The Standard. (Clarksville, Tex.), Vol. 17, No. 22, Ed. 1 Saturday, June 16, 1860 Page: 1 of 4
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
I#
l^aARiBs OVmomb,
Af
*
*m %
111?
pSI
:il;l
mm
' ■ . ■
•Ci
tHO BBAU OUH BAHKBR BRAVH THB BRBBXB—THB BTAVDAHD OP THB PHBB
ssieE®
&
VOL 17,
*AX|M
1-J ■" y*-
■ D1TOR AND PROPRIETOR.
SPEECH OF
HOV THOMAS L. CLING MAN, OP f
* NORTH CAROLINA.
beuyeud 1* tue u. 8. senatk may 7 <x 8, '60.
The having under consideration the
Vtiona offered by Mr. iDaVis of Mississippi
«r Clingman ^'d : •
Mr Passu?*-"**: tiie speech of the
ito Mississippi (Mr. Davis) I cor-
Sapprove. There are one or two points,
rlLrVin which I differ with him : and aot-
-nth««adinK the latent of the hour, if ben-
Z wj)] indulge we. I shall endeavor to state
\L If I 'understand his resolutions aright,
thev-coutemplate intervention by Congress for
the wotectiun, in the Territories. of property
- slaves for some years past we have stood
ctA#KSVILLE, RED RIVER COONTY, TEXAS, S AT ORD A Y, JUNE 16, 1860.
NO.
08 tlia doctrine of non-intervention, am
jg ni> teiddie ground which; we can tak«.
id there
Tha Sauattfl fr.'m Mississippi says that he
dues not approve ot'a slave code. W eh, Sir what
jrewe to understand by sUve cole I take
i' to lesrislation't - protect <.<r t-o regulate property
' slaves. If 50a depart from the principle of
and
rislate to protect pro-
wsarily make some
t may be either a
m
Boo-interveutior
pertv in -laves, you ne
sort tit* a «lare code, ana
short one or a long One. ...
[ m opposed to departing, at this tunc,
from the policy of non-in'crvciition . I was
r-t cite of the yrix'iaai advocates of that meas-
ure." On the contrary, tw Ave or fifteen years
J in common * tf' P"eal Wy of the
^mtb I maiiiU!ue4;dH- opinion that the Federal
Government had c|.rnj.iete jurisdiction over the
Territories; ana t voted -or the extension of
tha Misoonri compromise line to the Pacific •
That necessarily implied two things: first, that
Ogress had power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories . seeond that it had power to es-
abli^h or protect -t: because the original
)lisv>uri compromise iine declared, in the ex-
iet ten * of proviso, th-it north of
or iuvoluntary scr-
whilc it was allowed
it. l\vory one of us who
rti.-ion of that line thereby
i that this Government had
i-h or protect slavery in a
tu prohibit it. We were
■; he Ooostitut.il'n ; and it' we
v.tT, wo could not have ;?>v-
I.i
to say that I snbse-
,m ; and prior to the
ease I published toy
h the doctrine hiid
J understand it —
personal to myself,
tie line (.•! !>
nil.'1* neve?
to rrJWLil r0
#oieti for ti
aocis arily a
aathoritv to
Territory, a
jii sworn to
iud den ltd pi'V'er, wo
en tlr* vot>' I s ;a tree
qu -Qtiy change*. >-:y < puil
dtcis;'• ii: rh I-red Scott
fisws n accoi'iaoi-e wu
do*'; that deei&iou, as
That, hi Hvver, is merely
ind oa!'T!"i adect tile Serif.tv.
Knt. r, in '■ in-ral Cass brought tor-
wara the non-intervention doctrine. He was
sustained by l>aniel S. hiekinson aud by John
C. Calhoun, and other distinguished statesmen ;
and th'ot^lP 1 was then an opponent of it, 1 am
free to say that 1 believe its advocates were
perhaps nearer right than I was. So remark-
able was the statement of Mr. Calhoun at that
time that 1 .-hall ask the indulgence of the
Senate for a single moment while I read a few
extracts from his speech. Some of his remarks
were almost prophetic, and anything from him
has «riat weight with ^cntleuied of the school
to which the Senator from Mississippi and
niysoll belong, in his opening remarks in his
speech of June "JTth, IS4M, he said :
" There is a very striking difference between
the position in which the slaveholding and
non-slaveholding States stand in reference to
the subject under consideration. The former
desire no action of the Governtueut; demand
Bo law to give them any advantage in the Ter-
rfrr? aV ♦.-> be established ; are willing to
1- sve it ; ■ ! other Territories belonging to the
i'Mtod op'-n to all their citizens, so
l- • 7 ■•i.jitittue to be Territories, and
i, . ceaise to be «o, to leave it to their
i£';vd)i;; ::*> to form such governments as may
tJ1' *•' without restriction, except tha* in -
pvi i.j rhe Con«tinitiou as a pre-requisifc
for ad::;ission into the Union. In short, they
«•: Uii'inn to leave the whole subject where
the ' „natituti..n and the >rreat and fundamen-
tal j iirii iples of seif-governnient place >t
^ it further did he .-ay '(
••V- ui,l rhe North fear that, by Icayirur
it • : -tiee and the Constitution leave if.
L- • ,;j. ; i♦•xc'uded from her full share ol
tV,.' I hi my opinion, if it r>e leff
tli.-re.' • s« il and other circumstauees,
wi-u'.d :!.•> line between the slaveholding
ana m n eh. idins? States in about 86 deg
iff n-ir. It rti:. •• lig-za^ a Httle, to aceouimo-
a t ! 'o e;.-e 'ttist^n« ; scm^times psss-
iiiu rhe u. rUi. u;.d at others to the south of
it, but ti ;.: w. i!ii matter little, and w:>uld be
r.iore sutisiacrorv to ail, and tend less to alien-
ation heiw-efi tiie two great sections than a
tHid, jtraii'ii' .nificial lino, prescribed by an
set of Con '
will carry out their views; but if you think in Kansas, and he h«a never yet found a so-
proper to turn oyer ttie whole question to the condforit. If «nv one Senator upon this floor,
people, under the Constitution, we will join notwithstanding the urgent and eloquent ap-
yo^ tM,and^ote down the Wilmot pro- peals of that gentleman, has declared his wil-
™ wasjsubsequently accomplished; lingness to vote for it, I have not heard him
and in 1852, when the national conventions say so, and I do notbelieve there is such a one.
adopted it, it became the settled polioy of the And yet everybody knows that Kansas has
country, and those in the South who had oppo- lately refused all protection to slave property,
sedI it acquiesced jnd adopted It if gentlemen, theretore, intend to staid up for
Now, Mr. President, the Senator from Mis- all their rights to the fullest extent, why not
stssippi argues that that policy of non-inter- at otoee come up and pass a law to protect slaves
yention did not mean to deny the right to pro- in Kansas ? They show, by their conduct, that
® iv u merely pledged Congress not to they do not believe that any real necessity ex-
establish or to prohibit slavery, but did not ists in fact for departing from non intervention
deny protection to it. I might, by adverting I 8ayj then, Mr. President, that in my jude-
to the discussions of that day, show that a dif- ment no necessity exists for an abandonment of
ferentconstruction was then put upon it by the compromise; but the Senator proposes to
gentlemen genenuly; but I have some author- make a declaration that we shall do it in a fu-
lty here which binds the whole party, to which ture contingency. I have no doubt of the
that benator and imyself belong, and which, I power of the Government, but why make that
think, ought to he conclusive I mean the declaration? A declaration of the Senate binds
wu c.Q8e /I,. ® . section of the Kansas- nobody. These are j naked resolutions; they
Nebraska bdl,^ which the Administration of are not laws; they carry no force to the coun-
that day, of which he was a member, made an try except what may be derived from the sound-
Administration measure, and which received ness of the opinions advanced in them. They
the rapport of the Democratic members of the wiU not control the action of the courts. They
two Houses; and I ask the particular atten- will not, perhaps, change the opinion of a sin-
*lon *"e Senate to the language : gle man in this country Why pass them ? I
tt " j * Constitution, and all laws of the think I shall show, before I take my peat, some
United States which are not locally inapplica- very valid and strong reasons why we should
ble, shall have the same force and effect with- not do so.
in the said Territory of Kansas as elsewhere My first objection, then, is, that the system
within the United States, except the eighth of non-intervention is a compromise, and that
section of the act preparatory to the admission no necessity exists to abandon it, as I have al-
of Missouri / into the Union, approved March ready stated. I come now to my second objec-
6, 1820, which being inconsistent with the tion. During the discussion of 1850, the ad-
principle of non-intervention by Congress with vocates of non-intervention said, If you adopt
slavery in the States and Territories, as recog- it, if you leave the question to the Territorial
nized by the legislation of 1850, commonly Legislature, they may pass laws to protect slave
called the compromise measures, is hereby de- property. I resisted it. I made speech after
clared inoperative and void; it being the true speech to show that the Mexicans were hostile
intent and meaning of this act not to legislate to us ; that they, were not accustomed to slave-
slavery into any Territory or State, nor to ex- ry, and might legislate against it; but what
elude it therefrom, but to leave the people has been the result ? New Mexico has passed
thereof perfectly free to form and regulate the most stringent slave code. There is, per-
their domestic institutions in their own way, haps, not a State in the Union that has, by
subject only to the Constitution of the Untied law, protected slave property more securely
States." than the Territory of New Mexico, which
The Missouri line was repealed ; and why ? caches from Texas to the Gulf of California,
Because it was unconstitutional or wrong in a„d extends up to the thirty-sixth degree of
itself? No, sir; but because it was "incon- north latitude. We were content with the line
sistent with the principle of non-intervention 0f 36° 30', we were willing to run the Missou-
by Congress with slavery in the States and ri line to the Pacific, and abolish slavery ah-o-
Territories." ^ lutely north of 36° 3U', and take a mere im-
I admit, if the act had stopped there, there plication without an express protection south
might have been some plausibility in the argu 0f it. Sir, practically by non-intervention, we
ment, but what is the conclusion ? have got more than we asked for ; we have got
'• Provided, That nothing herein contained a larger amount of territory than we should
shall be construed to revive or put in force any have obtained under the Missouri compromise
law or regulation which may have existed prior Une. Gentlemen may say, perhaps, that Kan-
to the act of 6th March, 1820, either protect- gas has legislated against us. I grant it; but
ing, establishing, prohibiting, or abolishing we should not have got Kansas at all under the
slavery." Missouri compromise. Kansas only comes
That is, Congress would not only not inter- down to the thirty-seventh parallel, the whole
fere itself; would not only not allow its own Territory being north of the Missouri compro-
statutes to stand in the way, but would not re- niise line. Besides, while New Mexico has
vive any old law which might have been in legislated in our favor, and the same thing, 1
force by which slavery was protected in that believe, is true of Utah
Territory. Is it not perfectly clear that the Mr. Grken. I wish to correct the Senator
whole purpose of the act, and of the parly at jn a matter of fact. Utah ha« not passed any
that day, was to free Congress from all legisla- jaw protecting slavery. They have an appren-
tion over the subject of slavery in the Territo- tiee system which expires in a very short time,
ries, whether by way of protection, or estab Mr. CiaNOMAN. 1 am obliged to the gen-
lishment, or prohibition, and leave the Territo- tleman for the suggestion ; but I consider the
ry free to act, as the Constitution permitted it fa(;t with reference to Utah immaterial,because
I remember well how that clause came to be it lies on a table land several thousand feet a-
inserted in that bill. During the discussion, bova the sea, very far north, reaching up to
it was said by gentlemen who opposed the bill, the forty-second parallel, and having a verv
that if Congress simply repealed the restric- cold climate. Surely, the Senator does not
tion, the result would be that the old Louisi- deny the fact that, as far as New Mexico is
ana law, establishing and protecting slavery, concerned, we have got everything we desire,
would be revived. To meet that argument and that it covers more territory than we claim-
this clause was introduced, became a part of ed in 1850. I was about to say, though, that
the bill, smd received the support of every even jn jKjtnsas slave property was protected
friend of the hill who voted for it in both < i,y the Territorial Legislature for several years,
Hou-es ol t'ongress- • but lately they have legislated against it. i
1 submit, therefore, that, upon a fair con- believe that, but for the extraordinary exeile-
struetion of that act, you can eame to no other ! aient which grew up out of the repeal of tl
conclusion except that Congress intended to j Missouri restriction, the Territory of Kan
abnegate the exercise of any power over j never would have legislated ad vers
this question in the Territories, and to deny j but we ali know that a great crowd
its purpose ro legislate, whether to establish or j jn there from the North, with extreme ami-
prohibit, or to restrict or protect slavery in the ! slavery views, and the result of the cxciteiucnt
i erritories , and i,n ls5<>. in our platform, wo j there has been legislation against us; but we
expressly declared the doctrine. ' non-inter- t arc no worse off in that respect than if we had
ventioc with slavery in State or Territory, and J never repealed the restriction, and we are much
rtcfc of Columbia. ' hire did that j better off as far as the Territory of New Mexi-
of ita powers. • It is bound, however, to legis-
late, or ' make needful rules,' to that extent.
" A B enters the Territory wiih his wife,
child, horse, and slave. These are taken away
from him by force, and he is himself impris-
oned. Now, it is obvious that there should be
laws lib protect his own liberty, and also his
right to the possession of his wife, child, horsb,
and Blave. Hence, it follows that there mu9t
be power in Congress to legislate on the sub-
ject of slavery as well as in relation to wives,
children, and horses. It is dear that the Gov-
ernment has power to protect these rights.
Can it go further ?' The Constitution declares,
that' private property shall not be taken for
public use (even) without just compensation.'
The Government cannot, therefore, take any
property, or, what is the same thing, release
another from an obligation to me, which is in
the nature of property. While it may protect,
it cannot destroy personal rights.
" It must be remembered, however, that
every slave in the United States is necessarily
the property of some person ; but, as the Gov-
ernment of the United States cannot destroy
or take away property, it cannot, of course,
change the relation of any one in these respects.
If a person is under obligation to serve me for
life, or a shorter term, hie cannot be released
from that obligation by Congress, because it
cannot take my property by any law that it can
pass, whether the law is to operate in a State
or Territory. Iu the latter it is bound to pre-
serve, that is, protect, existing rights; but it
cannot destroy them. If, therefore, its power
is limited to the preservation of rights now in
being, such a law as the Missouri compromise,
which would destroy rights that already exist
in certain citizens, would be unconstitutional,
since it might, and in fact must, necessarily
interfere with property in slaves. It seems to
me that these propositions cover the whole
ground of controversy; and hence, if they are
held to be true, Congress cannot, ' except for
public use,' and with 'just compensation,' de-
prive any person of an obligation on another,
or declare that the owner's right to his slave
shall not be recognized in any Territory of the
United States. And if Congress has not the
power itself, then it cannot delegate it; and
hence the Kansas-Nebraska bill does not carry
with it any such power."
I yesterday alluded to the opinions of Mr.
Calhoun. It is perhaps right that I should say
that, in the very same speech'from which 1
read, he expressed the opinion that a Territo- I 'or it.
between did not STUM in tihftt 0886) wsfl not
argued by^ny counsel or any other counsel;
all I can tay to you is, if that be the opinion
of the corfft, of course, when they decide our
ease, they will decide in your favor, and I
shall then surrender to you; but I am not wil-
ling to assume beforehand that the court will
so decide." It seems to me, then, Mr. Presi-
dent, that in the present condition of the caBe
there is no necessity for ill-feeling on either
side, or for declarations in advance.
My second point was, that New Mexico had
already established a slave code and given us
more territory than we should have gotten un-
der the Missouri line, if carried out. . I come
now to the third point, and that is, what has
grown out of th# decision of the court in the
Dred Scott case. When this subject was un-
der debate in 1850, we of the South objected
to non-intervention on the ground that iUwould
leave the Mexican law in force; and inasmuch
as the Supreme Court had maintained the opi-
nion in a case from Florida, and perhaps in
some other decisions, that where territory was
acquired the local law might remain in force,
we were disinclined to take non-intervention
without a repeal of the Mexican law. During
that interesting controversy, we held a caucus
of southern members, consisting of Senators
and Representatives, and on that occasion the
Senator from Georgia, who usually sits behind
me, (Mr. Toombs,) introduced a proposition
into our caucus that we would support the com-
promise measure, if they would repeal the Mex-
ican laws and substitute 4he British colouial
laws which prevailed, ijf Ttur colonies prior to
the Revolution. That was adopted, and that
gentleman moved it in the House of Represen-
tatives as an amendment, but it was defeated.
I am free to say that if at that time we had
been satisfied that the court would hold that
under the Constitution slave property could
exist and be protected in the Territories, with-
out reference to local laws, I am very sure we
should all have voted for the compromise of
1850.
If it be true, as the Senator from Mississip-
pi contends, that the Dred Scott decision set-
tles the que°*i<>" anil the right of a
slaveholder in a Territory, then there. *p juu
er strong reason why <ve should acquie e in
non-intervention at this time. This, therefore,
[ is a third reason ; and 1 now propose to give
j one or two others why a person like myself,
who originally did not adopt, it, may now be
mmmm
te j
the (Y:«.-tit!r
"ti whi"h rhe
in reference
that LTnuiel
the Ti rrit: r|,
0';n (if ; 1! th
• J'>.; 1 I ui i her, acd uold that justice and
are the easiest and safest guard
(ue-tion can be settled, regarded
partv• It may be settled on
,sgjfeawtion—!ea.vinJ?
free arvl op<5i to to the emigra-
w-rid, .-o long as they continue
W; and when they become States, to adopt
Whatever constitution they please with the
restriction to be republican, in order to
tlieir admission into the Union. If a party
«nnot safely take this broad and solid posi-
tion, aud successfully maintain it, what other
can it take and maintain ?"
Remember this was an earnest exhortation
the Democratic party, prior to the assem-
blage of its national convention in that year.
" If it cannot maintain itself by an appeal
to the great principles of justice, the Constitu-
tion, and self-government, to what other, suffi-
ciently strong to uphold them, in public opin-
ion, can they appeal ? I greatly mistake the
fluaracter people of this Union, if such
n appeal would not prove successful, if either
P#rty should have the magnanimity to step
forward and boldly make it., It would in my
opinion, be received with shouts of approba-
'00 by the patriotic and intelligent in every
quarter. There is a deep feeling pervading the
wuutry that the Union and our political insti-
d-<mS pie *n ^an£er> which such a course would
IspeU -—Appendix to Congressional Clobe,
^session Thirtieth Congress, p. 872.
that position was taken by him and others,
maintained, and gradually obtained
of the*UD t^' in 1^0, it received a majority
the
Re public iaw of the country
this was emphatically a compromise be-
een the sections ; and I propose now to give
lhli J®88009 why I am for maintaining it,
at ^me it was adopted I was op-
. J™**lt- I place this view in the fore-
' ' northern gentlemen, be it recollected,
100 the Wilmot proviso, topiohibit
m tiie Territories, and we of tiie South
protection. When i the Wilmot pro-
in the l)i
have ii i Congiess left it, of courne, in the
!>tate- to th-- States ; io the Territories—there
being iio ir.w of Congress left, for that repeal
removed the last aet of Congress which bore
upon them—it left it nnafFeeted in any way by
cangre&.-uouid legislation ; and in the District
of Columbia slavery had already been cstab-
I• and was protected by law, so that it left
it tbsre untouched, f say, this declaration
received the unanimous a#ent of aH. UfrV
represented ito the Cincinnati convention. I
happened to be a member of that convention
— the only convention of the kind which I be
lieve 1 ever had the honor of being in ; and 1
may have a little persona! pride in that matter,
but I am very sure I am not mistaken when I
say it was unanimously adopted by all the del-
egates there assembled, alike from the North and
the South. We also, out of abundance of can-
dopting non -in terven tion.
Will the gentleman give
at every new Stafe s
or without slavery, as it pleased.
Then, Mr. I'resident, where do we stand '—
The Democracy of the North and the South
agreed upon this principle of non-intervention.
If there ever was a compromise made under
this Government, that was one. Each side
surrendered something. We surrendered our
claim to protection ; our northern friends aban-
doned the Wilmot proviso, and everything
looking to it, and met us on common ground
Though I was not an original party to the a-
greement, I am bound to it bv my acquies-
cence ; and I hold that neither section can ho-
norably depart from it without some great pres-
sing necessity, which does not now exist.
1 know it ii said that the Dred Scott deci-
sion has modified the question I confess I do
not think so. I fully agree to the decision in
the sense in which the Senator from Mississip-
pi explains it; but let us test it for a moment
|u this way: in that decision the court say the
Missouri compromise line, or the Wilmot pro-
viso, is unconstitutional. Granted; but sup-
pose they had decided the other way, and said
it was constitutional, would the northern men
have had a right to come forward and say,
" this question being settled in our favor, the
Supreme Court having admitted that the Wil-
mot proviso is constitutional, we now want to
go in for intervention against slavery ? I am
J "U ni v v , *
pose the court decided that Congress have the
right to protect, and not to prohibit, can we
honorably and fairly, without a great pressing
necessity, abandon the policy of non-interven-
tion ? j I think not.
Now, is there any such necessity? The
Senator himself fcdmits that there is not. His
colleague (Mr. Brown) insists that we ought
Sli
Co is concerneu, by :
,• m > . obittr.yokn.
way to a motion to adjourn
Mr. Cling man. As it is late, if there is
no objection to the 'jucstion going over until
to-morrow, it will be more agreeable to me.
Mr. Crittenden. I move that the >S%fl'fte
adjourn. . "
—^'ne motion was agreed to and the Senate
adjourned.
Tuesday, Mat 8, 1860.
Mr. President : I hope I shall nut find it
necessary to occupy much of the time of the
Senate. When I commenced iast evening 1
thought I should be able to conclude very soon;
but finding that the explanations which I wish -
ed to make would take a little more time than
I had anticipated, I gave way for a motion to
tion to meet the views of our opponents, voted ,. T ... . „ T
thar every new Stale should be admitted with adJ urn- . 1 w,li now 0XPre3S 88 a,T
ri ii[niM _ f to have a slave code or congressional legislation
brought up, there were only seven or'OD the subject; but the Senator from Missis-
t|,e jjonjw of Represent*-1 PP* to whom I am replying, says that there
1 it. Among them I recoileot' 1® n° such necejssity at this time. Then why
' depart from the principle of non-intervention t
I am free to admit that if, in an unwise mo-
ment, a man makes a compromise that is ruin-
ous so him, he may, under great necessity, a-
void it, perhaps i but I deny that any such ne-
cessity exists in i this case; and the highest ev-
idenee of it is thkt the Senator froi
(Mr. ~
from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) and
i at that time, who is now a mem-
other Boose, and; who was voted for
bf the session for Speaker,
) Excepting; those gentle-
is no, one else now in
Hie North who 1
North said,-
to ix the status of the;
can, my impressions on this question; and it
is, perhaps, due to myself to say that, on the
9th of January, 1857, I published a letter in-
dicating my views on the whole subject, in
which I took the position that this Govern-
ment had a right and was bound to protect
property in the Territories, but could not abo-
lish or exclude it, and that a Territorial Leg-
islature could have no greater power than Con-
gress, which created the Territory. In that
letter I said :
" The right to legislate over the Territories
of the United States has, by some persons,
been derived from .that clause of the Constitu-
tion which authorizes Congress to dispose of
and make all needful rules and regulations res-
pecting the territory or other property of the
United States. Others maintain that, s an
incident to the power to admit new States, the
right to prepare the territory for the condition
of a State authorizes legislation.
" If neither of these clauses should be deem-
ed sufficient to authorize legislation, then it
may be contended that, in the first place, it
must now be admitted as a settled matter, that
the Government of the United States is capa-
ble of acquiring territory by treaty, conquest,
or discovery, and of holding or exercising au-
thority over the same. But the Government
derives all of its powers from the Constitution ;
and, but for that instrument, the President, the
Senators, and members of Congress, would
have_jio jno^ power over the Territory than
any other set of people* three hundred in num-
ber.
" It is, however, universally admitted that
the Government of the United States is only a
trustee of power, or agent for the people of the
United States, and must exercise its authority
for. their benefit. As the Government derives
its power solely from the Constitution, it can-
not go beyond that instrument, and is bound
by its limitations therefore. It could not, for
example, in the Territoiy, giant titles of no-
bility, establish religion, abridge the freedom
of speech or of the press, &c. Whichever of
these three sourofcs of power be^assumed as the
true one, it seems dear that Congress and the
President, in holding tlia territory, or exercis-
ing jurisdiction ovof it, Cain only legislate to
the extent txequired to prbteot the interest of
tiie G oversment and of the people of the Uni-
..w-ihf;«rh>pro
tiuii. In doing that
•prejudices at home;
their shoulders the rt
a line which bad bi-<
by thirty-four years' <
ailed a compromise.
rial Legislature had no right to exclude slav
ry, or to legislate against it. I concur with
him in that. He also, I think almost uni-
formly, perhaps invariably, held that Congress
had a right and ought to protect all property
in the Territories subject to its jurisdiction ;
but he waived that right in his speerh. to
which I referred, and in his support ol the
Clayton compromise bill, which passed at the
same session of Congress, and only a few weeks
afterwards, he again waived it By the pro-
visions of that bill, Congress did not legislate
at all in relation to slavery in the Territories,
but transferred the subject to the Territorial
Legislature, with an inhibition that they should
have no power to abolish or establish slavery—
those were the terms—but saying nothing as
to how far they .might legislate. It turned
over the whole subject to them, and left them
to legislate, subject, of course, to the control
of the courts. That} was the prominent idea of
that bill
Now, sir, one other remark in connection
with the first point which I made. During
the discussion of 1850, I insisted that if the
gentlemen would come forward and repeal the
Missouri restriction, and throw open all the
territory. T would agree to take it; and in fact,
iii a speech in the House of Representatives] i
agreed to vote for this principle if they w< uld
j remove the restriction up to the fortieth paral
lei, from oG° : U', considering that sufficient
compensation. It was not done, however, and
ly to us,] ' opposed the scheme But, in 1854;, the
were sent I northern portion of t'.ie ! 'emocratic party, with
great magnanimity and with great risk to them-
selves, came up and repealed this old restrie-
they had to encounter
they had to take upon
spousibility <>f repealing
n rcgai.led as sanctified
sbteuce, and which was
They had the manli-
ness, in carrying out this principle of non-in-
tervention, to come forward and repeal that
line. Why ? It was in order that all the ter-
ritory mighj be^ik>£cd 'i$Qrh ^.d^ame footing ;
and.L V. .V1 that after that sacrifice upon V'neir
part; that willingness to carry out this com-
promise, begun in I indorsed in 1852 by
the Democratic and also by the Opposition con-
vention, we of the South are under the high-
est obligation to stand to it. Now, sir, I make
no reflection on any honorable Senator who dif
fers from me on this question. I do them ail
the justice to say that, if they looked upon it
as 1 do, as a compromise, I am very sure they
would not seek to disturb it. Taking the view
of it I do, believing that the two parties set-
tled down upon non-intervention, 1 feel it to
be my duty te adhere to it in the absence of
any great pressing necessity which would jus-
tify its abandonment.
Mr. President, what arc the points of differ-
ence between the two parties ? The Senator
from Mississippi, if I read his resolutions a-
right, does not propose to favor intervention
by Congress to protect slavery in the Territo-
ries at this time ; but he declares if it should
turn out hereafter that the existing laws are
not sufficient to protect it under the Constitu-
tion, he is then for legislation. What do those
who oppose his resolutions say ? The Senator
footu Ohio (Mr. Pugh) and the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. Douglas) say that if, hereafter
the courts shall make decisions which, cannot
be carried out without legislation, they will
legislate to carry them out. The Senator from
Mississippi says that the Dred Scott decision
has settled the question, and he wants a decla-
ration that we mean to legislate in future.
These gentlemen, admitting, as they must,
that the judges have, in the Dred Scott case,
expressed their opinion that a Territorial Leg-
islature cannot legislate adversely to slavery,
say, however, that point in fact was not pre-
sented in the case; but that, if such was the
settled opinion of the court, when a proper
case is directly presented it will so decide; &nd
they stand ready to carry out that decision of
the court when it shall be made.
Then, do«we not all come together on the
same po'nt? The Senator from Mississippi
says that if the court makes decisions which
cannot be enforced without legislation, he is
for legislation These gentlemen say that when
the court does make decisions, they will sub-
mit to them and carry them out. It seems,
therefore, that they are travelling in lines that
will converge and come together at a certain
point. Then, why dispute now in advance ?
This may be readily illustrated. Suppose I
have a controversy with a neighbor about the
title to a piece of land. Neither of us is in a
hurry to have possession. We are willing to
await the decision of the court.. He comes to
me, however, and says : '• I find that tiie court,
in expressing an opinion in another case,which
I admit is not like ours, and does not present
the same facts, has declared, nevertheless, that
in a case likh yours and mine my title would
be good,, and therefore I wish you to give#me
a deed acknowledging my title toj be good,
though I do not want possession now, and SBi
ted States.
It has been adopted .is the policy of the
couutry tor t<m years. Can we now pass
through resolutions or bills to establish or pro
teot slavery iu the Territories ? That is the
question Recollect, it is only in a case where
the people of a Territory are hostile to our
rights ; it is only where they are so hostile that
that they refuse to protect us, or even legis-
late against us that we have been called upon
to exercise this power. Nobody pretends that
there is any necessity for our going into New
Mexico, or other Territories that are favorable
to us, with this legislation. Therefore, the
question presented is'simply this: suppose a
Territory is hostile to us, and its Legislature
will not protect slave property, or even legis-
lates against it, will Congress intervene ?
First, is there any political possibility that we
can pass such a law through the two Houses ?
We have had a test on the question already.
Here is the Territory of Kansas, which not
only does not give us any protection, but which,
I am informed, has legislated adversely. One
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Brown) has
brought forward a proposition to interfere for
the protection of slavery in that Territory, and
yet he has n t gotten one southern man to back
him ; and if you wore to submit (he question
to a body of southern Senators I liff-e very
great doubt whether you would get them to a
gree to such legislation. Why is it ' If we
of (he South are willing to impose the institu-
tion—that is the common phrase—on a Terri-
tory against the wish of a majority, why is it
that gentb men do not come up and support the
proposition of the Senator from Mississippi ?
Is it because it is felt that it is politically and
morally wrong to interfere in this way ? Is
that it, or is it because gentlemen know that
such legislation would be unavailing? I ask
why we have not induced southern Senators
yet to come uj> and vote for the establishment,
or protection of slavery in Kansas, notwith-
standing the adverse legislation of the territo-
rial authorities? I leave every gentleman to
give his own reasons. But suppose every
southern Senator went for it, we could not pass
it '; Hi.'! U?*v man v northern men arc there who
are ready to vote for it? it WtU take thirty
northern Representatives to pass through such
a bill. We ali know what a clamor was raised
two or three years ago by the Abolitionists—
falsely raised—when it was alleged that Con-
gress intended to force slavery upon the Terri-
tory ot Kansas, whether it wished it or not.
Now, if we undertake to protect or maintain
slavery in a Territory agaiust the wish of the
inhabitants, I ask you how many northern
men are likely to sustain as in it ? At pre-
sent we have no southern men for it that I
know of except one. There may be others ;
hut they have not thought proper, after a de-
bate of three months, t.o state the fact. But
suppose they come up and do it, how many
men will you get from the North ? I hold that
it is a political impossibility that we should
pass such a measure ; and, as I shall presently
endeavor to show, nothing but mischiet will
result from the attempt.
But suppose there were nothing in this fourth
objection of mine, and that Congress should
actually pass a law of that sort, how much
would it be worth in a Territory where the
people are thoroughly adverse to it and unwil-
ling. that the institution should exist or be pro-
tected ? If you are going to enforce the law,
you must send either an army or an immense
number of officials, and scatter them all over
the Territory. * Gentlemen know now how dif-
ficult it is to recover a runaway negro from the
free States. From some of these States you
can ouly get him by the help of an army. It
was stated the other day, in a speech by a
member of the Republican party, who, I sup-
pose, knows—I mean Mr. Raymond, who was
once Lieutenant Governor of New York—that
of the runaways who went to the North, not
one in five hundred ever was recovered; and
yet it is much easier to send p, posse or a body
of troops there to get a single negro at one
point and return him, than it would be to sup-
port an army and protect it over a whole Ter-
ritory. But, nevertheless, suppose you could
maintain it there, what then ? Everybody on
our side of the House admits that1 when they
make a State constitution, they have a right
to exclude it. Have you, or I, or any other
man, the least doubt that when such a people
nn l< a State constitution they would make it
anti-slavery ? Any community on earth who
had forced upon them a system to which they
were id verse would inevitably throw it off when
they could. What would be the result ? Ev-
ery State brought into the Union under these
circumstances would not only be a free State,
but would probacy be abolitionised; probably
strong anti-slavery features would be thrown
into its constitution. What advantage is that
to us of the 8 uth, I ask gentlemen? We
would like to have slave States; they would
give us additional-strength in tiie two Houses
of Congress; but slave Teiritones are worth
nothing to us—they give us no strength.. We
should like to have slave Territories that might
tile States, they are of no advantage whatever
to us.
I have now, Mr. President, given some five
reasons why, in my judgment, even if non-in-
tervention had not been right originally, it
would be the true policy now ; but gentlemen
say, if it is our ripht to have protection, let us
insist upon' it. I take it for granted that every
man believes he has rights which he cannot in-
sist on at all times. No man will insist on an
abstract, remote Bort of right which he can
turn to no practical advantage, and., thereby
merely incur very great losses. If a man be-
lieved that he had a certain valuable property
in the moon, nobody would expect him to at-
tempt to get at it there either by balloons or
otherwise- Everybody would regard it as an
impossibility, and any expenditure of time and
money that he made to effect it would be re-
garded as thrown away. I am free to say that,
in my judgment, there is about as much pro-
bability of effecting a thing of that sort,as there
is of getting through Congress and maintain-
ing a system of legislation to protect slavery in
Territories that are so utterly hostile te it that
they make their Legislature act against it, and
then to bring them in as slaveholding Stated
One is a political, the other a physical impos-
sibility. I think we sh^ll lose by the opera-
tion ; and this brings me to another class of
objections.
If we take this system of congressional in-
tervention for the protection 6f slavery, we
must act in opposition to the settled policy of
the Democratic party for the last ten years
Thwypu jiecegsarily diyide the party. The
mvmtilfr.^ill'iK÷ our opponents.; they
will all stand as tifc^jPubw do, firmly united a
gainst us; but we shall divide our own party
into two sections, and I beg leave to call the
attention of Senators to the fact that, on look-
ing over the resolutions adopted in the Demo-
cratic conventions of the free States—and I
have examined all of them but one—every sin
gie one ot' them, as far as 1 know or believe,
has declared in favor of the Cincinnati plat-
form, and non-intervention. So have many of
the southern States likewise. H' we adopt a
different policy, all these gentlemen must
change their ground at once, or be driven out
ot party. I askjou, Mr. President, can
they mamHn themselves before their oppo-, pome other ^ natural r;
nenUs under tin- disadvantage ? Suppose, for
example, the delegation Aon Pennsylvania
go home from a convention where the policy
of intervention has been adopted: how will
their opponents meet them? Their Republi-
can opponents will say te them- "you have all | a w tbat was ■ ruQ a t ud
been lighting for ten years upon the principle , on which he hJ bet\r^ly should put '
of non-intervention, and at your State conven-! hi. Wk aj, th(1 * hc ^ in fhc shv
tion, last March, you passed resolutions, with-1 • - - - ■ - - -
out division, unanimously declaring that Con-
Ik new Bible. Nobody has asked it. _
I am wrong—I believe the Abolitionists i
said that the times demanded an anti-ali
Constitution, an anti-slavnry Bible, and an
ti-slavery God ; and' they have made tor I
selves a new constitution in tiie "higher laf
and, for aught I know tiiny may adopt Joe
Smith's Mormon Bible. They have eaaUy
found a divinity in John Brown ; and sotte
of them are relying they say, -on him, and hint
hanged." But I do not find that any consid-
erable portion of the Christian world Mbit
a new divinity or a different Bible, and yqt
they differ about it. So" with regard to the
Constitution. It turns out, therefore, that tiie
Cincinnati platform stands in the same position
with these other great instruments in this In-
spect.
What has occurred sinoe 1856? I was a
member of the convention when that
was adopted ' at Cincinnati, and it was unani-
mously adopted, and was satisfactory. What
has occurred since? I know of nothing that is
supposed to have any bearing upon it, except
the Dred Scott decision. If gentlemen S«y
that that ought to be a part of our platform,
I doubt whether anybody will object. Every
Democrat that I know of yields to the decia-
sions of the courts on questions of that Kind.
I prefer, though, taking the decision itaelf to
any man's commentary upon it, just as I would
prefer adopting the Bible to the views of any
commentator. If I should attempt to read in
any court what somebody said was a former de-
cision, the judges would atop me. ud.Bay,
"Give us the decision itself" bedanSef'WB jud-
ges know their«opinious, and can express item
better than anybody else.
But, Mr. President., I may say that I look
upon platforms for candidates very much as 1
do upon the weights that are put upon horses.
1 think the less of a platform you hamper a
candidate with, generally, so you express your
principles clearly, the^ better ; just as the less
weight you put upon a horse; the better race
he runs. I have a great many rights tbat were
not iu the Cincinnati platform. 1 do not ex-
pect to have them all put into it. To got them
there, 1 should have to have the Constitution
of the Cnited States certainly all there, and the
constitution of my own State, and no doubt
htaHhat are not io
either. My friend tr >m Missouri (Mr. Green)
suggests to me the Bible, aldo Are we to
expect everything to be put. in ? If do, I
do not know bowTarg we should make it. It
would be just as absurd as if a man who had
gross had no power to legislate on the subject
of slavery in the Territories ; and that it would
uot be expedient for them to exercise it, ii
they had it, you went to the national conven-
tion, and the slave power have imposed on you
an intervention plank—a plank by which you
will have to legislate slavery into and maintain
it in the Territories." They will call it, of
course, a slave code. Will our friends be able
to maintain themselves advantageously under
the«e circumstances? I put it to the common
sense of everybody if that can be expected. I
will not say, as a southern gentleman said to
me the other day, who was in favor of a south-
ern candidate at Charleston, that if the angel
Gabriel was put upon a slave-code he would be
defeated all through the North. I do not
know anything about what sort of a run angels
wdtld make; but I am clearly of the opinion
that it would weaken any candidate we run in
the North. Why ? All men have a pride of
opinion : all men have a regard for consisten-
cy. If this were a new question, and uogroun i
j had ever been taken upon it, it is possible that |
| we might bring up many gentlemen to the .
point of passing a proposition to protect slave- >
ry in the Territories ; Out when they nave stood :
upon non-intervention for ten years ; when all ;
their conventions have adopted it, 1 ask you if
it is possible that they can be prepared, at this 1
time, to turn rigiit about, and go for iorcrven j
tion. It does not help the matter at all that!
this thing is held up in faluro. Suppose it. be
said that " whenever it is necessary, Congress j
must legislate to protect slave property the i
Abolitionists would say in" the canvass, "it;
will be necessary as soon as the presidential j
election is over, if you carry the day." They
will say that, of course. Our friends, pcrh.i ps*.
may dispute it, and say they thiuk it will I a,
long time before it is necessary; but that is
the argument they will have to meet. Th . A-
bolitionists will hold up ali the bloody slave
codes from the ti©& of Draco down, and tell
th"; ,^drth&Mr people that this is the music they
have got to face. If we are going tfr xt^islaie
at all, 1 have no doubt upon earth it would he"
better for us to pass a statute now, declaring
mi'lstonei. or anything else cumber-
be the
height of absurdity.
President, after we get
and ho is running
of kettle .
some. That would
1 toll you further, A
a candidate in thc ^ field ^
against our adversaries over the way, the very
gentlemen who now may be disposed to quib-
ble, and who want to insist on this and that, \
if they saw that he was hampered and was like- i,
ly to lose support, would be very sorry that he
was thus placed in a false position. My real <
liking for the Cincinnati platform was, that it '
had been four years before the country, every-
body understood it, and it was not necessary to
debate it or talk about it further in the canvass.
As it coutaiued all the principles in issue be-
tween the parties, I preferred waging the fight
on it, with the addition only of the Dred Scott
decision, if gentlemen desired it.
I know, however, that there are several
classes of persons who will not agree with mo
in these views. In the first place, there are
some gentlemen who are called disunionists
per se ; that, is persons who think sound poli-
cy require? a, dissolution of the Union. I know
ome who cuLcrtain these views. They are men
of ability, intelligence, public spirit, and patri-
otism. I have no doubt about tbat. They
houestly believe that this Government is a fail-
urn. 'They think this slavery agitation has
been coutiiiuei to that extent that it has para-
lyzed the Government for useiu! purposes; that
h will grow worse and worse; aud that the
Union had better '«> dissolved, and a newsys-
j ten; of Government made. They are hrtfnora-
ble men, or many of them, at least, are Known
to me as such. They believe that if tlvfe Dem-
ocratic party were destroyed, a great i )eejj would
be taken iu that direction ; and I ac* free to ad-
mit it. They suppose, therefore ^i at by pres-
sing extreme views, by having th^s South to in-
sist, for example, on slave protection in Terri-
tories, while the North is for rvon-intervention,
we may either break up the party or defeat it
in the coming election. I shall not enter into
an argument with Mich gentlemen as te hot? far
they are right. I tui'*k they are wrong. It
seems to me they are incapable of learning to*
experience. There is one thing they might
blye learned, and that iVj^ &gy cannot dril
oetrer ior us to pass a statute now, declaring , - • •— —..
tbat slave aud all other property should ^ ; the maftnu thern people hfw*. i**
protected in all the Territories of the United actlop 'C1Q^ They may, by expfes-
States during the territorial condition ; because
men would see that statute, would know what
it meant,and have a bettor chance to defend it.
But again, Mr. President, it is argued that
there arc differences of opinion on the subject
of non-intervention and the meaning of the
Cincinnati platform. I -really do not think
there is auy diffcrrence of opinion as far as
the action of Congress is concerned. I think
no man can read that platform, or the Nebras-
ka bill, or the speeches on that occasion, with-
out seeing that we are all agreed so far as con-
gressional action is concerned. I have ex-
tracts from the speeches of many southern Sen-
ators and Representatives upon the occasion
of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill,
but 1 do not choose to read them. In the first
place, the argument ad hominem is not a very
convincing one to an intelligent mind. In
the next place, to sho# that this was the uni-
versal opinion ot the party then, as I could
do in this way, I should have' to take up the
time of the Senate to too great length, and I
should also, perhaps, oblige gentlemen to make
explanations of their positions. But I think
it abundantly clear that Congress was not to
interrere with the subject; that the difference
of opinion was upon the point afler that—what
would be the effect of congressional non-inter-
vention. Some gentlemen said that the Ter-
ritories might legislate to protect slavery, but
not to prohibit it. Others said they might leg<
- r
sing their extreme opiuions/iavolve us in diffi-
culties, divide us at the South, and weaken our
influence iu the oountry.
I thought, in 1850 that my section suffered
because certain gent lemen deemed it proper,
very unwisely, in my judgment, to express these
view and divide us at home.
Mr. Calhoun made a remark, whtoh
was reported to me, shortly before bis death,
which I refer to because, in my judgment^it
illustrates the feeling of the Soutk, aai,a* I *
have alluded to him, I beg lento to Say I"
having once, in my earlier yean, ii soate Jg
spoken in a manner not kind to him, I
great pleasure in saying, oa tiu< ooension, that
my opinion was subsequently changed, and I
am satisfied that I did him great injustice,
His course in 1848, on .the Clayton comprom-
ise ; satisfied me ; because he agreed to take a
measure which he thought fell greatly short
of our rights, for the sake of peace urn har-
mony; ana his course in 1S50 satisfied me that
hfe had no ulterior de&igns against the Govern-
ment j that he was very anxious; provided it
could be kept on the line ol Che Constitution,
to preserve it. But, nr, the remark to which
I allude, was this ; after I saw him foe thelast
time—for 1 believe tiie last conversation I had
wih him was on the hurt day fee was in the
Senate, and if I were to repeat it, wltiek it is
not neoessaty tixat I should do, it would only
! be creditableioh'm and his views—hgeatiesMm
islate either to prohibit or not. This question, from South Carolins, then a oo)l^igti ot:
from necessity, is one that the courts must de- a gentlemen with whom I was on teraw fit sreat
termine. Suppose a law is passed by a Terri- intimacy—said in the House one day to me, in
torial Legislature : who determines its consti- • conversation, "last evening when 2. msM
tutionality and validity? The courts. Our: "" " " -
opinion will not control the courts. Suppose
the Senate should resolve unanimously that a
particular thing was legal and constitutional;
the Supreme Court or any .other court, would
not be bound to adopt it all. There is, in fact,
no difference, as far as the action of Congress
is required, on the subject. We differ as to
what the court will decide about the power of j e&ect
" " * " vef"
in !
a Territory. I, for example, believe, and have Hems wi
said again and again that I think the court will ' we can say is,
to Mr. Calhoun, by his bedMdde, giving him
my views as to what w&nhM e the effsot of a
dissolution of tii* Cniow, h«rStepped**; and
he always stops am at that poiat. fie said,
'you may he right in your«g$iious, your argu-
ment is very plausible, v adaai thai I can-
not answer it, bat there msy ossaa ai distur-
bing onuses which would ehaage aty this. The
_ is one
tiie human mind cannot
tiutt il tin Hi
hold, that a Territorial Legislature hits a right ns we must make up our minds to
to protect property, and cannot legislate against That, I think, was substanttf*'^
it. I think so. Somebody else entertains an Ifiat if we could maintain oar
opposite opinion. It is necessarily a judicial
iiut again, sir, it is said that the Cineinci-
nati platform, with tite doctrine of;non-inter-
vention, is construed differently by different
people. So is the Constitution of the U
States ; and yet we have never thought
to make a new Constitution. So is the
the churches have divided about it tor the
last ttrothottsshdyears or more; send ^st Prov-
idewKhas not thought proper to fiurar us with
rights in the Union, we ^
but, if forced to take the other alternative,' w«
; oaght to make up our minds to # It I think
<$ds fSftlteates the view tof the
•ot tiie people of the South.
such blind reverence for the
Government, as to submit to j
le l essential rights are.invaded; 1
in ndvanoe.of aach Mi 4
si
;np,
'' •< . I
i i jL-
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
De Morse, Charles. The Standard. (Clarksville, Tex.), Vol. 17, No. 22, Ed. 1 Saturday, June 16, 1860, newspaper, June 16, 1860; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth234261/m1/1/?rotate=270: accessed July 17, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting The Dolph Briscoe Center for American History.