Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Again, the President varies his accusation. He says: "They seek an object which they well know to be a revolutionary one. They are perfectly aware that the change in the relative condition of the white and black races in the slaveholding States, which they would promote, is beyond their lawful authority; that to them is a foreign object; that it cannot be effected by any peaceful instrumentality of theirs; that for them, and the States of which they are citizens, the only path to its accomplishment is through burning cities and ravaged fields, and slaughtered populations, and all there is most terrible in foreign complicated with civil and servile war."

"Well knowing that such, and such only, are the means and the consequences of their plans and purposes, they endeavor to prepare the people of the United States for civil war by doing everything in their power to deprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, and to undermine the fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and sectional prejudice, by indoctrinating its people with reciprocal hatred, and by educating them to stand face to face as enemies rather than shoulder to shoulder as friends."

the only path to the accomplishment of that design was through burning cities," &c., he could then, sir, with the eloquence of truth, have narrated scenes which disgrace humanity. "Burning cities!" Why, sir, I know of none except Lawrence and Ossawatomie. I know of no ravaged fields and slaughtered population, except on the plains of Kansas, where scenes were enacted by the sanction of the Executive power which the Democratic party have all over the country been trying to apologize for. These, I say, are the In this paragraph the President repeats, and only burning cities, ravaged fields, and slaughdoes not charge directly, but by innuendo, thattered population of which I am aware; and these the Republican party proposes to change the rel- have been allowed, yea produced, by the Presiative condition of the white and black races in dent himself. Not only does the President charge the slaveholding States. By what authority does us with principles which we never have advohe make the allegation? Does he find it in the cated, but he ascribes to the Republican party platform of the Republican party? Does he find the very results which his own policy has proit in any resolutions passed by any public meet- duced: ing held by that party in any of the northern States? Why does he make allegations against that party which they have again and again denied, and which there is not the slighest evidence to prove? Why does he again adopt the offensive form of an innuendo? He says, "They [the Republican party] seek an object which they well know to be unconstitutional." What object? Why not state it manfully, boldly, as a Who has endeavored to prepare the people of President should? If we have among us more the United States for civil war? Who but the than a million of incipient traitors, why not say President of the United States, by teaching them so? And yet he does it in this covert way: how utterly futile it was and is now to appeal to "They are perfectly aware that the change in the law for redress where the law is administered the relative condition of the white and black by a weak Executive and by such judges as Leraces in the slaveholding States, which they would compte? How could the President provoke such promote, is beyond their lawful authority." Sir, an inquiry, when murder, arson, robbery, and we seek to promote no such change. If we did other crimes have run riot in that Territory, and we would tell you so. We have no doubt-and until recently no pro-slavery man has been called in this the voice of the civilized world will con- to account? Who murdered Dow and Brown and eur-that it is the interest of the white men in Barbour-who sacked Lawrence and Ossawatothose States to promote such a change; but we mie-who drove the quiet shop-keepers and artihave not the power, and do not intend to do it. sans of Leavenworth from their homes and propYet upon this groundless imputation the Pres- erty-who invented the crime of constructive sident goes off at a tangent into a fancy sketch of treason-who deprived the people of the Territory "burning cities,"" ravaged fields," and "slaugh- of the elective franchise-who murdered Buffum, tered populations." I can imagine the grim smile and allowed his murderer to go at large on bailwhich marked the countenance of the Secretary did the Republicans do these or kindred enormiof State when he first heard that passage. I can ties? None, none of them; and yet they seek to imagine the scene that must have occurred in the deprive the laws of moral authority!" The Cabinet when this passage came before them for friends of the President did all these and much review. I can almost picture the President when more, and yet they are "law and order" citizens he wrote-with "fine frenzy rolling"-" burning and gentlemen some of them most upright cities, ravaged fields, and slaughtered popula- judges. Until recently they have been as free tions," the work of the Republicans! How vivid from fear or danger of punishment as you, sir, the imagination of the President! It is a pity to are from being hanged for the murder of Charles I. deny the innuendo, for it is like taking the ghost The President even does not impute to them the from the play of Hamlet. Sir, your Yankee charge of " depriving the laws of their moral newspapers sometimes attribute to our western authority." Sir, the mode in which justice has orators lofty flights of eloquence based upon a been administered in that Territory has fearfully very slender foundation; but I submit whether aggravated the disorder naturally produced by the specimen here furnished by a famed son or the repeal of the Missouri compromise. Who the old Granite State does not beat the Hoosiers? is responsible for this? Who but the President? The party he describes is about as much like the The judges hold office at his will, and his power Republican party as the imaginary giant of the of removal could at once cure the evil. And yet crazy knight of La Mancha was like the wind-with this power unemployed the offender arraigns mills he encountered; and I think the President's us for his offense, of depriving the laws of moral contest will result like the knight's. authority!

If the President, instead of the language I have quoted, had said: "The last Congress, in violation of good faith, and with the evil design of carrying slavery into free territory, repealed the restriction which forever prohibited it, and that

[ocr errors]

But, sir, let us again look at the charge made. What law do we seek to deprive of moral authority? The President does not specify. Can any one name the law? I know of none to which he can refer, unless it is the enactments of the Shaw

in his imputations against us he described his own crime and its evil effects.

nee Mission Legislature. But these enactments this House hold to be null and void; and shall the President say to us that these are laws which We are here told that the people of the United we have decided are not laws? The circumstances States have decided that the repeal of the Misconnected with the election of the body which souri compromise was right. Here again I take passed these enactments are now well known to issue with the President. If this question had the country. Their character is also well known. been submitted to them, it could not have received They have been denounced as oppressive and three hundred thousand votes in its favor in the disgraceful by the political friends of those who || northern States. It was only by evading this made them, and I am, for one, disposed to plead very question by the nomination of James Buchguilty of seeking to deprive these "laws" of all anan, that the Democratic party avoided an overmoral or legal authority. If the President means whelming defeat. any other laws, let him specify them.

66

Mr. CADWALADER. I would ask the genAgain: he says we seek to undermine the tleman from Ohio, how he can reconcile that fabric of the Union by appeals to passion and proposition with the fact, that the President elect sectional prejudice." I should like to know ratified and approved of the bill repealing the where and when the Republican party has sought Missouri compromise by a public declaration to do this? Never, sir, until this Administration || before his election? itself gave the ground and cause for it by tampering with a compromise made years ago, and submitted to by all for over a quarter of a century. There never was an appeal to the passions and prejudices of the American people so potent and so offensive in its terms as this very message of the President of the United States. He here arraigns the great majority of the people of the northern States, of his own native State, and of his own town, as either knaves or fools-as either purposely seeking to tear down the Government under which we live, or with doing it indirectly, by sapping the principles upon which it is founded.

Mr. SHERMAN. True, the President elect subsequently ratified the principle of the bill, but it was well understood that he was originally opposed to it; and his ratification of the principle of the bill was only made after his friends in different sections construed the principle to suit their respective latitudes, and placed upon it constructions entirely diverse. I could readily prove that even the Democratic party, in many northern States, while supporting Buchanan, condemned the repeal. Thus, in some cases, they put in nomination men who voted against the Nebraska bill; and such was the case in the district in which Mr. Buchanan resides. The train of their arguHowever much such a charge as this may ment was, that the Democratic party, by throwgratify a morbid sentiment of ultra men in one ing overboard Pierce and Douglas in the Cincinsection or the other, I ask you if it does not nati Convention, put their seal of disapprobation appeal to passion and sectional prejudice? That upon the expediency of this measure. By bringlanguage has been used, and events have trans-ing forward Mr. Buchanan, a new man, and who pired to excite both, none can deny, and none had been absent when the bill passed, they evaded can regret more than I. Invidious comparisons the issue, interposing Sam Weller's favorite between the wealth, productions, and historical plea, “an alibi;” and then all over the country achievements of sister States; violent language in the Democratic party put upon their flags, transnewspapers; the absence of courtesy in debate; parencies, and banners, Buchanan, Breckinprivate animosities, and restraint of social inter-ridge, and free Kansas." Not only that, but course, growing out of political differences, are always to be regretted. That these exist, none can deny. But who and what has produced them? What has so aroused and surcharged the || body-politic, that slight friction produces the angry spark? All these spring from the sense of wrong. This was produced by the President and his party, and by his mal-administration in Kansas. He was reckless and bold in producing the storm; and when it came upon him, and actual strife and discord were the result, he was weak, inefficient, timid, and partial.

they charged that we Republican members had violated our promises by voting for a law to extend slavery into Kansas by voting for DUNN'S bill; and that if our competitors were elected, they would see that Kansas was made a free State; and that the election of Buchanan would do more to make it a free State than anything else. Such was the line of their argument; and yet we are gravely told, that when a portion of a confiding people believed these charges, and relied upon these promises, and gave their votes for Mr. Buchanan, they thereby approved the adAgain, we are charged with "indoctrinating ministration of Franklin Pierce. "Lay not that the people with reciprocal hatred, and educating flattering unction to thy soul." The conduct them to stand face to face as enemies, rather than of the campaign in the northern States clearly shoulder to shoulder as friends." When did this proves that even the Democratic party was comprocess commence? Surely, not when the Pres-pelled to bow down to the stern resolve of our ident commenced his term. Then all was peace and harmony. He tells us so in his first message. The first lesson in this process of alienation was when Mr. DOUGLAS made his famous report. Every act of the President since that time has been a new lesson. The Republican party is a party of defence. It only seeks to place matters precisely where the President found them. The President is at the head and fountain of the stream. Whatever evils flow from it are to be ascribed to him; and I have no doubt that

[ocr errors]

people, that slavery shall derive no advantage from the error of the repeal. I tell gentlemen they are mistaken if they suppose the people of the North-of Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Illinois-will agree to the extension of slavery into Kansas. They expect that Territory to come into the Union as a free State, under all circumstances. I am sure that even those who are opposed to me in politics, and coming from the free States, will admit such to be the expectation of their people. They were led to believe

it will be a free State, and voted under that impression. Had not such been the case, Buchanan and Breckinridge never would have received any of their electoral votes.

The President has not only misrepresented the issue before the people-not only misrepresented the policy and the measures of the Republican party, but he now seeks to throw upon it the consequences of the reopening of the slavery agitation by the repeal of the Missouri compromise. That all the evils which have distracted our country for the last two years have grown out of that repeal, every candid man must admit. If this measure had not been agitated, the Abolition party, as it is called, or the party seeking to interfere with slavery in the southern States, could have had no political power. The contest would have been between the Whig and the Democratic party upon such questions of domestic policy as would have arisen in the ordinary administration | of the Government. All from the southern States must know that, had it not been for the repeal of the Missouri compromise, this slavery agitation would not have come up for years. It was settled in every portion of the Union.

party in nearly all of the northern States. The few members of that party returned to this Con|gress are but monuments to mark how strong and deep was the feeling against the repeal. The party has not yet recovered from the blow. Those who left it had a strong attachment for their party. They would have been satisfied with almost any ordinary excuse. The power of the Democratic party was in the North. It has strength there no longer. The Republican party carried eleven of the northern States. The remaining three or four were carried by small majorities by the Democratic party, only by evading the issues made by the President.

I call the attention of the House to a striking evidence of the partiality of the President. He seeks to impute the evils in Kansas to " propagandist colonization" from the northern States. Who commenced that colonization? Had the South nothing to do with it? On the 10th of June, 1854, eleven days after the Kansas-Nebraska bill became a law, persons confessedly citizens of Missouri went into the Territory, and passed what are called the squatter resolutions. All understand what they are. They denied all protection to any man they chose to call an Abo

Mr. QUITMAN. I deny the assertion, that we admit that the repeal of the Missouri compro-litionist. We all know that the men designated mise was the cause of the agitation.

Mr. SHERMAN. I did not say that all southern men admit it. I said that their impartial judgments must lead them to that conclusion.

This question of slavery was settled in every State and Territory of this Union. There was not a foot of soil in the broad compass of our country-not a spot of ground over which the national flag was unfurled, where it was not settled. In sixteen free States slavery was prohib- || ited by their constitutions. In fifteen slave States slavery was allowed by local law, and we did not propose to interfere with it. In Oregon and Washington it was prohibited by an act which received the signature of President Polk. In Utah and New Mexico it was prohibited by local law. In the Territory of Missouri it was prohibited by the Missouri restriction.

Thus it was settled in every State and tory of the Union. I have here the first message which the President delivered to Congress, and I find in it this paragraph:

"That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured.”

by that opprobrious phrase in western Missouri are not such as my colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS.] They called all men Abolitionists who are against the further extension of slavery. Men with such sentiments were excluded from the Territory, and denied all protection. The propagandist scheme thus commenced was continued by repeated acts of enormity.

We know that thousands of Missourians voted at the first election in the Territory. It is clearly proved that the number of Missourians in the Territory at the second election numbered over four thousand. We know that there was an organized invasion from Missouri, under distinguished leaders, to burn and destroy houses and property in Kansas. These were southern propagandists-propagandists for the purpose of slavery extension. Do you not suppose that such Terri-outrages excited the people of the North? Was it imagined that they were not capable of defending their rights and the rights of their fellow-citizens? They saw slavery thus threatened to be forced upon Kansas; they saw brothers, fathers, sons, their relatives and former neighbors, slain without just cause, and they were filled with indignaAll that the northern people desired of the tion. What did the President all this while? President was a full and entire compliance with Event followed event, and he did not interpose that paragraph. They do not desire to stir up to prevent a recurrence of the outrages. He did the waters of strife. They had been taught by not interfere until the settlers from the North their greatest statesmen-by Mr. Clay and by rose in arms to defend their friends from violent Mr. Webster-that in every State and in every and bloody assault. How, then, can the PresiTerritory of this broad Confederacy this question dent talk of emigrant aid societies and propawas forever put to rest. When the promise I gandist schemes? He did not interpose until the have read was made, the Democratic party was in settlers from the North were combined for their the ascendant, and carried every State in this own defense. Then he interposed to protect his Union except Vermont; for I believe that in Mas- allies; and I thank him for that interposition. sachusetts they had a Democratic Governor at Had he not done so, I believe there would have one time. And, sir, if that party had fulfilled been a civil war. But this interference should their pledges, all the old issues would have passed have been sooner. His duty was to see that the away. All that would have been necessary for laws were fairly executed. He did not execute the President would have been to observe strictly that duty promptly; and it does not lie in his and truly the language of his first official mes-mouth to accuse the Republican party of having sage; but it was not done, and he has reaped the results. His policy swept away the Democratic

created this agitation, and caused the burning of cities, and the desecration of homes. The accu

ple.

sation, even if true, should not have come from || which had long been consecrated to freedom be his lips. converted into a slave State, those in the North The President is about to retire to the shades who have been instrumental in it will be overof private life. He came into power in full favor.whelmed by the indignation of an outraged peoAll are glad now that he is to retire from it. I am sure that I am. As to the incoming Administration, I am willing to give it a fair trial. I shall not prejudge it. The people of my State were promised "Buchanan, Breckinridge, and free Kansas." Mr. Breckinridge told his partisans in Indiana that he did not belong to a party which sought the extension of slavery. They believed him, and aided in forcing on us Buchanan and Breckinridge. Now, let the other part of the pledge be fulfilled. Let Kansas be admitted as a free State. Let that much be done to repair the great injury caused by the repeal of the Missouri compromise. But if this pledge is not redeemed, if the war between rival institutions be allowed to go on there as it has done, if Kansas is admitted as a slave State, who can tell where this agitation will end? If, by force and fraud, a Territory

The President having committed his last great political blunder, now, like a criminal-I use the term in no offensive sense-has availed himself of the privilege given by the policy of our laws to all persons in a like situation, to show cause why the judgment of those who intrusted him with power should be tempered with mercy. If he had exercised this right without impugning the motives of others, I should have respected his compulsory retirement and remained silent. But as he deemed it his privilege to do otherwise, my duty to those who sent me here would not allow me to say less than I have done. Against the President as a citizen and a gentleman, I know no fault. I hope he may live to a hale old age, and have time to reflect that in politics, as well as in morals, honesty is the best policy.

SPEECH

OF

HON. J. COLLAMER, OF VERMONT.

DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 9, 1856.

The Senate having under consideration the following order, submitted by Mr. FITZPATRICK on the 24 instant:

Ordered, That the message and accompanying documents be printed, and that fifteen thousand additional copies be printed for the use of the Senate.

Mr. COLLAMER said: Mr. President, in entering upon my duties as a member of this body, entertained the notion that legitimate discussion should be confined to questions-especially questions of importance-which were pending before the Senate. But, sir, I was early disappointed in this view. I soon ascertained that Senators with a large measure of age and experience and learning, considered that there were other, and perhaps more important duties, than those lying within the scope of legitimate discussion; and particularly one was, to prepare the public mind. My own opinion was, that the public mind should prepare itself, and should not receive its direction from the debates and action of either the Senate or House of Representatives in Congress assembled. Those bodies should rather be the echo than the formation of public sentiment. It seemed to me that it was transforming this body from a deliberative assembly to an arena of political party debate.

[ocr errors]

But my views, it appears, are mistaken entirely. Experience has shown the fact to be entirely different. That experience has been sustained by the example of men of the first position in the country, and it is now too late to question its propriety. Therefore, even as to subjects that are legitimately before us, and are proper topics of debate, discussion takes a very latitudinous range. Much the largest part of what is said here is not said for the purpose of producing an impression on the body who are supposed to be || its auditors; but it is said, as the vulgar and common expression is, for Buncombe. I suppose it is now too late for this ever to be corrected. It must go on. Inasmuch as it does go on, all men of all parties must, more or less, participate in it. It is idle for a man to undertake to elevate himself to a position of affected dignity, from which he will not condescend to mingle in these topics. His constituents have been taught to expect other things of him; and they have been so taught by men of such high position that their expectations cannot be disappointed by their representative.

I make these remarks, sir, because some gentlemen have suggested that there is really no important question before us. I think there is not; but there is a subject before us that I consider of deep importance; and inasmuch as discussion has been commenced upon it, I presume it must go on.

This message of the President of the United States, especially all that part of it which relates to the subject we have been talking about-the regulation of slavery in the Territories of the United States-its style and manner, the occasion and the time when it has been presented to us, have made the impression upon my mind that, however exceptionable it might be in my humble judgment, and however in bad taste, that was not a point for us to settle-" de gustibus non est dispu tandum;" but I regarded it rather as the ebullition of an impotent sort of rage on the part of a disappointed, ambitious man, worthy of no particular notice. I believe that scarcely a man, perhaps not one, can now be found in this body, who would have ever desired that any such matter should be there; but it is there. It comes ex cathedra. It comes indorsed by the authority of the highest executive officer of this Government. It is sent to the world with that indorsement, backed by that authority. I do not therefore wonder that it should be thought worthy of

some answer.

Now, sir, what are the leading features of this part of the message? The President seems to have reversed the order in which the Constitution puts the schedule of his duties. It provides that the President" shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient. What does this mean? It is, that he shall lay before Congress the condition of the country, with a view to showing them the necessity of the measures he recommends; but he reverses that order entirely in this message. He says it is his duty to recommend such measures as he thinks proper; and also his duty to lay before Congress the condition of the country; the state of the nation; whether that condition requires any action or not, or whether he recommends any action or not. That is a new version-a new order of things. The leading features of this part of the message which I regard as worthy of any consideration at all, consist of some extracts which I shall read. Speaking of the recent presidential canvass in the country, he says:

"Under the shelter of this great liberty,”--That is, the liberty of advancing their own opinions

"and protected by the laws and usages of the Government they assail, associations have been formed in some of the States of individuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the spread of the institution of slavery into the present or future inchoate States of the Union, are really inflamed with a desire to change the domestic institutions of existing Slates,"

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »