.Fi H0LL1NGER pH 8.5 MILL RUN F3-1543 SPEECH OP MR. f ESSEND.EN, OF MAINE, I ON THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBEK 4, 1856. WASHINGTON: Printed at the capital city office, 1856. / SPEECH. The Senate having under consideration a motion to print the President's Message with the ac- companying documents Mr. FESSENDEN said : Mr. Prescient, I have but a few words to say. Like other Senators, I may premise by remarking that I did not intend to speak even the few words which I now propose to submit ; but the remarks that have fallen from the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] followed by those made by the hon- orable Senator from Texas, [Mr. Husk,] in- duce me to say something by way of defense for myself, and those whom I represent. The President has sent us a message, cer- tainly of a very singular character. 1 believe that, in the history of the country, he is the first Chief Magistrate of the Union who has used his high station for the purpose of assail- ing a large portion of his fellow-citizens, the most of whom he admits to have been actua- ted by good motives. I was disposed, how- ever, with my honorable friend from New York, [Mr. Seward,] to let that pass ; I had some consideration for the position in which he finds himself placed. My feelings towards him were rather "those of compassion thai of a different character. But, sir, I must say that, after the attack he has made, and after the sort of argument, if it may be dignified with the name of argument, which he has endeavored to palm upon the country in his annual message, iu relation to political affairs, we certainly may be excused, I beg leave to say to the Senator from Texas, if not for using words which are not of a strictly parliament- ary character, yet for stating some things in reference to the message, from which conclu- sions may be drawn quite as little to the credit of the Chief Magistrate. I hold that upon all occasions we ought to be exceedingly careful in relatiou to the language we use in addressing each other, or in speak- ing of each other, or of any co-ordinate branches of the Government ; but if a high officer will avail himself of the station in which he is placed to assail, and moreover to insult, a large portion of the people whom he claims to represent — for he asserts that he i« the rep- resentative, and the only representative, of the whole people — it ill becomes the representa- tives in Congress, either of the States or of the people, to sit perfectly silent and allow it to * "ithout remark, unless they can give V reason for doing so. If I had kept silent upon this occasion the only reason 1 should have given is that which I have already intimated — that his fallen pusition may induce men to pardon very much that could not otherwise escape without rebuke. Mr. President, the Chief Magistrate, in my judgment, has, either by himself or by another, — for some say that he is the author of his own message, and some pretend to see in it the hand of another person, — in this message studiously misrepresented facts ; he has sedu- ously endeavored to fix upon a very large portion of the people of this country accusa- tions which he knows to be applicable to but few. There are in the free States of the Union, as everybody knows who reads the newspapers, or who is at all familiar with the history of the country, two classes of men who have opposed the present Administration, with reference to the slavery question. One is a very small class, a very powerless class, having no direct influence in. the councils of the country, hav- ing no very considerable influence upon the public opinion of the country, known as ultra-Abolitionists ; who profess to have no attachment to the Constitution of the United States ; who profess, even, that under the Constitution there is power to abolish slavery in the States, and who avow a willingness to exercise that power. It is well understood that those men are few ; that tbeir opinions are not represented here ; that they have no power to be represented in those opinions here, in either branch of Congress ; that they have in fact almost as little influence upon public opinion in the whole North as they have upon public opinion in the South. There is another class of men — a class which has carried eleven States of this Union, and would have carried every free State, in my judgment, if the votes had been fairly given, except California, of which I know nothing — a class disclaiming all connection with the opinions of that set of men to whom I have just alluded, all connection with their princi- ples Mr. PUGH. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question ? Mr. FESSENDEN. Yes sir. Mr. P TT GH. I would like the Senator to show/^ *ie an authoritative paper, either the pla^ ,rm of the Kepublican party, or any- tl..ig else, which disclaims connection with those gentlemen. I ask him to show me in the platform of the Kepublican party any section denying the right of Congress to legis- late on the subject of shivery in the States. Mr. FESSENDEN. Sir, 1 have not spoken of party platforms. Mr. PUGH. The Senator will understand me. /did not interrupt him for the purpose of being impertinent. I understood him to say that the Republican party has denied its connection with the faction which advocates the right of Congress to legislate upon the sub- ject of slavery in the States, and 1 ask him to point me to the place where they have denied such connection. Mr. FESSENDEN. I was speaking oi classes, not of parties. I say there is a large class — a class which has carried these elec- tions — a party, if you please to call it so, which does not agree with, but disavows all connection with the sentiments of that small portion of the people of whom I have »poken. They do not disavow the connection in their platform. They are not called upon to say in their platform what they do not believe, and do not affirm. It is sufficient that the platform affirms positively what they mean — states their positive opinions and positive intentions. It is not necessary, nor is it proper, that the platform of a party should undertake to deny what it does not hold. But I say that in the speeches of all their public men, and in all their leading newspapers, they have, unquestionably, without any hesitation, laid down principles entirely at war with the principles assumed by what are called ultra- Abolitionists. Mr. PUGH. It was stated on the day . before yesterday by the Senator from Missis- sippi, [Mr. Brown,] and my own recollec- ; tion corresponds with his, having seen the article, that the New York Tribune appealed to these men to vote with the Republican party, becauso the Republican party in due time would take their position. Mr. FESSENDEN. I cannot deny that, Mr. PUGH. I wish to be fair with the Senator. I understood him first to assert that the Republican party disavowed its con- nection with these other gentlemen. I then asked him to show me the place where they disavowed it. He said it was not in the plat- form, but in the newspapers ; that every newspaper disavowed it. I named one which did not. Mr. FESSENDEN. I said nothing about its connection. I said it disavowed those principles ; and there is no paper of the Re- publican party which has ever advocated the doctrines of the ultra- Abolitionists. No Sena- tor can cite me to one. If there be such a one, it is not an authoritative exponent of Re- publican doctrine. Mr. BROWN. If the Senator from Maine will yield me the floor for a moment, 1 will ask him one question. Mr. FESSENDEN. With great pleasure. Mr. BROWN. The Senator says the news- papers of the Republican party have not ad- vocated the principles of the ultra-Abolition- ists. Does he not know that the ultra-Aboli- tion papers have advocated and sustained the principles of the Republican party? Mr. FESSENDEN. Suppose they have, what of it ? Mr. BROWN. A great deal of it. It shows that sort of affinity between the two parties which, it seems to me, on the basis laid down by the Senator from IVJaine, ought to be ex- ceedingly objectionable to him and the objec- tion he ought to manifest. If, he entertains principles so close to those of the Abolition party that they, feeing they have no chance to elect a man of their own, readily fall into the support of his party, is it not apparent that, whenever they have gained sufficient as- cendency in the party, they will control every- thing to their own advantage ? Things hav- ing a tendency in that direction, we are left to conjecture how soon the time will come when the Abolition element of his party will be the because I do not know that it is not so ; but I can say that' although a reader of the New] predominant element. York Tribune, I never saw it. Whether it is Mr. FESSENDEN. It is precisely that there or not I cannot say. But even if it kind of logic to which I object as altogether ■were there, it by no means follows that it is a unfair and inconclusive. I ask the honorable part of the creed of the Republican party hold that no party is responsible for all that appears in all the newspapers which support its candidates. ' Do you hold that tl e Demo- cratic party in the North is responsible for the doctrines of the Charleston Standard? Mr. PUGH. No. Mr. FESSENDEN. Why, then, do you hold the Republican paTty at the North re- sponsible for the doctrines of the New York Tribune, if it made any such announcement ? Senator from Mississippi, in reply, does ho not well know that the Charleston Standard supported the candidates of the Democratic pitty? I cite this as a mere example. la the Democratic party responsible for it ? Are we to understand that the Senator from Missis- sippi and all his friends maintain the doc- trines of that paper — that they are in favor of disunion — hold that disunion would be the very best thing that could happen for the people of the South, and that a party should be formed to accomplish it ? Does he en- dorse all those doctrines as the doctrines of the party ? Mr. BROWN. The Senator speaks of the Charleston Standard. I suppose he means the Charleston Mercury. Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir ; I mean the Charleston Standard. Mr. BROWN. It is a paper I never read, and I do not know anything about it. Mr. FESSENDEN. It has- had a long series of articles to the effect which I have stated. Mr. BROWN. Sentiments reflected by particular newspapers are one thing. The sentiments reflected by an organized political party are altogether a different thing. Now I state that the whole Abolition party of the North, the Garrison and Gerrit Smith and Fred Douglas party — the party known to the country as the Abolition party per se, went for John C. Fremont for President, and were invited to do so b}' the leaders of the Repub- lican party. Mr. FESSENDEN. I know nothing about the invitation, and I do not know whether they were invited by the leaders or not. That a part of them voted with the Republi- can party, and that a part did not, 1 am well aware. The Abolition party itself was not sunk in the Republican party. That individ- uals of that party voted for the Republican candidates may be true ; but how does that prove that the more than one million of men who voted for John C. Fremont are actuated by the same principles ? Is a party respon- sible for the principles of every man who chooses to act with it as a matter of choice ? The reasoning is illogical. In my judgment it is unfair — I use the word in no offensive sense. We do not hold ourselves responsible for the private opinions of all who choose to vote with us; nor do we hold our fellow-citi- zens of the South responsible for the private opinions of all men who choose to vote with them ; nor for all the opinions expressed in the public newspapers of the South, some of which are unquestionably offensive to south- ern people — quite as offensive to them as to us, fir I believe there are as good friends to the Union in the South as in the North. What I object, to in the message, therefore, is this : the President well knew, well under- Btood, that there was a wide distinction be- tween the small, powerless class of ultra- Abolitionists in the free States, and the great parly which nominated John C. Fremont as acandidate for the Presidency ; and yet, throughout this message, he makes no distinc- tion between these two parties, but endeavors to fasten on the country the idea that they are one and the same ; that tha same men who sustain the one set of principles sustain the other. Not only does he do that, but he en- deavors to prove the principles themselves identical, although knowing very well that there is a wide distinction between the doc- trines of those who maintain that slavery should not be extended, and of those who maintain that this Union should be dissolved, or that the rights of the States should be in- terfered with in reference to slavery. He makes the attempt, and carries it through his message, to show that the principles and objects themselves are one and the same, and endeavors to blind the country to the true distinction between them. It maybe unpar- liamentary to impute motives to anybody ; but he imputes motives to us; he attacks the Republican party, and charges it distinctly with a design to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, and to usurp power. What truth is there in this ? Are we going beyond the limits of propriety when we reply to the President, of the United States, and say: " Sir, in that message you attempt and design to encourage and extend the feeling that now exists between the citizens of the free and slave States of this Union." I believe that was his motive; and I have as much right here in my place to cbarge him with a motive improper for him to conceive, and entertain, and be guided by, as he has to charge mc from his place with being actuated by motives of the same character. But I do not mean to bestow much time upon this message. I did not rise for that purpose. 1 rose to defend my section of the country, the people whom I represent here, the old Democratic State of Maine, in its present position, with its twenty-five thousand majority for Fremont, from the charge which lias been made by the President against it. My object was to deny the truth of his state- ments — to repel them, so far as I can repel them, from my place in the Senate, and all charges of the same description, come from what quarter they may. I am not to be deterred from doing so by any warning given by the Senator from Texas, against making imputations, when those imputations are called for by the message itself. The honorable Senator from Texas says he deprecates the introduction of the slavery question into the Senate. I have no doubt that he does. So do I, unless it is necessary. But let me ask him, as my honorable friend from Ohio inquired, who brought it here?' Who brought here, in the first place, the agi- tation that has torn this country asunder duriucr the present Administration ? Was it the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, not the President of the United States, acting in conjunction with those who repealed the Missouri compromise line ? Did it exist before the Kansas-Nebraska bill was brought into the Senate ? Was not the country quiet ? Was not the Senate quiet ? Was not the House of Representatives quiet? Was there any agitation — any disturbance anywhere ? There was none. Mr. RUSK. Does the Senator desire an answer ? Mr. FESSENDEN. I shall be happy to receive one. Mr. RUSK. The Senator certainly cannot have forgotten that long before the Nebraska bill was thought of there was opposition to the fugitive slave law. Petitions for its repeal were presented, aed there was a constant agi- tation on that text before the Senate and the country, and in public newspapers. It was used for political capital . N ow it has become popular to say that the Kansas-Nebraska bill introduced the agitation of slavery. Why, sir, it has been going on for upwards of twenty years. This was a better text than the fugi- tive slave law, and therefore the fugitive slave law was abandoned and this taken up. Mr. FESSENDEN. Very well ; I under- stand all that ; but let me ask the Senator again, in my turn, had not all those matters been settled by what are called the compro- mise acts ? Had not the country been quieted, or was it not supposed to have been quieted, by the resolutions of the two conventions held in Baltimore in 1852, by both of which it was resolved that there should be no more agita- tion on the subject — that neither party would agitate the question as it then stood, and so long as it remained in its then existing condi- tion? Was not that the conclusion arrived at by both the great parties of the country at that time ? When the first Congress under President Tierce's administration met, was there any disturbance from the commence- ment of it lip to the time when the Kansas- Nebraska bill was introduced into the Senate of the United States? No, sir: none at all. The country had been quieted ; it had acqui- esced, and it was well known to have acqui- esced. A very general disposition existed everywhere — it was announced here, upon the floor of the Senate — that those questions should not be mooted again, but the country be left to rest in quiet, and form its own con- clusions. Was it not so ? I think I shall be borne out by ample testimony on that point. Mr. ADAMS. I call the attention of the Senator to the fact that some States, Vermont for instance, had, by their Legislatures, before passed laws against the execution of the fugi- tive slave law ? Mr. FESSENDEN. That may be. Sup- pose they did so. I am speaking of agitation here, on the floor of the Senate, and in the other branch of Congress. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. Will the Sen- ator allow me to interrupt him for a moment, to give him some information which he seems not to have ? Mr. FESSENDEN. I am much obliged to the Senator. I am always glad to be in- structed. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. I hope so. The Senator inqured whether there was agi- tation here. Two propositions were made in the Senate to repeal the fugitive slave law, after the passage of the compromise measures of 1850, and a vote was taken up^n them in the Senate. Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator had attended to me he would have known that I was speaking of the first Congress that met after the inauguration of President Pierce. I say that the platform of the two party conven- tions, held in the summer preceding his elec- tion, deprecated all further agitation. When he delivered his inaugural address he alluded to that fact, and claimed that no further agi- tation should take place upon that subject in the country. Congress met, and nothing was said. There was a general disposition to ac- quiesce in those measures — to do nothing and say nothing so long as matters remained in that condition. It was the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which rekindled the fires of agitation in Congress and in the country. It was his act, because he indorsed and sustained it, and used the power of his office in order to carry it through. Well, sir, it has passed, and we have gone through another election. It was hoped, perhaps gen- erally, that we should escape from any un- necessary agitation on this subject now. But what do we find ? On the second day of the sesdon comes in a message from the Presi- dent, calculated as well as any document in the world could be calculated, to effect the same object, and stir this Congress again into a blaze ; characterized by violent, although covert, attacks upon the principles and mo- tives of the great majority of the people of the free States, of one of which he is an unworthy son — insulting to men, many of whom, to say the least, are quite as good, quite as wise, and as able as himself; a document intended (for I give him credit for a reasonable degree of sense) to excite agitation, and I believe, upon my conscience, iutended to do so for the pur- I >se of accomplishing his own individual ob- ;" jcte in the future ; for 1 can see no other reason for the course be has taken. When that document comes into the Senate, and some gentlemen do not choose to sit silent ander its imputations thus thrust upon us, gentlemen from the South ask why this eter- nal agitation ? Why not keep silent on this subject ? Why is it again brought before the country, and to the consideration of the Sen- ate ? Sir, of what stuff do you suppose we are made V If we are disposed to be quiet, you call us craven, we are afraid to speak, we liave not spirit enoughtoprotect or defend ourselves 1 If we speak out, we are agitators, and desire to rake open the coals of discord throughout this great country. Allow us to be either one or the other — either spirited enough to answer for ourselves, or else im- pute to something else than cowardice our disposition to remain quiet when there seems to be no particular necessity for speaking. Mr. RUSK. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment? Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly, sir. Mr. RUSK. Has he ever heard from me a sentiment to justify what he has just said ? Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir. Mr. RUSK. Or from any other southern Senator ? Mr. FESSENDEN. I do not know that I have on the floor of the Senate, but I know what is said outside of the Senate ; and we are judged outside of the Senate as well as in it. To be sure, I am not disposed frequently to pay great attention to that, unless I am compelled to do so in self-defense. But there are occasions when we cannot help noticing these matters. We are forced into debate, as well as you. I have no disposition certainly (and I think, if gentlemen of the Senate will j^idge me with calmness, they will concede that I have shown no undue disposition) to agitate these matters here, I have never spoken upon these subjects unless on oeca- sfons wheu I certainly might be excused in doing so, by the necessities of my position, and the principles I hold and mean to main- tain. Yet I deem it hardly right that, when we are forced iuto these positions, and obliged to defend ourselves by the men whom you sustain, and who speak for you and for you alone, and never for the section of coun- try from which I come, we should At least have liberty to speak for it ourselves, without being accused of any reasonable want of courtesy or respect to the powers that be. Of the same character is this message with regard to affairs in Kansas, and the origin and progress of the difficulties there. Look at the message calmly. The President assumes that the people of this country have, by the recent elections, settled certain general principles — all very correct principles — such as non-in- terference with slavery in the States, the equal rights of the States, and of the citizens of the States. It has been well said, that no- body here ever disputed them ; nobody pre- tends to dispute anything of the kind. Yet he goes on immediately to speak of the doc- trines of the Republican party as affirming the right of Congerss to legislate for the Territo- ries, and as contravening those well-settled principles which nobody disputes. Every one can very well see that the conclusion does not follow from the premises ; that the questions are as perfectly distinct from each other as white is from black, or light from darkness. They have no similarity, no connection. Southern men may argue, and do argue, that the consequences will be the same. It is not for me to say — I do not wish to say in this connection — whether they will be so or not. But the questions themselves are widely different ; and still, throughout his message, the President studiously attempts to convey the idea, that when the Republican party in the North have undertaken to say that slave- ry ought not to be extended over territory now free, they have been contending for the right to interfere with slavery in the States of the Union, and to produce an inequality in the rights of the States, and of the citizens of the States. That is the only fair and reason- able inference to be drawn from his argu- ment. Any one can see that the whole argu- ment is false — I do not undertake to say that he is false — the Senator from Texas will mark me well — but I say the agument is false. The conclusion does not, and cannot follow from the premises. The questions are totally distinct from each other. He avails himself of his position to send forth to the country the impression that the people of the United States, in deciding this presidential election against the Republican party, have settled against that party a right claimed by them to interfere with the institution of slave- ry in the States, and have rebuked a desire upon their part to produce an inequality be- tween the free States and the slave States of the Union, Is there any such thing in the creed of the Republic an party ? Not at all. It can be found nowhere — was advocated nowhere — by any individual or any press of the Repub- lican party. The President has taken pain: to say, that the people also rebuked the id of a geographical party. My honora friend from South Carolina — I hope he>will excuse me for calling him so ; I have n be caught in any such way. I will •nth theiK i answer any question in reference to my line of argument ; but whenever they attempt to get me out of that line by asking what I will do in any supposed contingency, my only answer is, that I will let ycu know how I vote when the contingency arises. Mr. BAYARD. Allow me to ask a ques- tion in the Senator's line of argument? Mr. FESSENDEN. Certainly. Mr. BAYARD- I w ish to understand on what ground lie claims that it is an interfe- rence with the rights of the people of the non-slaveholding States for Congress to abstain from the exercise of any power in reference to the common territory of the Union, either prohibiting or authorizing slavery there ? In what respect does it violate the rights of any citizen, or of any non-slaveholding State, for Congress to exercise no power, either for the purpose of prohibition, or for the purpose of authorization of slavery ? On the other side, I suppose the prohibition infringes o the rights of citizens of the United States to go with any species of property into territory which belongs to the people of the whole Union ; it is a violation of the rights of the citizens of those States who happen to hold that particular description of property. I do not see where the violation is on the other side. Mr. FESSENDEN. If I thought that a . prohibition by Congress of the extension of slavery to the Territories was interfering with the constitutional right of any man in any section of the Union, I certainly should not be an advocate for that interference. The ques- tion, hewever, has been argued over and over again upon this floor, I might say argued even , ad nauseam, until everybody is tired of it. It has been argued over and over again upon every stump through, the whole country. We know the force of the argument, that this is only permitting the people to act for them- selves ; carrying out the idea of popular sov- ereignty ; that there is a right in the people of the Territories to form their own institutions to suit themselves, and a right in the people of the southern States to remove into the Ter- ritories, and carry their slaves with them. The question has been argued here too often not to be entirely familiar to the honorable Senator from Delaware, and be knows very well that we deny there is auy such constitu- tional right on the part of anybody. We deny that slavery can exist in the Territories unless by force of positive law. Mr. BAYARD. The honorable Senator did not understand my question. Mr. FESSENDEN. I did. Mr. BAYARD. I think not. I merely added to my inquiry my own views of the violation 13 of right upon the one side ; I did not ask him to discuss that. My question was, what injustice, what injury results to the people of the non-slaveholding States from allowing the people of the whole country to have a right to go to any territory of the United States with any species of property they possess ? In what way does it affect his own State injuriously ? Mr. FESSENDEN. . I was coming to that j but being a little circuitous, perhaps, in my logic, I had not arrived at it quite so soon as the honorable Senator might have expected. I was laying the foundation for my answer by saying, that we deny all those asserted rights with which the Senator closed his question to me. We deny that there is any constitutional right, on the part of any southern man, to go into a free Territory, and carry his slaves with him, and hold them there. We say that slavery can exist there only by force of posi- tive law. Although the contrary has become the settled doctrine of the Democratic party at the present tune, we deoy it still. We say, moreover — and allow me to repeat it — that when we prohibit you from carrying slaves to a Territory, vve leave you still with the same rights which we ourselves possess. No law is unequal in operation, unless it acts unequally upon different persons. The Sena- tor from Delaware can go to these Territories with his hands, and his heart, and his head, and make the most of them there, upon the same terms that I can go and make the most of the vastly inferior power, physical and in- tellectual, which God has giveu to me. We say that when we leave the South and the North, the slave States and the free States, upon that precise line, ws leave them equal, and we trench on no rights of theirs by that prohibition. We say, moreover, that the Constitution has expressly given to the Congress of the United States the power to make rules and regula- tions for the Territories, and that this author- ity includes the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, and prevent its extension over them. I remember that the first time I had the honor of addessing the Senate, the honor- able Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] de- nied this position, and told me the Supreme Court had decided otherwise. I had so much respect for him that I did not dispute his word, though I was not aware of any such decision. Since that time 1 have looked into the subject, and certainly none such can be found. Mr. CAS3. The honorable Senator is mis- taken. He misunderstands what I said to him. The ground which he took was on the old question of the power of Congress to ex- tend general jurisdiction over the Territories, under that clause of the Constitution giving the power to regulate the public lands. I merely staled to the honorable Senator that the Supreme Court hail decided that the term " territory " in that clause of the Constitution meint land. That they did decide. Mr. FESSENDEN. If the Senator wilt refer to the printed debate of that day, he will find that he is in euor. He will find that he went as far as I now state, that is to say, that the Supreme Court had decided con- trary to the view which I was then taking, viz : that Congress derived all necessary power to legislate for the Territories under that clause of the Constitution. That the Senator denied, on the authority of the Supreme Court. Although I d ; d not dare, as a young member of this body, to dispute it then, I have since ascertained that he was in error on that point. , Mr. CASS. The circumstance is perfectly fresh in my mind. I argued the question ten years ago, and ten times since. I am not going to enter into u now. The point of the honorable Senator, on the occasion to which he alludes, turned, as I understood him, upon the meaning of the word "territory" — whether t extended further than the public lands. A Senator not now in his seat — I think it was Mr. Sumner — assured the gentleman that the Supreme Court made that decision. It was one of the Senators sitting on that side near him who declared that such a decision had been m?de. Mr. FESSENDEN. It was affirmed by the honorable Senator from California, [Mr, We leer.] Mr. CASS. I think it was also acknowl- edged by one of the Senators on the other side. Mr. FESSENDEN. No, sir. Mr. CASS. It was touching the decision of the Supreme Court, that the word " terri- tory " in this clause was equivalent to " pub- lic land." With respect to the other point, permit me to say that I did not put it. The main argument I produced in this body ago. I did not assume that the Court had so decided. I stated that, opinion of Judge Marshall, which has/ been alluded to during this debate, he put tfuerioht, of governing the Territories on thc^e or four different grounds. He put it on/the ground of sovereignty. He put it on tfbe ground the regulation of property. Jfle put .. ground of the acquisition fi{ territory finally, he put it on the ground of viz : that the power was exercisec" Supret 14 based the view which I took of the incompe- tency of Congress to legislate on the domestic concerns of the people of a Territory on a de- cision of the Supreme Court. Mr. FESSENDEN. I shall not attempt at this day, and on 'his occasion, to review any of the former speeches made by the honorable Senator from Michigan. If 1 misunderstood him upon the former occasion, my misunder- standing is matter of record. What he then said is also matter of record. If he refers to it, he will find that I am not out of the way, for I have looked at it since the occurrence with reference to this particular view. 1 take it, then, not to be disputed by him at least, that it is the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court of the United States that, under this clause of the Constitution, Congress has a right to legislate for the Territories. That right may be deduced besides from the necessity of the case. The power has been exercised over and over again. What we hold as a party is, that as this power exists in the Congress ol the United States, it is the duty of Congress bo to exercise it as to prevent the extension of slavery over free territory. 1 come now to answer, so far as I can, the question put to me by the honorable Senator from Delaware. He asks how they intertere with us ? Sir, we are a partnership. The free States and the slave States are connected together. The people of the free States and of the slave States ought to have influence in this Confederac}' somewhat in proportion to their population. There is a provision in the Constitution which enables ttie slave States to exercise a power disproportioned to their number of free people. It is, as claimed by the Senator from Virginia, an element of political power. If it bt a fact that free and slave labor cannot exist together, if the two systems be in a degree antagouistical, it their interests be in a measure opposite, everything which has a tendency to increase the political power of the slave interest in this country is a direct encroachment on the political power of the free peoj>le of the free States. It may be constitutional — it may be legal ; but it is none the less an encroachment. What tends to Increase the one tends also to diminish the \ other. Consequently the effect, if beneficial VTolitically to you, is injurious politically to us. ItSjs on this position, as stated by the Senator fronX Ohio, that we base ourselves in some degTee* Again;, this is a political partnership, and the commton burdens are to be borne in com- ■ion. We\have an interest that the Territo- lt of this country shall be made into great „•*!«. stronglStatcs, powerful and rich States, able to protect themselves, and aid us in pro- tecting the country, to increase the revenues, and power of defense, and power of attack, of this great nation. Will the honorable Sena- tors from the slave States pretend to say that slave institutions have the same effect and the same power in making great, and powerful, and strong States of the Union, members of the partnership, as free institutions have ? Will they so contradict all history as to hazard any such assertion ? I trust not. Look at the State of Virginia. It is a State that I look upon with great kindness ; but will the hon- orable Senator from Virginia, (he is not now m his seat.) or will any other man, contem- plate that State, and compare her with the State of Pennsylvania, which lies alongside of tier, and look at her present and her past. If we refer to revolutionary times, we shall find that the State of Virginia, which has a terri- tory almost equal to the territory of all New England in square miles at the present day, or but little short of it, had in those days a population about equal to that of all New England. She had a larger commerce and greater agricultural power. She was greater than all, stronger than all, though the institu- tion of slavery then existed in New England in fact, but in a much less degree than in Vir- ginia. What is Virginia now, compared with those States, in wealth, strength, and power alone? — and I speak only of these. Her free whits population, if I remember rightly, is less than a million ; the population of New England is something like two million seven hundred thousand or two million eight hundred thou- sand. What is her commerce ? I refer the Senator to the description given of her com- merce by the present Governor of Virginia — it has taken to itself wings and flown away. What is her agriculture ? Does it compare, rich as she is in native resources, with the agricultural productions of even New Eng- land, barren and sterile as she is described to be? What is she in any particular — I meaa as a powerful State ? What is she iu any- thing, except iu the patriotism, learning, and ability of her sons? — for there I do not pre- tend to question her equality; but in all else^ in population, in commerce, and manufac- tures, even in agriculture — in everything that tends to make a great and strong State — how does she comparo with New England ? What has done this ? I believe — we believe at th« North — that Virginia, with her greater natu- ral advantages, with her water power, which is unequalled, with her soil, which is unsur- passed, with the mines that are in her bosom — everything that could make a State great 15 and powerful— would not be what she is butjstitution exists. We have agreed that k S, r er! S hed StltUtl ° a * ^ ^ *° ^ H?™!* * e >™ d ! ?* to 7™ «** for one ? In looking at a paper which came to me this morning, I met with an extract, which I will take the liberty to read, not with any in- vidious feeling. I do not know but that the Senator from Virginia can inform me whether it is correct or not. It professes to be an ex- tract from a speech of a Mr. Marshall, who is described as a son of the late Chief Justice Marshall, delivered in the House of Delegates of the State of Virginia in the year 1832: " Slaver^ Is ruinous to the whites— retards im- provement— roots out industrious population— banishes the yeomanry of the country— deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoe- maker, the carpenter, of employment and sup- port. This evil admits of no remedy— it is in- creasing, and will continue to increase, until the whole country will be inundated with one black wave covering its whole extent, with a few white taces here and there floating on the surface. The master has no capital but what is vested in hu- man flesh— the father, instead of being richer for his sons, is at a loss how to provide for them • there is no diversity of occupations, no incentives to enterprise. Labor of every species is disrep- utable, because performed mostly by slaves. Our < -- l —. ~~ .^.^wjr Kiy sieves. \j\ towns are stationary, our villages almost every where declining, and the general aspect of the country marks the curse of a wasteful, idle, reck- less population, who have no interest in the soil and care not how much it is impoverished. " Public improvements are neglected, and the entire continent does not present a region for which nature has done so much and art so little It cultivated by free labor, the soil of Virginia is capable of sustaining a vast population, anions whom labor would be honorable, and where ' the busy hum of men' would tell that all were happy and all were free." yyj I have the whole Mr. OOLLAMER. speech. Mr FESSENDEN. I should have finished WfcaJ I had to say long ago, if honorable Sen am opposed, and always have so expressed myself, to interfering with that question among you in the slave States at all, directly or indirectly ; for what I have no right to do directly I have no right to do indirectly. But when it comes to the question, whether an institution which has produced such effects winch is so enfeebling, necessarily, to the great whole of which I am a part, and of which my State is a part, and which has produced such blighting effects, shall be extended over new territory vast as all that which goes to make up the States of this Union and this black wave shall be left to sweep over it carrying with it effects so disastrous, it be-' comes not only my right, but my 'solemn duty, to stand here and protest against it and to go before my constituents, and before the world, wherever and whenever I can, and pro- test and act against a result which I believe will be attended with such enormous evils That is my answer to the question which is put to me— how our rights and our institutions are to be interfered with by allowing this Government to permit the extension of slavery over Territory which is now free, and which ought to be left free ? Mr. President, one word more. I do not look upon this question as a question ef States llie States, as political corporations, have no direct interest in the Territories. I do not recognize the State of Virginia, or fchi State of lexas, as a State, as having a particle of inter- est m them; nor the State of Maine, nor the fetate of Massachusetts, nor New York nor any other free State. It is a question with the people of the United States. One has just as much interest and right as another has. When you come here and talk to us about the tors had not put so many troubled™ institution tfsWy - oS^fflS flons to me. I answer the Senator from Del- States, and say it is a question betwee^ Xn aware thus: we are States, but we are a na- States and sixteen Stares 1 asl'Ts there nS toon : we are a people, yet a united people, institution in the fifteen States compoS tha l£l\VT e w g ?°r e ^ to be inL-Soath except the institution «SS t estmg to all. What strengthens a part of this that all which goes to make up these Lat great country strengthens the whole. What empires, as they are in the i oTexK weakens a part weakens the whole. What to say the leastf and should beln the matti diminishes the power of one section diminishes of power. You talk to us here a if here weJ the power cf the whole country, directly, ne- nothing else in the South bu shverv T rln cessardy, mutably. What strength^ a not put out of sight the ^lirfSe cJxSS" nnnn tho irl-,1 flf oil *l,o D l„„.i..u.... ■ . ■ ~ . lIlt - c enSU8 part has the same effect upon the whole coun- try. I have been surprised to hear gentlemen from the South asks us, "Why do you have the impertinence to interfere with this ques- tion ? What is it to you ? Why not let us alone to manage this matter, which is a matter Solely of our own concern ?" So it is a matter - " - ----—■•" • w,* io a mauer """»■ "^ vyime people ever rem 51 your concern in the States where this in- You say you represent them ; I Of all the slaveholders in the Union, proper] such, there are less than five hundred sand ; and, including their wives and dren, and all connected with them, the certainly a decided minority of the wl people of the slave States themsel these free white people ever repres 16 l ibR& rN COWGR^Sft remarking is, that slavery alone does not con- stitute all the South. There are other men than those who own slaves, or are interested in slaves ; and for their benefit, as well as ours, I would open these Territories to free- dom, and hold them consecrated to freedom forever. But for the.,fact - tbat it might seem invidi- ous and unkind, 1 would allude to and read extracts from southern writers themselves, showing the effect of slavery upon a very large portion of the white population of the slave (States. You know the fact as well as I do, and better than I do, for you have been eye and ear witnesses. But what I wish to say to you is, that when you speak upon this subject, and of your rights in regard to it, do not talk of the rights of the States, for there is no State that has any right whatever, as such, in this connection. It is a question affecting all the people of the free States, and all the people of the slave States, and as much the people of slave States who do not own slaves as of the people of those States who do own slaves, although we never hear a voice raised within these walls from that section ex- cept in support of the institution, and almost universally in favor of its extension. Sir, I look upon our view of this question as one quite as interesting to the people of the slave States as to those of the free States of the Union. I know it is a question of political power ; but it is not a question of pol itical power between fifteen slave States and six- teen free States. It is a question of political power between the half million of people who own slaves, and all the rest of the free peo- ple of the Union, amounting perhaps to twenty-five millions at the present day. There is the question ; and when Senators at- tempt to and clain between c great class not so. T j.,1 891 169 $ <0** . leave to say it is .^niical power, if it comes, and if the Senate of the United States is to pass into the hands of those gentlemen, goes not into the hands of the great mass of free peo- ple inhabiting the slave States of this Union, but into the hands of a class, a small class — however respectable, however upright, bow- ever patriotic they may be — and I give them, in these particulars, all the credit that I arro- gate or claim for my own section of the coun- try. The fact stands out in bold relief, and cannot be denied, that when this political power — a power to control the legislation of this country by a veto, in one body at least — passes into the hands of the slave States, ac- cording to your definition, it passes into the hands of less than half a million of men, who can control the interests of all the rest of the free people of the Union together. That is the simple truth. It is what we contend against. As I said to the Senate be- fore, I have contended against it. I have struggled to prevent the extension of slavery over the free territory of this country. I have struggled to prevent it by endeavoring to prevail on the General Government to exer- cise its powers to keep the Territories free from slavery. I may fail ; we may all fail, but our purpose is fixed and firm. I notify gentlemen that no threats of a dissolution of the Union in case wc elect this man or that man — no threat of any kind which they can utter, will turn us, or at least will turn rne, from that purpose which I have announced heretofore, and which I announce again. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 011897 769 5