Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

The SPEAKER. The Chair can recognize no contracts between members of the House in respect to the occupation of the floor.

Mr. Cox. Mr. Speaker, I need not say how heartily I concur with the message of the President, in almost every regard. Upon the questions of finance he shows a far-sighted economy, which will find its ready approbation in the judgment of the country. In relation to that "twin relic of barbarism"-Utah-he deals with its enormities in such a way as to give earnest of a policy which will assert the supremacy of decency and civilization, while the supreme power of the Republic will be vindicated. In our foreign affairs, in which his tact and statesmanship have been so conspicuously exercised at home and abroad, he may still be proclaimed the great pacificator. That policy of peace under which our nation has thriven beyond all the marvels of time, is still uppermost in his desires.

Mr. QUITNAM. I call the gentleman to order. My point of order is, that the gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the message on a motion to print. The SPEAKER. The Chair is of opinion that the motion to print opens the merits of the President's message.

Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I would suggest another point of order. This is not a motion to print the message. The House has heretofore made the order to print. This is merely a question to print extra copies. It is true that a simple motion to print opens up the merits of the document itself, but a motion to print extra copies of a message which has already been ordered to be printed, does not open to debate the merits of the message itself. The massage is not before the House. It has been referred to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and is not in the possession of the House.

The SPEAKER. The Chair overrules the question of order made by the gentleman from Tennessee. The Chair is of opinion that the motion to print extra copies opens the whole message for debate. The House may be governed by the sentiments which the message contains in the number of copies, whether larger or smaller, which it may order to be printed. Debate is in order.

Mr. Cox. So dear to his heart is the peace of the country, that the President is ready to make great sacrifices to preserve it, not alone abroad, but in our home relations-not alone between the States, but between the people of the States and between the pioneers upon our borders. Herein is to be found the solution of that part of his message with reference to Kansas.

While the President lays down his general principle of submitting the whole constitution to the people, he subordinates the question to that of peace. He thinks it right to stand by the principle, but inexpedient to do so in the present aspect of affairs in Kansas.

But in my judgment, there will be no peace from this admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution. Expediency is a dangerous doctrine, when in collision with principles. There can be no peace to that people while their rights are jeopardied. Certainly none in that ill-starred Territory, if the attempt to gain partisan ascendency there, be founded in stratagem and fraud. If every question of difference be not honestly submitted to the whole people and decided without restraint or hindrance-no other device can be framed which will insure quiet. If there be treachery, there will be civil war. If there be a Judas, there will be an Aceldama. Kansas will be that field of blood.

But whether there be peace or not, I would not sacrifice the principle involved herein for any peace that can be purchased.

That principle is stated by Mr. Buchanan in his message, thus:

"Under the earlier practice of Government, no constitution framed by the convention of a Territory, preparatory to its admission into the Union as a Štate, had

been submitted to the people. I trust, however, the example set by the last Congress, requiring that the constitution of Minnesota 'should be subject to the approval and ratification of the people of the proposed State,' may be followed on future occasions. I took it for granted that the convention of Kansas would act in accordance with this example, founded, as it is, on correct principle; and hence my instructions to Governor Walker, in favor of submitting the constitution to the people, were expressed in general and unqualified terms.”

It receives his sanction as a principle, though he cannot now recommend its application, ex post facto, with referrence to Kansas. He hopes it may be hereafter adopted universally. I agree with him-and the whole Democracy of the nation agree with him on this last proposition. Because I may insist on its application to Kansas even yet, it does not follow that I am indifferent, much less unfriendly, to the success of this Administration. True, the President, in his message, has expressed his opinion that the "question has been fairly and explicitly referred to the people whether they will have a constitution with or without slavery." He has instituted an argument in favor of the legality of the Lecompton constitution; while he also expresses his unabated faith in the wisdom of the general principle of submitting the whole constitution. But he takes care to avoid any recommendation to Congress. Our action is unimpeded by party fealty. If it were thus impeded, if the President had recommended a different course, I should not hesitate to say that, as Congress has the exclusive right to admit States, I should pursue the obligations of my sworn duty. The Administration is the trustee of the party, within its own sphere of duty. In this sphere it is entitled to our confidence. It shall receive my wholehearted support. But as to the question in my own sphere, I may be allowed to represent my people. I am not of the opinion of the old theologians, that a man must be willing to be eternally damned for an imputed sin, before he can be saved. In thus deciding, conscience, honor, pledges, and constituency, all compel me to stand to the Democratic policy-which is the submission of the whole constitution to the people.

This Administration was called into being by virtue of this principle. This Democratic majority is due to the ascendency of this principle. You, Mr. Speaker, owe your high place to the fidelity of those who sustained that principle.

That principle has a history, written in an agitation unsurpassed by any bloodless political contest of the world-at least since the repeal of the corn laws in 1846, or the French revolution of 1848.

It began in 1850, when the wisest of our statesmen framed the compromises of that year. It had its precedents before that year. But it was not based on precedents. It was above all precedents, settlements, or compromises. With its virtue, the Kansas and Nebraska act was inspired. That act struck down the Missouri restriction; which was as odious to the South as it was antagonistic to the Constitution. Minnesota has since received an enabling act upon this same principle. It was framed by the same Senator who framed the act of Kansas and Nebraska; and whose authority, next to the act itself, is more binding as to its true intent and meaning than that of any other man in the land.

When the unreasoning crusade was made against it in 1854-when it was denounced as a swindle by those who seem now so anxious for its establishment-when its author was made the synonym for traitor in the Republican lexicon-then it was that the Democratic party pledged themselves to abide by the decision of the people as to all their domestic institutions when they sought to become States.

This is the right line of policy, for it is the right line of principle. "As in geometry, so in government-the shortest, easiest, and best way from point to point is the right line."

I mean, in this argument, to pursue that line. Any policy that does not

stand squarely to it comes in "such a questionable shape that I will speak to it."

In pursuance of that line, I claim the right now to place myself and my constituency unequivocally in the position of protestants against any doctrine which would seem to approve of the conduct of the constitutional convention in Kansas.

I do not propose now to argue at length. I propose now only to nail against the door, at the threshold of this Congress, my theses. When the proper time comes, I will defend them, whether from the assaults of political friend or foe. I would fain be silent, sir, here and now. But silence, which is said to be as "harmless as a rose's breath," may be as perilous as the pestilence. This peril comes from the attempt to forego the capital principle of Democratic policy, which I think has been done by the constitutional convention of Kansas.

I maintain:

1. That the highest refinement and greatest utility of Democratic policy-the genius of our institutions-is the right of self-government.

2. That this self-government means the will of the majority, legally—if you please, legally expressed.

3. That this self-government and majority rule were sacredly guarantied in the organic act of Kansas.

4. That it was guarantied upon the question of slavery in terms; and generally with respect to all the domestic institutions of the people.

5. That domestic institutions mean all which are "local, not national— State, not Federal." It means that and that only-that always.

6. That the people were to be left perfectly free to establish or abolish slavery, as well as to form and regulate their other institutions.

7. That the doctrine was recognized in every part of the Confederacy by the Democracy; fixed in their national platform; asserted by their speakers and presses; reiterated by their candidates; incorporated in messages and instructions; and formed the feature which distinguished the Democracy from its opponents, who maintained the doctrine of congressional intervention.

The proof of this seventh proposition is everywhere of record. 1. Cincinnati platform.

At the Democratic National Convention, held in June, 1856, when Mr. Buchanan was nominated for the Presidency, the following solemn declaration was unanimously made:

[ocr errors]

'Resolved, That we recognize the right of the people of all the Territories, includ ing Kansas and Nebraska, acting through the fairly expressed (not implied) will of the majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or without domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon terms of perfect equality with the other States."

2. The President's inaugural.

Mr. Buchanan, in accepting the nomination, guided his administration by the resolve of the Cincinnati Convention. In his inaugural address he referred to this matter, and thus expressed himself:

"What a conception, then, was it for Congress to apply this simple rule-that the will of the majority shall govern-to the settlement of the question of domestic slavery in the Territories !"

And in the same address, the President, after referring to the question of the time of admission of a State as unimportant, uses this emphatic language:

"This is, happily, a matter of but little practical importance. Besides, it is a judicial question which legitimately belongs to the Supreme Court of the United States, before whom it is now pending, and will, it is understood, be speedily and finally settled. To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that, under the Nebraska-Kansas act, the appropriate period will be when the number of

actual residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the Union. But be this as it may, it is the imperative and indispensable duty of the Government of the United States to secure to every resident inhabitant the free and independent expression of his opinion by his vote. This sacred right of each individual must be preserved!"

3. Governor Walker's acceptance and address.

Mr. Buchanan, shortly after coming into power, found Kansas without a Governor; he took time to select a good man for the post. He tendered it to Hon. R. J. Walker, who declined it. He again tendered the office to the same gentleman, who at last, on the 30th March, after frequent conversations with the President, accepted the post. In accepting the office, he did so after thus addressing the President in writing:

"I understand that you and your Cabinet cordially concur in the opinion expressed by me, that the actual bona fide residents of the Territory of Kansas, by a fair and regular vote, unaffected by fraud or violence, must be permitted, in adopting their State constitution, to decide for themselves what shall be their social institutions. This is the great fundamental principle of the act of Congress organizing that Territory, affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, and is in accordance with the views uniformly expressed by me throughout my public career. I contemplate a peaceful solution of this question by an appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the people of Kansas, who should all participate freely and fully in this decision, and by a mojority of whese vetes the decision must be made, as the only and constitutional mode of adjustment.

“I will go, then, and endeavor to adjust these difficulties, in the full confidence, as expressed by you, that I will be sustained by all your own high authority, with the cordial co-operation of all your Cabinet."

Was there any complaint when Governor Walker thus accepted this post of trouble and responsibility? Who thought the conditions of his acceptance illegal, or in violation of usage or principle? Was the President's action hailed with denunciation, or with acclamation!

Meanwhile, the President addresses the clergy of Connecticut to the same purport.

4. Mr. Buchanan to the elergy.

In Mr. Buchanan's letter to the Connecticut clergymen he thus defines his motives, and justifies his action in sending troops to Kansas:

"The convention will soon assemble to perform the solemn duty of framing a constitution for themselves and their posterity: and, in the state of incipient rebellion which still exists in Kansas, it is my imperative duty to employ the troops of the United States, should this become necessary in defending the convention against violence while framing the constitution, and in protecting the bona fide inhabitants qualified to vote under the provisions of this instrument, in the free exercise of the right of suffrage, when it shall be submitted to them for approbation or rejection."

Still, anxious and fearful, the President sent after the Governor written instructions, which leave no doubt as to his integrity and determination to make good his inaugural, his instructions given personally, and his letter to the clergy. Here is the most pointed part of those instructions: 5. Instructions to Governor Walker:

"The institutions of Kansas should be established by the votes of the people of Kansas, unawed and uninterrupted by force and fraud.

"The regular legislature of the Territory having authorized the assembling of a convention to frame a constitution, to be accepted or rejected by Congress, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, the people of Kansas have the right to be protected in the peaceful election of delegates for suck a purpose, under such authority; and the convention itself has a right to similar protection in the opportunity for tranquil and undisturbed deliberations. When such a constitution shall be sub. mitted to the people of the Territory, they must be protected in the exercise of their right to vote for or against the instrument, and the fair expression of the popular will must not be interrupted by fraud or violence.”

This was what the country, including the people of Kansas, had a right to expect. But, as if to put it beyond all doubt, Governor Walker gave to those most nearly interested-the people of Kansas-his renewed assurance of the mode in which their constitution should be adopted.

6. Governor Walker's inaugural.

How did Governor Walker and the country understand these expresions of the President and the official act of the Administration? Governor Walker, upon his arrival in the Territory, in his inaugural address, thus expressed his views and the views of those who sent him there. The language is absolutely prophetic. He said:

"Is it not infinitely better that slavery should be abolished or established in Kansas, rather than that we should become slaves, and not be permitted to govern ourselves? Is the absence or existence of slavery in Kansas paramount to the great question of State sovereignty, self-government, and of the Union?"

#

*

"If patriotism, if devotion to the Constitution, and love of the Union, should not induce the minority to yield to the majority on this question, let them reflect that, in no event, can the minority successfully determine the question permanently; and in no contingency will Congress admit Kansas as a slave or as a free State, unless a majority of the people of Kansas shall first fairly and freely decide the question for themselves by a direct vote on the adoption of the constitution, excluding all fraud or violence.

"The minority, in resisting the will of the majority, may involve Kansas again in civil war; they may bring upon her reproach and obloquy, and destroy her progress and prosperity; they may keep her for years out of the Union, and, in the whirlwind of agitation, sweep away the Government itself; but Kansas never can be brought into the Union, with or without slavery, except by a previous solemn decision, fully, freely, and fairly made by a majority of her people, in voting for or against the adoption of the State constitution."

Now, it must not be forgotten that, under these repeated assurancesendorsed by the press of this city, of Virginia, of the North, the West, and the East-the constitutional convention was called into being in February. In June the delegates were voted for. The leading spirits in that convention were the delegates from Douglas county, led by Calhoun, whose tactics and chicanery seem to give character to the proceedings. These delegates were questioned by the Democracy as to this policy. They gave this reply:

7. Calhoun's pledges.

"To the Democratic voters of Douglas connty:

“It having been stated by that Abolition newspaper, the Herald of Freedom, and by some disaffected bogus Democrats, who have got up an independent ticket, for the purpose of securing the vote of the Black Republicans, that the regular nominees of the Democratic convention were opposed to submitting the constitution to the people, we, the candidates of the Democratic party, submit the following resolutions, which were adopted by the Democratie convention which placed us in nomination, and which we fully and heartily endorse, as a complete refutation of the slanders above referred to.

[ocr errors]

JOHN CALHOUN,

W. S. WELLS,
L. S. BOLLING,
WM. T. SPICELY.

A. W. JONES,

H. BUTCHER,
JOHN M. WALLACE,
L. A. PRATHER.

LECOMPTON, Kansas Territory, June 13, 1857." Resolved, That we will support no man as a delegate to the constitutional convention, whose duties it will be to frame the constitution of the future State of Kansas, and to mould the political institutions under which we, as a people, are to live, unless he pledges himself fully, freely, and without reservation, to use every honorable means to submit the same to every bona fide actual citizen of Kansas, at the proper time for the vote being taken upon the adoption by the people, in order that the said constitution may be adopted or rejected by the actual settlers in this Territory, as the majority of the voters shall decide."

Now it must not be forgotten again, that by this time, the slavery question was virtually settled in Kansas. The remaining question was that of self-government. It was white, not Black Republicanism. It was the complete subjugation of all interests to the popular will.

What, then, can equal in treachery the conduct of these Catalines of Kansas, who, under all these obligations of principle and honor, attempt to subjugate the popular will to theirs? Were these delegates angels, that they should intervene to despoil the people of their expected boon of free expression as to the institutions under whose protection their homes, their lands, their children, were to be panoplied? Better, far better, than this,

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »