Abbildungen der Seite
[ocr errors]

Mr: DOUGLAS. Mri: Stepheng has given 21 States can hold it and have it protected, with a true, veritable history of the compromise mea- 1 out deciding what the right is, which still reo sures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, mains for decision. The second proposition is, as understood by the supporters of the measures that a right of person or property secured by: when they were passed. He has stated fairly the Constitution cannot be taken away either and truly the points of difference between us, by act of Congress or of the Territorial Legisla-1 which points were to be left to the courts to ture. Who ever dreamed that either Congress decide; and he has said, what I think he was or a Territorial Legislature, or any other legis." bound to say as a patriot and a Democrat, that lative body on earth, could destroy or impair the Cincinnati platform is all that the South any right guaranteed or secured by the Consti- ! ought to ask or has a right to ask, or that her tution? No man that I know of. This resolu-, interests require in this emergency. On that tion leaves the same point open that remains:! platform the party can remain a unit, and pre-open for the courts under the Cincinnati plat-1 sent an invincible and irresistible front to the form, and under the Kansas-Nebraska bill. 1: Republican or Abolition phalanx at the North. My objection is that it bears upon its face the So certain as you abandon non-intervention and evidence that it is to be construed in two opposubstitute intervention, just so certain you yield site ways in the different sections of the Union. a power into their hands that will sweep the I want no double dealing or double constructions Democratic party from the face of the globe. I am willing to stand on the Cincinnati plat- ! • Sir, I believe that the safety, the peace, the form, as you agree to it, and as it was re-enacted highest interests of this country require the at. Charleston. I will give it the same construc-4 preservation intact of the Democratic party on tion I have always given to'it; you may give it! its old creed and its old platform. Whenever yours.' We differ only on a point of law, let' you depart from that platform, which was the court decide that, and I only ask that you adopted unanimously, you never will get una- will bow to the decision of the court with the nimity in the formation of another. The only same submission that I shall, and carry it out, objection I have heard urged against that plat- | with the same good faitil. , 'I want no new i form is that it is susceptible of two construc- issue. I want no new test. I will make nong' tions, when, in point of fact, there are no two on you, and I will permit you to make uone on constructions--there can be none-on any one me. . of the political issues contained in it. The We are told that the party must be preserved. only difference of opinion arising out of that I agree that the best interests of the country, platform is on the identical question, about require that it should be preserved in its intes : which we agreed to differ—which we never did grity.'' How can that be done, except by abiding decide; because, under the Constitution, no by its decisions ? The party has pronounced tribunal on earth but the Supreme Court could its authoritative voice on the very points at decide it. We differ only as to what the deci- issue between you and me.' The party rejected sion of the court will be; not as to whether we your caucus platform by twenty-seven majority will obey it when made. How can you deter- on a fair vote. The party afirmed the Cincinmine that question by a platform? It has been nati platform almost unanimously. Hence it suggested that this diiliculty was all to be becomes the duty of every Democrat, every reconciled by the adoption of a resolution which man who expects to remain a Deniocrat, to I find in the papers under the title of the Ten- acquiesce in the decision of the party, and supnessee platform. Will my friend read it? port its nomination when it shall be made In Mr. PUGH read, as follows:-

no other way can the party be united or pre

served. Can you preserve the party by allow" Resolvd, That all citizens of the United States have an

ing a minority to overrule and dictate to the equal right to se tle with their property in the Territories, and that under the decisions of the Supreme Court, which we recognize as an exposition of the Constitution, neither abandoning the fundamental articles of its their right of person or property can be destroyed or im- i creed, and adopting intervention in lieu of non-, paired by congressional or territorial legislation."

intervention? Shall the majority surrender to Nr. DOUGLAS. We have had predictions the minority? Will that restore harmony ? that the party was to be reunited by the adop- Will that produce fraternity? Suppose that, tion of that resolution. The only objection the majority should surrender to you, the that I have to it is that it is liable to two con- minority-should justify the seceders and * structions, and certainly and inevitably will bolters—will that reunite us? You tell us that receive two, directly the opposite of each other, if we do this, you will grant no quarter on the and each will be maintained with equal perti- point in dispute. The rest is to be kept up by nacity. The resolution contains, in my opinion, the minority against the majority ; by bolterg two truisms, and, fairly considered, 'no man can against the regular organization; by secedcrs question them. They are: first, that every la cainst those whose political fidelity would not citizen of the United States lias an equal right permit them to bolt;; and the regular organizain the Territories; that whatever right the ton is required to surrender at discretion to... citizen of one State has, may be enjoyed by the thic'seceders, with notice served, that no "quarcitizens of ill the States; that whatever pro- i ter" is to be granted. That is the conciliation: perty the citizen of one State may carry, there, that is tendered! That is the olive-branch that the citizens of all the States may carry; and is extended to 118! You will permit us to voto! on whatever terms the citizens of one State can for your candidate, if we will only allow a hold it and have it protected, the citizens of all minority to nominate him! You will permit

de to vote for a candidate on a' platform that live in peace. God grant that there simll the minority dictates and the majority has never be another sectional party in the United rejected !

States!! Suppose the minority should get their platform Why cannot we live together in peace on the and candidate, and they sbould go before the terms that have bound and held us together so country appealing to the Democratic masses to long? Why cannot we agree on this great prinrally in their majesty around the Democratic ciple of non-intervention by the Federal Govern. organization, and support its nominations--a ment with the local and domestic affairs of the minority candidate forced on the majority, ask- Territories, excluding slavery and all other irriing our votes, with notice, “if you vote for me tating questions, and leaving the people to goveru I will grant no quarter, I will put you to the themselves, so far as the Constitution of the sword; there is not a man of you that is fit to United States imposes no limitation to their au. be chairman of a committee, or a member of a thority? Upon that principle there can be peace. Cabinet, or a collector of a port, a postmaster, a Upon that principle you can have slavery in the light-house keeper!” These are the terms of South as long as you want it, and abolish, it conciliation extended by a minority to the regular whenever you are tired of it. On that principle organization of the party. Grant no quarter we can have it or not, as our interests, our pros: Big talk for seceders, after they have been over- perity, our own sense of what is due to ourd ruled."

selves, shall prescribe. On that principle, you What man would desire your nomination on on the Pacific coast can shape your own instiiu. such terms? Who would be mean enough to ask tions so that they wiil be adapted to your own and expect the support of men that he had people. On that principle, there can be peace marked as victims of vengenuce as soon as the and harmony and fraternity between the North knife was put in his hands by them? Who and the South, the East and the West, the would degrade himself so low as to ask or agcept Pacific and the Atlantic. Why cannot we now votes on terms so disreputable?

reaform that principle as we dil in 1852. Then, On the contrary, sir, we, the Democratic party, the Whig party adopted it as a cardinal article speaking through its regular organization, and in their creed, and so did the Democracy. Let by authority of the party, say to you, erring your Whigs, your Democrats--all conservative men as you are, that we will grant quarter; we men who will not be, abolitionized or sectional submit to no test, and make none; we are willing ized-rally under the good old: banner of nonto fight the battle now on the same principles intervention, so that the Constitution may be and the same terms that we have fought it on maintained in violate, and the Union last forever, since 1848; on the same platform, and with the Intervention, North or South, means disunion; same fraternal feeling. If you differ from us, non-intervention promises, peace, fraternity, and we recognize your right to differ without impair- perpetuity to the Union, and to all our cherished ing your political standing, so long as you l'e- institutions. main in the regular organization and support

Mr. Davis replied to Mr. Douglas at great the nominees. I care not whether you agree or length on the same day and the following, when differ with me on the points of law that have Mr. Douglas rejoined as follows:, divided us. If you should happen to be right, Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr. President, I must ask and I wrong, it would not prove that you were the iudulgence of the Senate for a few moments a better Democrat than I, but that you were a while I reply to some points presented by the better lawyer than I am, so far as that one Senator from Mississippi... reciprocate every branch of law is concerneri. I should not have sentiment he has uttered in regird to the great much pride of' opinion on the point of law but importance of preserving the harmony, unity, for the fact that you have got in the habit of and iutegrity of the Democratic party. I repeat ealling me "Judge,” [laughter;] having, among now what I said yesterday, that I believe it is my youthful indiscretions, accepted that office the only remaining political organization supand acquired the title; and I do claim that, with ported by sufficient numbers to preserve the that title, I have a right to think as I please on peace and safety of the Union. Entertaining a point of law until the court decides that I am these convictions in the fulness of my heart, I wrong. Mr. President, I owe an apology to the would make any sacrifice personal to myself Senate for detaining them so long. I present tbat would contribute to its unity and to its my profound acknowlecignients for the courtesy

The Senator, however, has told us the and kindness that have been extended to me. I terms, and those alone, on which its unity can be would not have claimed so much of your time maintained. They are that his fing, a banner but for the fact that I believe that the principle bearing as its inscription the sentiments that he involved in this discussion involves the fate of has been advocating, must become thesdag of the American Union. Whenever you incorpo- the Democratic party... Sir, I prescribe no such rate intervention by Congress into the Demo- terms and conditions to secure my co-operation. cratic creed, as it has become the cardinal prin- I do not ask you to insert any peculiar dogma ciple of the Republican creed, you will make or theories of mine upon the baner.

That good two sectional parties, hostile to each other, old banner, that old Democratic flag that has divided by the line that separates the free from waved over so many glorious triumphs, is to-day the slaveholding States, and present a conflict good enough for me. The Senator is afraid that that will be irrepressible, and will never cease we must part company-and why? Because he until the one shall subdue the other, or they is not willing now to fight under the banner shall agree to divide, in order that they may under which we won the battle in 1856.8;


He has referred feelingly to the moderation every article of the creed. When you descend that he exercised and I give him full credit for to the details, to the minutive, you find differences it in the surrender of his individual opinions of opinion. and prejudices, in 1852, in acquiescing in the I have been told here to-day that I was out of compromise measures of 1850, which he had the Democratic organization becatise I differed opposed.” Sir, appreciate that moderation, with the President on the Lecompton question. that spirit of conciliation, of sacrifice of private Sir, I have yet to learn that an Aduinistration opinion, which induced him to make that offer- is the Democratic party. The members of the ing on the altar of his party and his country. Administration are, or ought to be, members of Yes, sir; and Illinois appreciated that sacrifice the Democratic organization, as ought to bo on the part of that Senator by casting her vote every member of the Senate and House of for him for Vice-President in 1852, notwith- Representatives who was elected by the Deino? standing the differences of opinion that bad cratic party. We are individual members of the marked the representatives of the two States in organization. I deny that either the President the conflict of 1850. He now cites the mark of or the Cabinet, or Senators 'or Representatives, confidence' which Illinois reposed in him by constitute the Democratic organization. The these votes, as evidence that Illinois endorsed people, through their delegates' in their national his position on the points that had separated us. conventions, constitute the organization. But, I tell him, sir, it is evidence of Illinois's mag- sir, is it true that every man who differs with nanimity; not of her approval of the course the Administration on one point is out of the that he pursued in opposition to her known party? If so, what becomes of my friend from sentiments.

Georgia, that I see walking away now [Mr. I am glad to find tbat Mississippi has returned TOOMBS] ? He fought the Administration on the compliment, and shown that she, too, was the tariff; he dissented from the President on not wanting in magnanimity. The record that the neutrality laws; he arraigned the Adminishas been presented shows, beyond dispute or tration on the Pacific railroad. I hardly know cavil, that my opinions on these Territorial on what he did agree with them, [laughter;] questions were as well known in 1850, 1852, and yet he is in good standing and perfect fel. 1854, and 1856, as they are to-day. With a full lowship. I have yet to learn that the Senator knowledge of those facts, Mississippi in the con- from Mississippi endorses' the President on spew vention of 1856, after Mr. Pierce's name was cific duties; and inasmuch as he tells us that withdrawn, for 'ballot after ballot, by a unani- the President is the head of the party, and a mous vote, recorded her suffrages for me in difference on a great question puts a man outpreference to Mr. Buchanan, who was the com- side of it, I have got pretty good company peting candidate. I do not claim that Missis- outside the party. I am very glad to have sippi by those votes endorsed all my peculiar the Senator from Mississippi call me his friend; opinions on territorial questions; nor that Ala- and I call him mine, inasmuch as, by his "probama, nor that Georgia, nor that South Carolina, cess of reasoning, he has put us both out into nor that Florida, nor that Texas, when each of the cold together. But, sir, test any Senator them in succession recorded their votes for me, on this floor by the rule prescribed, and every endorsed all my views. While it is not evidence man of you is out of the party; there is not that they concurred with me in these peculiar one of you left. What one on this floor endorses theories, it is conclusive evidence that they the President in all his recommendations? I deemed it unjust, unfair, unmanly, to make that never saw any one. I believe even the Senator difference of opinion a test of Democracy to my from Pennsylvania [Mr. BIGLER] does not. exclusion. Each of those States showed the And yet difference of opinion with the Presisame magnanimity then that Illinois showed in dent is a test of Democratic orthodoxy! Will 1852 in voting for the Senator and in 1856 in the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] come voting for General Quitman. We were willing to the rescue of the President on the Pacific to differ on a subject which had been declared railroad? He has always failed to do it yet. to be a judicial and not a political question, and Search the records, and you will find that I then to vote for a man as the standard-bearer, have sustained President Buchanan on more without reference to his opinions on that theory. questions than any one of you. The test has

It was for the same purpose and in that sense not been made against anybody but me. Is it that I yesterday quoted the vote for Governor not a curious rule? The President, it is said, Richardson as Speaker of the House of Repre- is the head of the party, and a difference with Bentatives in 1856. I do not claim that the vote him on a recommendation of his puts you outof my friend from South Carolina, [Mr. Keitt,] side of the party. By that rule, I am outside, in favor of Mr. Richardson was an endorsement and so is every one of you with me.

We ought of Mr. Richardson's views or of mine on the to be together, then, by this time. territorial question; but it was an evidence that This all shows the folly of attempting to erect he would not make a test' on that question any one man as an idol to be worshipped, whose against a regular Democratic nominee. I repeat, nod is to be authority to Senators and Reprem I do not ask you to endorse any new inscription sentatives. It shows the folly of allowing the on the old Democratic flag as a condition of re- President and Cabinet to tell us what our duty taining me in its ranks. I do not ask you to is. I concede to the executive branch of the concur with me in the views that I entertain. Government freedom of thought and action in Probably there are no two members of this body the performance of all the functions vested in who agree in every particular with regard to him by the Constitution; but when it comes to

poting on' a measure, I am as independenti of I will look again at the proceedings of that Alahim as he is of me. He has no more right to bama convention in 1856, will find that the contell me, how I shall vote, than I have to tell vention first proceeded to give their views on him what he shall recommend, or- whether he their rights as a State platform, and then proshall sign or veto a billo: Sir, whenever I shall ceeded to say that the “ following resolutions" recognize a President, be he who he may, of should constitute articles which her delegates what party he may, as the head of my party, to were instructed to insist upon at Cincinnati ; and tell me how I shall vote in this chamber, I shall if they were not adopted by the convention bodisgrace as well as betray the sovereignty of the fore a nomination was made, the delegates were State that sent me here. No, sir ; republics are to retire; making a wide distinction between a sham unless the representatives of the people their own opinions of what they were entitled and the representatives of the States are as in- to, and that which they would demand as an dependent of the Executive as he is of them. I ultimatum from the national convention. Now, do not plead guilty, therefore, to the impeach- sir, I reject that which she did not insist on. i ment that I am outside of the Democratic or- said yesterday that I should read the ultimatum ganization, or ever was.

that she was content with. I read that, and the I appealed from this test of a presidential whole of it.' The Cincinnati-convention took it edict as the rule of action of the party to the in 1856. : I am willing to accept it now. Is grand council of the party itself—the national Alabama going out of the Union now, merely convention, assembled once in four years to because we insist upon adhering to her own ultimake creeds and nominate candidates. Judged matum of 1856? Did not the glorious State of by their test, I am inside; and every man that Alabama know what her rights were in 1856 1 is willing to fight under the old Democratic flag Did not she preserve her honor when she adopted of 1852 and 1856 is inside. Every man that that ultimatum ? and is she not bound by her demands no new test is inside of the organi- | faith to adhere to her own ultimatum, after it zation in good standing, and only those are has been accepted by us and vindicated before seceders and bolters who reject the platform and the country?..,1 try to break up the organization, because the Sir, do not consider me as doubting Alabama, party will not now abandon its time-honored or any one of those States whose delegates have principles, and take up those that it has uni- seceded. I have faith in their devotion to prina formly rejected for so many years.

ciple, their devotion to the Union, their devotion The Senator says he loves his party, but he to the Democratic party. I do not believe that loves to have the party agree with him, and then the people of any one of those States approve he will fight for them. I wish him to bear in of the action of some of their delegates in trymind that the party never did endorse this new ing to break up the Democratic organization. I article of faith which he is now threatening to do not admit that those seceding delegates are ass for the disruption of the party unless it can the States. They were the agents; whose acts, be admitted. The party rejected it in 1848, scouted in my opinion, will be disavowed. I believe that it in 1852, denounced it in 1856, and again Alabama to-day is willing to remain in harmony in 1860. The party stands under its old flag; and concert of action with the northern Demounder its old organization; proclaiming its time- cracy on the same terms and conditions to whichi honored creed; making no variation whatever. We heretofore agreed, and upon which we are Is that sufficient cause to disrupt the only party willing now to act. That is all we ask of Misthat can save the Union ? I think we all profess sissippi-all we ask of any other State. Stand to believe that the Democratic party is the only by the platform; maintain the same old flag; political organization now adequate to the pre- do not strike out a stripe, nor blot out å star. servation of the Union. He who attempts to Stand by it as it is, and we will fight a battle break up that organization looks with compla- that will strike terror and annibilation into the cency to the only alternative which we are told ranks of the Republicans, who are looking on at is to follow, to wit, disunion. The simple ques- this fight among ourselves with joy, in the hope tion then is, whether it better to have a Demo- that the Democratic party, like all that have cratic administration on the same platform that gone before it, is now to be dissolved. Their brought Mr. Buchanan into power, or dissolve hope of success consists only in our dissensions. the Union. If this platform was so fearfully Now, sir, are these differences a sufficient bad, 80 vicious, so fatal to 'southern interests, cause for the disruption of the party? What has and destructive of southern rights, how happened been done? What new question has arisen since it that every man of you endorsed it in 1856? 1856 that makes the platform then adopted unDid you not know what your rights were then? worthy of the support of patriotic men now! Were you not as much devoted to the interests We are told that the Supreme Court have made and honor of your States then as now? How a decision in the Dred Scott case, and that is happened it that every delegate from every State the cause of the difficulty. Is that decision hosof the Union voted for it then, if it is sufficient tile to the southern States ? Is there anybody cause for disruption now?

in the Democratic party that does not propose In this connection, I may be permitted to allude to abide by it, and carry it out in good faith! 10:00.error of the Senator from Mississippi, when No: but you want us to declare, first, what that he supposed that I had omitted a part of, and decision means, and then that we will carry it thereby mịsled the Senate in the quotation of, qut according to tliat construction. We do not the Alabama platform. He read a resolution believe that that decision reaches the question which he said I omitted. - The Senator, if he l of the power of a Territorial Legislature, fox

[ocr errors]

reeted it; for, sir, never will I do injustice to any think everyl Democratic candidatus; and I

these reasons: first, there was no Territorial The Senator from Mississippi says that he has Legislature in the record, nor any allusion to great aversion to speaking of political conven one; second, there was no territorial enactment tions, and regrets that these things are dragged before the court; third, there was no one fact in into the debates of the Senate, but that he is the case alluding to or eonnected with territorial compelled to reply to me on that point. 'I desire legislation ; and next, the counsel in the case the Senator to remember that he introduced that never dreamed that there was any such question subject himself; he'reviewed the action of the involved in it, and never, argued it. Is it not a Charleston convention, and defended the sed curious fact that a great question, concerning ceders. He condenmed the action of the majority, the fate of a great party, and in which the whole and supported that of the minority, if I ain not country were interested, should have been in- mistaken. In reply to him I was compelled to volved in the case, when the lawyers on neither defend the regular organization, which he had side ever imagined it was there? :: Would not condemned, by defending the regularsi against Reverdy Johnson have been able to find it out if what he had said in defence, and justification of it had been in the case ? He tells you that it the seceders. But for that I should never have was not there; that nobody thought it was. It brought that particular subject into debate. I never was argued-never alluded to. Nor do had to desire to refer to the action of that conthe court allude to it in their opinion; and yet vention. What I said was in self-defence - Whát that opinion is cited as a decision of the question. I have now to say on the point is also in selfThe question referred to the court, in the Kan- defence. ; The Senator has told us that the sevensas-Nebraska bill, was the extent of the limita- teen Democratic States were for the report which tions imposed by the Constitution on a Terri- was rejected, and that the minority of sixteen torial Legislature. That was the question re- Other States did not contain a certain democratie ferred to the court, as stated by the Senator State among them. Let us look at these Demo from Virginia, (Mr. Hunter.} Stand by that cratic States that he speaks of. Do you call one point, and you will never bave an occasion Maryland one of them? for intervention. But the Senator said that Mr. DAVIS. She ought to be. ; !, ;'*" within the last four years a new question has » Mr. DOUGLAS. Is she go! arisen. , He did not tell us what it was. Cer-Mr. DAVIS. I hope she will be so. tainly it was not this question of the extent of Mr. DOUGLAS. Hope is one thing, and corthe power of the Territorial Legislature, for the tainty is another: Mr. Buchanan hoped to havo debates all show that it was discussed in: 1850 Maryland'in 1856 ; but did lie get her vote? and 1854. What new question, then, has arisen Mr. DAVIS. No; nor Illinois either, by a since, to furnish even a pretext for this new majority. : nitri's article in the creed ?.

Mr. DOUGLAS. You said you were talkiog The Senator from Mississippi has got one idea of electoral votes ; and we got the Illinois elecinto his brain, and he has magnified it so much toral vote. tbat it is expanding till, I am afraid, it will drive Mr. DAVIS. By a division of the Opposition. out almost all other ideas. It is that protection Mr. DOUGLAS. No matter. We got it over is therend of government. That is true, subject all enemies. Furthermore, you arraigned Illito certain limitations. By the end?? he means nois' as not being a Democratic State, when she the object of all government. It is subject to ziever failed to give her electoral vote for the limitations. Protection to the extent and in the Democratic nominee. Can you say as much of way prescribed in the Constitution, is the object Mississippi ??? of the government. I will give you protection Mr. DAVIS. Pretty much to slave property, and every other ispecies of Mr. DOUGLAS. Can you quite as much ! property, to the fullest extent the Constitution "** Mr. DAVIS. If the Senator will allow me, I authorizes and requires me. "If the Senator does will put him straight there. "Mississippi has not want to carry his protection further than once given al votë not for the Democratic candithe Constitution goes, there is no difference bes date; but Illinois would have done so the last tween us. If he does, I cannot go! with him time, but for the fact of there being three tickets beyond that point. '

in the field, as was shown by the vote. Wriggle The Senator complains that in what is known out of that, if you can. as the Harper article,,I placed him in a false Mri DOUGLAS. I do not wish to wriggle out position by the quotation I made on that point. of any thing.'si I take the records and the facts. I can only say to him that I never dreamed of In 1856 we gave thélelectoral vote of Illinois to placing him in a false position, and did not in- James Buchanan by nine thousand majority over tend it. When he published his note afterwards, FremontsWhether or not Fillmore's running I did not reply to it, because then I did not comi- hurt us or helped us is a disputed question ; but prehend what he meant; but his explanation to the opivion of Governor Richardson,' who was way, shows that probably one extract, which I the standard-bearer at the time, was that Fille used for one purpose, may have put him in a more’s running injured Buchanan and defeated false position on another point, which did not him for Governor. My own opinion, at the aceur to my mind at the time. I am glad he opening of the canvass, was that Fillmore would has corrected it, for íl never imagined that I had help usi; but I was convinced, before the election,, and I would at any, moment have-cors that his running was an injury

in the field gentleman, without seizi

earliest opportu- came to timt conclusion. 3. Illinois has never nity, after I discover t

ke reparation failed the Democracy beretofore in any Presi

[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »