, who shall offer it?" Said he, "It A northought to come from a southern man. ern man brought forward the repeal, and a southern man ought to bring forward the proviso against reviving the old laws for the protection of slavery." I asked him if he would do it. Certainly, sir," said he. He walked right to his desk and offered it. Pending the vote on the amendment, two or three southern Senators came in, who were not aware of the agreement, and they voted in the negative; and those were the only negative votes, according to my recollection, against the Badger amendment.

I

66

66

say, then, the Badger amendment was put in for the purpose, and the only purpose, of declaring that, while Congress would not interfere, it would not permit, as a consequence of its act, any law to be revived that would either protect or abolish slavery, or deprive the people of the right to do as they pleased on that question.

Sla

Mr. President, the record is so full, so explicit, on this matter, that there is no room for misconstruction. The only point on which anybody differed, so far as I know, was the simple one of the extent of the limitation imposed by the Constitution on the Territorial Legislature. That was the point referred to the courts. very was banished forever from Congress; the did not violate the Constitution; and if they did, people were to do as they pleased, so that they the courts were to determine the extent of the limitations imposed by the Constitution on their action. That was stated to be the object in the report accompanying the bill. That is shown to be the object in the judiciary clause of the bill: giving jurisdiction to the territorial courts in all cases touching the title to slaves, or personal freedom without regard to the amount involved in controversy, as in other cases. could take up the debates and show that it was understood at that time, and by eminent southern men, that that was the only point referred to the courts. I will trouble the Senate only with one authority on that point, and I quote

I

him simply because of his eminent character and the respect this body and the country have for him-I mean Mr. HUNTER, of Virginia,

Mr. PUGH read the following extract from Mr. HUNTER's speech of February 24, 1854:"The bill provides that the Legislature of these Territories shall have power to legislate over all rightful subjects of legislation consistently with the Constitution. And if they should assume powers 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 decisions 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."-Appendix to Congressional Globe, first session Thirty-Third Congress, vol. 29, D. 221.

[ocr errors]

Mr. DOUGLAS. There Mr. HUNTER states the object of the bill as explicitly and as clearly as it is possible for any man holding my opinions to state it. The only point referred to the courts was the extent of the limitation imposed by the Constitution on the authority of the Territorial Legislature. I could cite more than half the body perhaps to this one point, but it would only be multiplying authority on a point that is too clear to be disputed.

I have been quoting thus far only senatorial authority as to the meaning of this act. I wish to show now that the people of the country-yea, the southern people-understood the KansasNebraska bill as I do now, and as I explained it then. I will quote the resolutions of one sovereign State, the empire State of the South, a State that took the lead in 1850-51 in putting down the heresy of congressional intervention for the protection of slavery. I will ask my friend from Ohio to read the resolutions of the Legislature of Georgia approving of the principles contained in the Kansas-Nebraska bill, relative to the subject of slavery.

Mr. PUGH read, as follows:

Resolutions in relation to the Territory of Nebraska. The State of Georgia, in solemn convention, liaving firmly fixed herself upon the principle of the compromise measures of 1850, relating to the subject of slavery in the Territories of the United States, as a final settlement of the agitation of that question, its withdrawal from the halls of Congress and the political arena, and its reference to the people of the Territories interested therein; and distinctly recognizing in those compromise measures the doctrine that it is not competent for Congress to impose any restrictions as to the existence of slavery among them, upon the citizens moving into

and setting upon the Territories of the Union, acquired, or to be hereafter acquired, but that the question whether slavery shall or shail not form a part of their domestic iustitutions is for them alone to determine for themselves; and her present executive having reiterated and affirmed the same fixed policy in his inaugural address:

[blocks in formation]

Approved, February 20, 1854.

HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, Governor.

Mr. DOUGLAS. These resolutions were adopted by the State of Georgia pending the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the Senate, when its provisions were well known, its features well understood; the principles which are embodied in the bill, and the Legislature then stated, in the preamble, and which were embodied in the compromise measures of 1850. They give a construction to the celebrated Georgia platform, which was the withdrawal of the question of slavery from the Halls of Congress and the political arena, and its reference to the people of the Territories interested therein,-almost the precise language of my report as chairman of the Committee on Territories when the bill was introduced. Georgia approved of the policy of withdrawing the question from the Halls of Congress, and referring it to the people of the Territories. She approved of that provision which distinctly recognized the compromise measures of 1850, and provided that the question whether slavery should, or should was for them alone to determine for themselves. not, form a part of their domestic institutions, Georgia having stated that these principles were affirmed by the compromise measures of 1850,— that she approves of these principles,-instructs her Senators to vote for the Kansas-Nebraska bill introduced by myself, as chairman of the Committee on Territories. It is undeniable that Georgia understood the Kansas-Nebraska bill as I understand it. She understood the compromise measures of 1850 as I understand them.

These

Georgia resolutions are as good a platform as I want. I am willing to take the preamble and resolutions adopted by the State of Georgia in 1854, without the dotting of an i or the crossing of a t, and declare them to be the Democratic platform. I hear men behind me say they are not. I am. I will take the Georgia platform with its own interpretation, not mine. I could not use language to express my own opinions more clearly and unequivocally than I find them standing on the statute-book of Georgia at this day as instructions to her Senators.

Be it resoteed by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Georgia in General Assembly met, That the Legislature of Georgia, as the representatives of the people, The country then understood this measure as speaking their will, and expressing their feelings, have had I now explain it; and I will show you that the their cont denge strengthened in the settled determination House of Representatives, as well as the Senate, of the great body of the northern people to carry out, in good faith, those principles in the practical application of understood it in the same way. It will be recolthem to the bills rep rted by Mr. DOUGLAS, from the Com-lected that Colonel Richardson, of Illinois, was mittee on Territories, in the United States Senate, at the present sessi n, proposing the organization of a territorial government for the Territory of Nebraska.

And be it further resolved, That our Scuators in Congress be, and they are hereby, instructed, and our Representatives requested, to vote for and support those principles, and to use all proper means in their power for carrying them out,

chairman of the Committee on Territories, and, as such, reported the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the House of Representatives. He explained it then as I do now. The reputation that he made during that session in the passage of this great

« ZurückWeiter »