vention; quit quarrelling on t In reply to other remarks of Mr. Davis, on the same day, Mr. DOUGLAS said:→→ do. Let me put the case to you again. When this compromise was made of taking non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Territories, the object was to defeat the Wilmot proviso. A majority of the North and a good many of the South believed that the Wilmot proviso was constitutional. Some southern men said they believed it was; but whether it was or not, they would not submit to it anyhow, because it was morally wrong. The Senator from Mr. DOUGLAS. I ask leave to say a word or Georgia [Mr. TooMES] would not stop to inquire two more. 1 concur most heartily in all the whether it was constitutional or not; he said it Senator from Mississippi has said in regard to was so offensive he would not submit to it. the abuses and dangers that arise from ExecuOther southern men said, "not only is the Wil- tive patronage. No man in America has had' mot proviso unconstitutional, but we demand more cause to feel the weight and to witness the intervention for the protection of slavery." abuse of Federal patronage than 1. For three There were three classes of opinions. Mr. years no friend of mine has been permitted to Stephens tells us, the Senator from Georgia has hold a cross-roads post-office, or even to circualso said in speeches here, that he was one of late the public documents under my frank, as a those who at first thought he was entitled to general thing, in my own State. The Senator intervention for protection, but the South would states that I have made an assault upon the not stand up to it, the Democratic party would Democratic party because I said the Federal, not stand up to that test, and they were forced office-holders in that State did not belong to the to give it up and come in and agree to non- party. Sir, I am not the only one that has said intervention. The Senator from Georgia, when it. The Senator said he supposed the party in he agreed to non-intervention, did not agree to Illinois was divided. They did pretend to be, acknowledge that he had no right to interven- and the Federal office-holders got up delegates tion; but he agreed that he would not demand to Charleston; but when they went before that the right, A northern man like Mr. Stuart, of convention, that body, by a unanimous vote, Michigan, who believed the Wilmot proviso con- expelled these office-holders. It was the Charlesstitutional, when he agreed to non-intervention ton convention that decided that the Federal did not agree that the proviso was unconstitu- office-holders in Illinois did not belong to tional, but he agreed that he would not vote for Democratic organization; and I did not find tha it or demand it, whether it was constitutional or not. One side agreed that they would never urge the proviso; the other side agreed they would never urge intervention for slavery. Now, suppose the Supreme Court should decide hereafter that the Wilmot proviso was constitutional; would that justify me, after my compact with you to abide by non-intervention, in going for the proviso merely because the court had decided that Congress had a right to pass it? Would not you say that I was faithless to the compact? Would you not say that, while the court had settled the question of power in my favor, it had not released my conscience from the obligations that bound me as an honest and honorable man never to go for it? If that would have been true in the event of the decision having been the other way, what moral right have you to go for intervention, even if the court decides that you may? It is one thing to have the right: it is another thing to exercise it. We came together, a portion believing in the right, a portion not believing in it, a portion taking a third view; we shook hands, all pledging our honors that we would abandon all our claims on either side to intervention, and go for non-inter Mississippi dissented, nor did Alabama, nor did South Carolina. No man from any one State would degrade himself so much as to recognize that bogus delegation from Illinois, representing the Federal office-holders, as belonging to the Democratic organization. I think the action of the convention, its unanimous action, and that, too, before Mississippi had retired, was pretty good evidence on that point. Mr. DAVIS. Evidence of who were the delegates? Mr. DOUGLAS. Yes; and the question of who the delegates were depended on whether they were sent by the party or not. There could be but one Democratic party, and the convention decided who that party was; and it is well known that those who were rejected had acted with the Republicans and Abolitionists for the last three years at all their elections, and do now. A man is not permitted to hold office in Illinois, under the present Federal administration, who votes the Democratic ticket. The Senator tells us that he has declining distrust of all platforms; that he begins to think they are not of much account; that we should get along just about as well deal more vention. I ask you now to stand by 'the com-with them; that he depends without them as pact of non-intervention. I care not how the court decide as to the power. I may have the right to make a speech here of two hours every day, but I do not think I am bound to inflict it on the Senate merely because I have a constitutional right to do it. We have the right to do a great many foolish things, a great many silly things; but I hold that the path of duty and wisdom is to stard by the doctrine of non-inter a on the man than on the platform; that he thinks he would trust a good man without any platform at all. If that is the case, why is he not content with the platform as it is, and then go for a good man? Why break up the party on the platform, if you do not think that is of any consequence? Remember, the bolters seceded at Charleston, not on the candidate, but on the platform. Were The they afraid that they could not get a good man? | convention, for what purpose are they pressed I have no doubt the friends of each candidate thought their man the best. Nearly every southern State had one; and, so far as I know, most of them were very good men. Several of them it would give me great pleasure to go for, if nominated. Why, then, did they not content themselves with the platform, and only quarrel about the men? If the platform is not a matter of much consequence, why press that question to the disruption of the party? Why did you not tell us in the beginning of this debate that the whole fight was against the man, and not upon the platform? Mr. DAVIS. I could not tell you so. Mr. DOUGLAS. You tell us now that the platform is not of much account. Mr. DAVIS. No, I did not say that, though I said to the Senator what my opinion was, and how it affected me. I was not speaking for others. I am only a small man. Mr. DOUGLAS. So am I. We are both very modest in our pretensions. I am not speaking for others either; but I want to understand this thing. Do you mean that the platform is of no consequence, provided you get the right man, and that if there is no prospect of getting a good man you will, make a fight on the platform and break things, swear by the platform, say that southern honor, southern rights, southern dignity are all at stake; that you care not about men; and at the same time say to yourselves, "We do not care about the platform, provided we get our man; if we can get him we will take him on any platform; but no platform, on which anybody else can be elected, will suit us, unless we get our man"? Is that the position? Why, then, are these resolutions here now? If they are not intended to operate on the Baltimore to the exclusion of the public business? Senator does not contend that there is any pressing necessity for them; he does not pretend that there is any great evil to be redressed; for, when asked by his colleague why he does not bring in a bill to carry out the right of protection, he says there is no necessity for it. There is no necessity for legislation; no grievances to be remedied; no evil to be avoided; no action is necessary; and yet the peace of the country, the integrity of the Democratic party, is to be threatened by abstract resolutions, when there is confessedly no necessity for action. The people will ask what all this is for; what it means; why it is so important to have a vote on an abstract resolution when it is admitted there is no necessity for action; no danger to the Republic; no evil to be redressed. And yet all public business must be postponed to give priority to it. Why? There must be some purpose. Why? Because it will not do to have a ricketty platform unless you get your man. Mr. President, I think I shall drop this subject here. I am sorry to have been forced to occupy so much of the time of the Senate; but the Senate will bear me witness that I have not spoken, in the last two years, on any of these topics, except when assailed, and then only in self-defence. You will never find the discussion renewed here again by me, except in self-defence. I have studiously avoided attacking any man, because I did not mean to give a pretext for renewing the assault on me; and the world shall understand that if my name is brought into this debate again, it will be done aggressively, as an assault on me; and if I occupy any more time, it will be only in self-defence. LIST OF SPEECHES, &c., Printed and Published by MURPHY & Co. Non-Interference by Congress with Slavery in the Territories. SPEECH of HON. S. A. DOUGLAS, of Illinois, in the Senate, May 15th and 16th, 1860. $2.50 per 100. It will be supplied to clubs, and others, in lots of 5,000 and upwards at a time, at $20 per 1,000. POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY in the TERRITORIES. The DEMOCRATIC RECORD. The purpose of this Publication, is to exhibit the Democratic Record, as it was made by the Representative men of the Party, on the Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty in the Territories..................... ...........................................................24 pages, $1 50 per 100, $12 50 per 1,000 SPEECH of HON. REVERDY JOHNSON, of Maryland, delivered before the Political friends of HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, at a Meeting in Faneuil Hall, Boston, June 7th, 1860. To which is added the Letter of Hon. Reverdy Johnson, to the Chairman of the Douglas Meeting in New York, May 22d, 1860..16 pages-$10 per 1,000 REMARKS on POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY, as Maintained and Denied, respectively, by JUDGE DOUGLAS, and ATTORNEY GENERAL BLACK. BY A SOUTHERN CITIZEN........40 pages, $2 50 per 100-$20 per 1,000 Address orders to: MURPHY & CO., PRINTERS & PUBLISHERS, 182 Baltimore street, Baltimore, Md. 4 |
