(HE DOLLAR PER ANNUM, INVARIABLY IN ADVANCE.
TOWANDA :
i?ilrroian filorninn, 0.-ccmbcr 18. 185b.
PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE.
j,EJIA TE JX THE SENATE,
DECEMBER 3, lssf>,
, ~ !:.• iv tion 1" i ring lift ecu thousand additional copies
. tho President's Message, for the use of the Senate.
Mr. MAHtN. Mr. President, the constant
. obstinate agitation of questions connected
with the institution of slavery has brought, I
am satisfied, the public mind, in those States
where the institution prevails, to the conviction
iiiat the preservation of that institution rests
with tliciuselves and with themselves only.—
•Porefore. at this day, when it is the pleasure
~f S,iiators again to bring that institution un
,),-r review upon this floor, in any connection
whatever, as one of the representatives of the
v„|th 1 take no further interest in the discus
v,u. or in the opinion which is entertained at
the North in relation to it, than as it may con
linn the hope that there is a public sentiment
the North yet remaining which unites with
tl,e South in the desire to perpetuate the Uu
, .ij. and that, bv the aid of tiiat public scnti
i.. .d at the North, the Union will be prescrv
, * l!ut further than that, as a statesman,
1 as Kite representing n southern State where
thai institution prevails more largely than in
utiier, the public sentiment of the North
.. a matter indilTerent to me, because, I say
v. l.i.ve attained the conviction that
-..ft rv of that institution will rest, must
re-' ai.'i should rest, with the people of the
Slat' so! !v where it prevails.
1 sin ui'l have taken no part in this debate,
lie that 1 ain indisposed to allow any opinion
_•> ; read that we of the South entertain a
virv - • ! interest in the lines of discrimiwa
• : or i e shades of distinction which may be
v. -to the extent of the alleged power
r, • i irt of the Government of the United
s" interfere with the institution at all.
i„niiv term or shape, or to have it supposed
• : w- take an interest in having it narrowed
v. ii !" I lie question w hot her that interference,
a it s i M rted, is to be confined to the iu
■ • ,'i ! outside of the States, and is not to
.-.io-t it within the States. 1 know, as has
i-c], said by the Senator from New llamp
:v. ai the course <•! the Lst canvass, occa
,.v iii public discussions, or in the news
; -r\ a di-cluimcr has been made of any pur
to interfere wi'h slave? v in the States. 1
b<r. n- lias liccu said by the honorable Sen
.• ; fretit -Mi. sis-ippi, that others at the North,
1 i]>s a few and perhaps ol those who may
d tie fanatical portion, have assumed
' or have declared that a right exists to
vr< with the institution with the States.
Vt :;d I want to declare here in my place on
• floor is, that to the South such distinctions
matters of immaterial concern. If the Fe
nd (iovcrnniciit assumes a right, or if those
id get into power who assume a right with
:urjKtse to exercise it to interfere with that
tution anywhere where it exist- within the
atni States, it is a matter perfectly indiiler
• in a- whet her it is to tic done within the
.- or outside of the States. 1 take not the
>i''.'i;'"st interest in the distinction which i.>
• _*lit to lie drawn.
S r. 1 hold this to be the constitutional doc-
P: tin. institution of slavery existed when
■('■ institution was formed : it is recognized
'; rt'as an existing social institution. It is
■ • >. protei ted by the duty imposed upon
l ut-nil Government to see to tlie rendi
! e: ' "_ ; !ivcs from if, but it is elevated into
• dement of political power by the t'onstitu
. it i- rejuesenteil and made an element
opij.tii ul power. That is the contract into
• di we entered. 1 say, then, that being so
' i>rthe Constitution, and in tfo. spirit ami
• 1 >! the ('insli/xtii a, ire hare a rhf/il to the
'' •sitinuile expansion of the. institution ■
' there irere a poaer in the Federal (lur
'l -rt to restrict or limit 'hot expansion, it
!■' j rlcrllji indifferent to its whether if
'/• . ten ised hi/ prohibiting its expansion
thi Stales a here it esisis, or outside their
■ gnurniiiirJ to the States retaining it
iv i t!t !ifit of power, foi which full equiva
* WM'-.'exacted and conceded ; and its ca
* y fur expausion, fully to he enjoyed, is a
v ]>art of the contract.
' lV again, therefore, for myself, and as
i,v i know the ojtinioiis of ntv people, we
no intc rest in northern opinion on this
!< any linos of demnrkation beyond
1 rctieral power over this institution may
1 xtciul, e.\ i}it so far as resjtect and loyal
he cue tract will lead them, hi union with
N itt'i, to preserve and perpetuate the 'Jott
wl•■ ■• ii otherwise must be destroyed.
• • v i< :,i;>e of the earnest and anxious
w 1 entertain, that a fabric of Gov
l|! a hit h has had no predecessor in the
w '<ielt, if honestly and legitimately ad
:,; o. would make us the greatest peo}le
fv. r yet existed, both in moral and
1 leaver, should be preserved and per
-1 ' ''l, ti.at I have said thus much.
miurahle Senator from New llamp
-1 '*•- himself that thi> is the last
I which is to emanate from the present
j._ ' ;i I therefore he is disposed to let
J,,;. ,! u '' s.-vefitv of comment, lie may
I ,;l! ' himself; for, if 1 do not mistake
Isi' , v l ''" truths, the patriotic and
"'li'ol that message will penetrate the
. wart, and cause it to throb with pul
jO"! purposes not exactly in unison with
I !s, ' lla, °r and the party with which
| f ~ 1 - 'do not doubt, and avail my-
I "' ca>ion to declare it as my jndg
'"'t the sentiments and the reasoning of
i w 'll find a responsive " yea''
|j. '' 'hrouglioHt the world, the great
I k d " r|Vi ' liberty are known and apprc-
d!l - i:i-|iirril with new hope* in the re
r!• , j ,u!o ion to find that the north
-111 ' 'in of the most important btates
w here this instilution does not
THE BRADFORD REPORTER.
prevail, concurring with the views now given
in the message, did unite with the South in
keeping out of power a party whose success
must necessarily have torn this Union into
fragments. Two middle States, Pennsylvania
and New-Jersey, and two Western States, In
diana and Illinois, repudiated, upon a direct
issue in the canvass made, naked, uncovered,
open, any power in the Federal Government
to interfere with the extension of slavery, into
territory the common property of all the States,
by majorities which carried the presidential
election against that party. I trust there will
be found on all future occasion, if we are ever
to undergo the ordeal from which we have re
cently emerged, a northern sentiment sound
upon this question of constitutional power—
sound as we of the South esteem it, who, in
union with the South, will have it in their
power for ages to eoine to perpetuate a Union
that must otherwise be destroyed.
I can well understand, therefore, why the
honorable Senator says, as a matter of gratn
lation to those who think with him, that this
is the last message which is to emanate from
its source. I should hope that the truths
which emanate from that paper will reach the
northern mind, and that they will unite, in a
common, patri vtie interest and purpose, to come
back to the Constitution which our fathers
framed, and to which we are parties —to come
back to that Constitution, and to administer it
legitimately, and give to tlie South what the
South is entitled to, while the North and West
obtain w hat they are entitled to. Or if it be
that they really entertain an houe.-t and con
scientious conviction that they cannot remain
in union with us, let them propose a separation
fairly and openly ; but while the contract is
there, keep it. I hold the most essential part
of that contract to the South, now falling into
a minority, to be, that it shall be kept toward
the minority in honorable faith, and that eve
ry element of political power it guarantied
to them shall lie fairly and honorably con
ceded.
•Now, sir, I have said not one word of disre
spect, or ot discourtesy, toward the party
which has been arrayed against the South in
the late election. Ido not mean to do so ; it
would not. become me. They constitute apart
of the American people, with whom we are in
bonds of association, and I have no right to
question their motives. I do not question
tlieni ; but 1 do question their political pur
poses. I say that, when the passions of the
day have subsided, this country, and the world
looking on, will pay a tribute of ju.-t applause
to the eminent author of this message, and to
the great principles which he has there pro
pounded.
Mr. \\ ILSON. Mr. President, the Sena
tor troui .Mississippi [Mr. BROWN j has alluded
to opinions which he says are entertained and
liavc been expressed by rue. I cannot allow
this debate to pass without saving here what I
have said everywhere wherever 1 have alluded
to this question, that 1 do not entertain, and
never have entertained, and never have express
ed the opinion that the Congress of the Uni
ted States has the power to abolish shivery in
the States ol this L uion. I never, at anv
time, or on any occasion, have uttered a senti
ment claiming power for the Federal Govern
ment to abolish slavery in the States, or as
serting" that those with whom I act ever in
tended to assume or to exercise that power. I
admit that there are men in the free States of
this Union who maintain that doctrine. The
Senator from New Hampshire says lie does not
know such men ; I do. 1 know .Mr. Spooner,
to whom the Senator from Mississippi has re
ferred. 1 know his opinions and his sentiments.
I have read his volume with some little care,
and while I admit it to be a work of great
{earning and power, J do not assent to it.—
There is asm II class of iiieu in the free States
who agree with the sentiments avowed in tlie
book written by Mr. Spooner. Their candi
date, in the last election, was Mr. Gerrit Siuith,
of New-York. I do not know how many votes
lie received, but 1 take it not two thousand in
all the free States of this Union. The month
ly publication to which the Senator from Lou
isiana ami others have referred, published in
New York—a publication supported and con
ducted by Mr. Tappan, Mr. (Joodell, and oth
ers who agree with them—claims the right on
the part of the Federal Government toaboli.-h
slavery in the States, and advocates that poli
cy ; but the people ol the free States, the one
million three hundred thousand men who voted
for John C. Fremont in the last presidential
election, maintain no such doctrine, never have
maintained it, do not claim any such power,
and never intend to usurp it.
The party to which reference has been made
in this message—for I take it this assault of
the President of the United States is upon the
Republican party, and the people who have
supported that organization in the last election
—stands before the country with its opinions
clearly expressed and openly avowed, it has
a right to claim from the President of the
United States—it lias a right to claim from
honorable Senators here—it has a right to
claim before the country that it shall stand up
on its broad and open declarations of princi
ple. How does it stand ? It accepts the De
claration of Independence and the Constitution
of the United States as its fundamental creed
of doctrine. It claims that Congress has a
right to legislate for the Territories of the
United States, and to exclude slavery from
them, it avows its determination to exercise
that power. It lias u right to ask of the i're
sident, and the country, that it shall be judg
ed bv its open and avowed declarations, and
shall not be misrepresented, as it has been mis
represented in this document by the President
of the United States. The declaration is
broadly made here, not only that these men
are scetionalists --not only that they have got
ten up a sectional warfare, but that they are
maintaining doctrines hostile to the perpetuity
of the Union. Now. sir, let me say here to
day, that 1 do not know a man in the free
States who supported John C. Fremont iu the
last presidential election, not one of the one
million three hundred thousand intelligent free
men who supported that nomination, that ever
avowed hia intention to go lor a di*.A>lutiou ot
PUBLISHED EVERY THURSDAY AT TOWANDA. BRADFORD COUNTY, PA., BY E. O'MEARA GOODRICH.
" REGARDLESS OF DENUNCIATION FROM AN? QL'ARTER."
this Union •. but all times, on all occasions, in
public and in private, the? have avowed their
devotion to the Union, and their intention to
maintain and defend it.
Let me say further, that the men in this
country, who avow themselves to be disunion
ists, that squad which, during the last thirty
years, on all lit and unlit occasions, in moments
of excitement and moments of calm, have
avowed themselves disunionists, have, as a bo
dy, en masse, supported the Democratic party.
The whole southern heavens have been darken
ed during the last four months by the black
banners of disunion that have floated in the
breeze. Public men, members of the Congress
of the I iiited States, who had sworn to sup
port the Constitution of our common country,
have made the declaration, that if John C.
Fremont were elected President, the Union
would be, and ought to be, dissolved. The
Senator from Virginia has to-day expressed his
hope that a class of men in the free States, in
the future as in the present, will so act in co
operation with the South as to preserve the
policy which he supports, and thus preserve
the unity of the States ; I remember reading
during the canvass a letter from that honora
ble gentleman, in which there was a bold de
claration for a dissolution of the Union, imme
diate, absolute, and eternal, in certain contin
gencies. That is not all : the Senator from
Georgia, not now present, [Mr. TOOMBS,! and
the Senator from Louisiana, [Mr. SI.IDKU.,]
have united in these declarations ; and leading
men, Governors of States, have made the same
avowal. The men who threaten dissolution
are supporters of this Administration, and of
Mr. Buchanan ; but yet the Chief Magistrate
in this document arraigns the members of the
Republican party as men whose policy tends
to a dissolution of the Union. 1 say these
charges agaiust us are not only unjust,but they
are a libel upon the intelligent frceiuen of the
U*iiited States.
It has been claimed here to-day that the
people of New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana,
Illinois—central States—have voted in this
election upon the square issue of the power to
prohibit slavery in the Territories. Let me
say here, what I know to be true, that in some
portions of these very States public meetings
were called of persons in favor of Buchanan,
Breckenridge, and free Kansas. 1 have read
these calls. I have in my possession one of
them, which was issued in the State of Penn
sylvania. There are others in the possession
of members of this house or the other. Through
out the whole canvass in these very States the
issue was blinked ; and not only that, but it
was claimed that tho.sp members of the House
of Representatives who voted for Mr. DUNN'S
bill were pro slavery men ; and men have been
elected to the next llousc of Representatives
under professions of stronger hostility to sla
very than those very Republican members.
Sir, the President claims, in this message,
that the country.has pronounced its verdict in
favor of his policy. I admit that the issue was
more clearly and distinctly made than at any
other period in our history. It was made, but
the Democracy of the North in hundreds of
localities denied that issue, and tens of thou
sands of men voted for Mr. Huchauau who
agree with us in principle, but vho would not
admit that this great question was an issue in
the canvass. I hold in my hand an extract
from the Detroit Free Press , one of the lead
ing Democratic journals of the country, in
which the doctrine is distinctly laid down, that
the President cannot justly claim the result of
the present election as any justification of the
policy he has pursued. Let me read a few
words from this article. Speaking of the Pre
sident, it says ;
" Had ftcner.il Pierce. at the outset, and at ever =u--
ceoiling -tcp, discarded the idea of a second term, ire Hunk
hi i roil Id hare pur. ued so different a policy touching Xeir-
Vork piihtirs, the Kansas question, the improvement of ri
vers and harbors, tpr., that he would go out of office ivith
an almost universal plaudit of' well done,'instead of hav
ing to go out ' nnh inored. unwept, and unsung,' by tens
of thousands who aided his election. The overweening
desire of a second term he- been fatal to liiin ; and it seem
ed at one time that his blunders—to employ a term not
more offensive—might be fatal to the Democratic party.
He must not—he will make a great mistake if he does -
regard the election of Mr. lUiehanan an indorsement of
that part of the conduct of his Administration to which
we mure particularly refer. Had that been the issue, or
had General fierce been the candidate, neither Pennsylva
nia, nor Xetr-.frrsty,nor Indiana, nor Illinois, nor Dela
ware, nor Kentucky, nor Tennessee, nor Missouri. nor
tAjuisiana, coiilil hare been saved ; and Mr. John Charles
Krcmont would have walked into the presidential man
sion by an electoral majority uearly as large as that given
to Ceneral Pierre four years ago. It is an unpleasant
truth to tell, but it is a truth of whirl) everybody in the
North is aware, that the late peril of the Democratic par
ty arose chiefly from the untoward policy of the Adminis
tration rega ding affairs in Kansas. Had Mr. Kremont
hi en elected, the failure of (leneral Pierre to do his plain
dutv towards Kansas would have been the cause of it."
before the President makes this claim that
the people have endorsed lii.s policy it would be
well for liim to contemplate his own position.
He went before the country as a candidate for
tlie nomination at Cincinnati, lie brought to
bear, as every man in the Senate, supporter or
opponent of this Administration knows, the
whole power and patronage of the Government
to secure that nomination. The Administra
tion went so far as to turn out of office men
in this very city, because they were known to
lie in favor of Mr. Huchanan. The President's
name went before the Cincinnati Convention,
lie was rejected by the Democratic party ; for
they dared not run him, because he was the
exponent of the principles which they now
claim has been sanctioned by the countrv.—
They nominated Mr. Bnehanan. They dodged
the great issue in thousands of localities in the
free States ; and now, when the people have
been deceived, the President claims the result,
—the Senator from Virginia claims it, as a
verdict in favor of his policy. The Senator
from Virginia says the country will thank the
President for what he has done. I think the
President would have been more thankful to
the Commonwealth of Virginia, if she had
so thankful to him at the Cincinnati Con
vention as to give him her support, and thus
decide the contest in favor of the nomination
which he sought with swell " overweening de
sire I''
Mr. BROWN. * * But the Senator from
Massachusetts says, and he challenges denial,
that iu the late canvass in several parts of the
Union banners were floated with " Buchanan,
Breckinridge ami l ice Kan a," di played at
the mast head. 1 know not what banners may
have been reared, nor by what hands ; but 1
undertake to say thut if any banner was dis
played throughout the whole length and breadth
of this Confederacy, from the Aroostook to the
Rio Grande, or from the Atlantic to the Pa
cific, with such an inscription, it found no re
sponse in the heart of the American Democracy.
That mere neighborhood politicians should
have put up snch a banuer is barely possible.
Mark yon, I say, " barely possible." It is much
more likely they were up by men in disguise
men like the fellow in Kentucky, of whom a
personal friend of mine in the other House told
an anecdate. Being of low degree and of bad
habits himself, he e< urted a most excellent girl.
She was neither pretty nor rich ; and being a
dashing blade, he was asked by a friend why
he courted this lady. llis frieud said to him,
" She has 110 money, and is not pretty ; you
certainly do not mean to marry her?" He re
plied, " I will marry her, but not for love, and
not for mouey, but just to disgrace her fami
ilv.'' [Laughter.] That banners of this sort
may have been put up by the enemy, to dis
grace the Democratic family, is possible ; but
that they were put up by any man who has a
true genuine Democratic Buchanan aud Breck
inridge spirit in his heart, is not possible. It
may have been done by men who voted the
ticket, but they were men who belonged rather
to the school of the Senator from Massachu
setts, than that to which tou, Mr. President,
and 1 beloug.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, if I
supposed thut this message was aimed simply |
at a few Abolitionists in the North, who wish, '
as it. is said, to interfere with the existing in
stitution of slavery, I certainly should not give
it any of my attention. Not only the Presi
dent. but Senators here, may abuse the Aboli
tionists as roundly as they please, and they will
never find me defending them 011 any occasion. :
But this document, emanating from the Chief !
Magistrate of the nation, here on the first days j
of the session, has thrust upon us the slavery ■
question, the agitation of which the Senator '
from Virginia seems to deprecate. He speaks '
of Senators agitating this question. Could he j
expect otherwise than that Senators would
agitate the question which the President of the !
United States makes the leading and proini- ;
nciit question of his message? Did he expect
that we should be still here when a.message was
read professing to give a historical account of
the recent canvass and the recent election,
which misrepresented them totally ? I shall
not go into an argument to prove here that the
great party which has .swept the North, and I
say has swept the States which the gentleman
has designated as having sustained Mr. Buch
anan, entertain no views hostile to the Union
or the Constitution, or that they do not wish
to interfere with slavery in any of the States
of this Union. They adopted a platform; they
inscribed upon it their principles ; they pub
lished it to the world, and every man can read
it. A part of that platform is that the rights
of the States, the union of the States, and the
Constitution of the country, must ami shall be
preserved. That is our creed. Will you tell
us that we want to interfere with the rights of
the States ? You impute to us tliar which we
have solemnly declared we are opposed to.
I think it is just such remarks as those to
which we have now listened from the Senator
from Mississippi, that are alienating one sec
tion of the Union from the other. He is ar
guing here to show that the northern sentiment
wishes to interfere with the institutions of the
South. Does the Senator desire that state of
things ? Why does he seek to fasten 011 us
sentiments and opinions which we disclaim and
disavow? He asks why we did not disavow
this at the time in the North ? We did it at
the outset ; we did it everywhere, and on all
occasions
But, sir, this message—and I shall not now
take time to discuss its various positions—-con
tains the most unwarrantable assumptions as
to fact, and it states conclusions of law not sus
tained bv the authorities. The President of
the United States undertakes to say that the
Missouri compromise, the act of 1820, under
which Missouri came into the Union, was ob
solete and was unconstitutional. Where did
lie get the authority for saving so ? The Su
preme Court of the United States has said, in
so many words, that in regard to the Territo
ries of the United States Congress possesses
all the powers both of the Federal and Stat>
governments as to a State. That is tin 1 lan
guage of the Supreme Court of the U States.
Is it denied by any body that the Federal and
State governments together have authority to
keep slavery out of a State.
Mr. CASS. I should like to hear that de
cision read. I never saw it.
Mr TRUMBULL. It is in the first vol
ume of Peters' Reports. I desire the pages to
bring it to me from the Library. Never has
it been said by the Supreme Court—no sueli
decision can be found that Congress had not
authority to exclude slavery from the Territo
ries. I have now the book for which I sent.
I do not know, however, that I shall be able
to turn to the decision at once. I ask my
friend from Connecticut [Mr. FOSTKRJ to oblige
me by looking for it. When it is found I shall
furnish it to the Senator from Michigan, and
shall be very glad to have him read it and pon
der on it : I hope it will convince him.
Much of the President's message is taken
ii|) with a discussion as to the equality of the
States and the rights of the"States. The Sena
tor from New Hampshire has well exposed this
portion of the message in commenting on that
„pnrt pf it which professes to set forth what was
settled by the recent election. The President
says :
'• Tlie people of thr Unitml Slates ltavoa-s-prli dlliernn
vtitotional equality of ea--h arul all of the States of the
Union as States."
Did anybody dispute it ? The message pro
coeds to say :
•• They have affirmed thr constitutional cqnalitroOai-li
and all of the citi/a-ns of th< I'nitrd States as ritiVen-."
who ever disputed it ? Was* any such ques
tion in issue before the American people ?
•• ivhatever their religion, wherever their birth, ortheir
residmer ; thev Imvp maintained the-mviolnhilitv of thr
ron:titiiti'>ual rigti : the Jifl'viem ect:on ••! trc lu
—who proposed to interfere with them ?
—" and they have proclaimed their devoted and nnaJter
aterable attachment to the Union and to the Constitution"
I trust they have—
" aa objects of interest superior to all subjects of local or
sectional controversy, as the safeguard of the rights of
all, as the spirit and essence of the liberty, peace, and
greatness at the Republic."
The President makes the same charge here,
which is reiterated in the Senate, that
" Under the shelter of this great liberty, and protected
by the laws and usages of the Government they assailed,
associations have been formed in sonic of the States of in
dividuals who, pretending to seek only to prevent the
spread of the institution of slavery into"the present or fu
ture inchoute States of the Union, are really inflamed with
desire to change the domestic institutions of eoisting
States,"
How did lie find that out ? Where is the
evidence of it ? Sir, I assert that, so fur as I j
know, there is no foundation for the aceusa- j
tion. It is untrue.
My friend from Connecticut has found the j
decision to which I made allusion. In the case
of the American Insurance Company and oth
ers vs. Canter, Ist Peters, p. 5-1(5, the opinion
of the Supremo Court was pronounced by Mr.
Chief Justice Marshall. In that opinion is
this sentence in regard to the Territories : "In |
legislating for them; Congress exercises the \
combined powers of the General and of a State
Government." I commend it and the whole j
case to the careful examination of my distin- j
gui.slicd friend from Michigan.
Mr. CASS. The honorable Senator will '
perceive that it asserts no power. It does not I
snv how the Constitution limits their action.
Mr. TRUMBULL It does not assert any ;
power further than this : it says expressly that, i
as to a Territory, Congress exercises the com
bined powers of the General and of a State I
Government. If Congress has the combined
powers of the General Government and of a
State government, in regard to a Territory, I
ask if it has not power sufficient to keep sla
very out of a Territory ?
Mr. CASS. No ; unless the Constitution
gives it. The power that is exercised must be
a power within the Constitution, or there is no
authority for it.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Let us follow that up.
There is no such escape for the distinguished
Senator. There is no quibbling in this opin- |
ion about " under the Constitution." The de-1
duration is broad and unqualified, that in re- '
gard to a Territory Congress exercises all the •
powers both of the General and of a State !
Government. Now, the Scuator tells me that '
even that being so, you cannot under the Con-1
stitution prevent slavery. Will he deny the i
right of the State of Michigan to keep slavery 1
out of her limits ? According to the decision
of Chief Justice Marshall, all the power which j
the State of Michigan has in regard to its own :
citizens is [assessed by Congress in regard to |
the Territories of the United States, and if
the State of Michigan can exclude slavery ;
from its borders, then, if the Supreme Court ■
of the I nited States be any authority, Con
gress can exclude it fnun one of the national
Territories, because it possesses in a Territory
all the power which a State possesses over its
inhabitants, and possesses also the power which
the Federal Government exercises over the
State's. \\ hen it is said that Congress cannot
exercise this power unless the Constitution gives
it, that is begging the question. The decision
of the court, the language of the judge, is that
Congress has the power, lie could not say
that if the Constitution did not give it. If
the Constitution denied the power, how could
the judge say that Congress possessed it ? He
had the Constitution in view when writing this
opinion. Sir, the doctrine now advanced is a
n w and a modern discovery. Congress for
merly possessed and exercised this power, and
nobody doubted it. For the first fifty years
of the Government the power was undisputed.
It is a new discovery that Congress does not
now possess it.
But, sir, let me resume the consideration of
the message. The President tells us that "it
was imputed " that the measure of which he
is speaking, the repeal of the Missouri com
promise, " originated in the conception of ex
tending the limits of slave labor beyond those
previously assigned to it ; and that such was
its natural as well as intended oft'ect ; and these
baseless assumptions were made in the northern
States the srround of unceasing assault upon
constitutional right." Here the President in
forms us that the charge made against those
who repealed the Missouri compromise, that it
was intended or conceived with the purpose of
extending the limits of slavery beyond those
previously assigned to it, was a bast-less as
sumption.
Now what docs the Senator from Virginia
tell us ? He says that tinder the Constitution
the South has a right to u legitimate expansion
of slavery, and it is the right to expand the
institution upon which he insists. When we
charge that the design was to extend slavery
into the free Territories of Kansas and Ne
braska, the President says it is a baseless as
sumption. The Senator from Virginia informs
us that, lie insists on the right to the expansion
of slavery. Who is right ? He tells us fur
ther that the people in four of the northern
States united in keeping out of power that par
-1 ty which would have severed the Union into
fragments. How would they have severed it
■ into fragments, I should like to know ? Did
they propose to dissolve it ? Did they pro
pose to encroach on the rights of the States ?
They declared that the rights of the States
should be preserved, llnw were they going
; to dissolve tlie Union ? Was it in any other
way than this : it has been stated here, to-day,
in the Senate, that if Colonel Fremont were
| elected the Union must lie and ought to be dis
• solved ! Because a particular man i- elected
President of the United States, is that any
reason for dissolving the Union ?
Mr. MASON. Will the Senator allow me
1 to interrupt him for a moment ?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.
Mr. M A SON. What I said was this : that
if that party came into power avowing the pur
poses which they did avow, it would necessari
ly result in a dissolution of the, whether they
desired it or not. It was utterly immaterial
who wfls their President ; he might have been
.1 man cf traw ; I alluded to the piuprr: of
VOL. XVII. —XO. 28.
the party. What I said in the letter to which
one of the Senators has alluded, and what I
said substantially in the remarks which I have
made in this debate, was merely, that if the
party came into power avowing the purpose?
which they avowed, and prepared to execute
them, it would necessarily reu!t in a dissolu
tion of the Union, and then, ro far as the South
was concerned, it should be immediate and
eternal.
Mr.TRUMBULL. I wish tocxamine that
position. It is this—l will endeavor to state
it in the language of the Senator—that if 'bo
Republican party came into power with the
principles which they avowed, it would neces
sarily result in the dissolution of the Union,
and that, as far as he and the South were con
cerned, it should bfimmediote and eternal.—
Now what principles did we avow ? Ii there
any one hostile to the South ? I say we avow
no principle upon this subject aboat which wo
are now speaking, except those avowed by
Thomas Jefferson himself, by Washington, and
by Monroe. Is it any cause for a dissolution
of the Union that a particular man is elected
President ? Manifestly not ; and the Senator
from Virginia does not contend for that.
Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator from Illi
nois allow me to ask him a question ?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.
Mr. RUSK. He and others have attribut
ed the sentiment on which he is now comment
ing so eloquently to the southern States. I
desire to ask him if he docs not know that It
had its origin in the northern States with one
of the candidates for the Presidency ? Did he
not first make the declaration tiiat tho cv6nt
alluded to would dissolve the Union ?
Mr. TRUMBULL. lam not the defender
any third party, whose candidate may have
made declarations as to the dissolution of the
L iron. I say that the great Fremont party
entertain and avow no such sentiment.
Mr. RUSK. The Senator misunderstands
me. Ido not ask him to defend Mr. Fillmore;
but I ask hiiu to make the charge not against
the South, but against the individual who com
mitted the offense.
Mr. HALE and Mr SEWARD That is
fair.
Mr. TRUMBULL I do not care who
makes the charge that the election of Colonel
Fremont to the Presidency would dissolve the
Union. I say it is a baseless charge ; and
manifestly it could not prevail, come from what
party it may. The Senator from Virginia does
not put himself now on the fact of any partic
ular man being elected, but oa the principles
avowed. To that I will pay attention in &
moment ; but I wish first to dispose of the cla
mor which has been raised in some parts of the
country, that the election of a particular man
is a cause fur a dissolution of the Union.
Why, sir, neither Col. Fremont nor any
other person can be elected President of the
United States except iu the constitutional
mode ; and if any individual is elected Presi
dent iu the mode jirescribed by the Constitu
tion, is that cause for a dissolution of the Un
ion ? Assuredly not. If it be, the Constitu
tion contains within itself the elements of its
own destruction. The great principle lying at
the bottom of the institutions of the country,
and of the Constitution itself, is, that we must
acquiesce iu the decisions of the majority, con
stitutionally expressed, iu the selection of offi
cers ; and until the person elected does some
overt act violating the Constitution, until ne
sets on foot some measure destructive of the
Government, the fact that he is elected Pre.-i
--dent in the constitutional mode affords no rea
son whatever for the dissolution of the Union.
Then would there have been any reason for its
dissolution if the Republican party had suc
ceeded with its avowed sentiments ?
Mow, what were its avowed sentiments on
the subject of slavery ? Opposition to its ex
tension ; opposition to the spread of slavery
iuto the Teiritories, and a declaration of the
right of Congress to prohibit slavery in the
Territories of the United States. Is that a
cause for a dissolution of this Uuion ? 1 know
that the Senator has said that it matters not
to him whether the interference is with slavery
outside of the States or within the Slates ;
but I think the cases are very different. I
think we have no right, and that there i.-> no
intention on the part of the great body of the
people of the North, to interfere with slavery
in the States ; but I think there is an inten
tion to prevent its extension outside of Sates
into free Territories ; and there is a very great
difference between these positions.
Well sir, if the prevalence of these opin
ions bo a cause for a di<-duiioL of the Union,
which should be immediate and eternal, why.
I ask, wrs not this Government dissolved tie
year of its formation? Tlo;v did it happen
that the very first Congress which over met un
der the (''institution --1 +fi" United States
adopted and reaffirmed that ordinance exclud
ing slavery from tiir who'.- Northwest ? Why
was not the Union then di-so; v* i ? if t is a
cause in 1 fi> for a disolut : o!i of the Union
te exclude -lavery from Kin-a* and Nebraska,
was it not a cause m when slaverv whk
excluded from the territory now covered by
the States of Ohio. Indiana. Illinois, Wiscon
sin, and Michigan ? Why, I n-k again, in
IM2O, when Mr. Monroe was Pros; lent of the
United Stales, was not the Union dissolved
immediately and eternally Slavery was then
by net of Congress excluded from the free ter
ritory from which we now wish to exclude it.
If this lie a reason for dissolving the -Union
now, was it not a rea-on for dissolution then ?
How did Mr. Monroe, front the State of Vir
ginia himself, approve a bill excluding it from
that territory ? Whv. sir, it is manifest that
the public sentiment of this country has very
much changed if ihh is a cause for dissolution
of the UnUn now. In former times these acts
of Congress excluding slavery from the North
west and from the Territories of Kansas ami
Nebraska were diemcd judicious and proper
nets of legislation, voted for by the South, and
carried bv southern votes Now we are told
that the same legislation is cause for a disso
j lution of the Union. This show-show thoCon
; stitution, which oar fathers made, and und
I stood, and have put into operation, is prop
1 ( - -'v ?~4 •- Page