SML Cb82 51 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SPEECH COLONEL J. J. LANDRAM, SENATE OF KENTUCKY, JANUARY 13, 1865, ON HIS PRO POSED AMENDMENT OF THE ACT, ENTITLED "AN ACT CONCERNING SLAVES AND RUNAWAYS." Senate Chamber, January 30, 1865. Col. J. J. Landram: Sir: We have listened with ranch pleasure to the speech deliv ered by you in this Chamber to-day, and hope you will find it convenient to write out the same for publication. We have the honor to be, Very respectfully, HENEY D. McHENEY, t BEN. S. COFFEY, J. F. EOBINSON, F. L. CLEVELAND, WM. S. BOTTS, T. T. GABEABD. Although I did not hear the speech of Col. Landram, I cheer fully join in the request for its publication. WM. SAMPSON. § 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, That all laws now in force in this Commonwealth requiring the owner of a slave to pay a reward for the arrest or apprehension of such slave as a runaway, be, and the samp are hereby, repealed. § 2. That all laws now in force authorizing the commitment of runaway slaves to the jails of this Commonwealth be, and the same are hereby, repealed. §3. That chapter 73, of the Revised Statutes, title " Patrols," be, and the same are hereby, repealed. 5 4. That section 1 , article 3, chapter 93, of .the Revised Statutes, imposing a fine upon the owner or hirer of a slave who shall license such slave to go at large and trade as a free man, or shall permit him to go at large and hire himself out for his own benefit, or that of another, be, and the same is hereby, repealed. § 5. This act shall take effect from its passage. The above bill being under consideration, Mr. J. J. Landram moved to amend by striking out the 3d section. The bill and amendment were made the special order for Monday, January 30, at 11 o'clock, A. M., when Mr. J. J. Landram addressed the Sen ate as follows : Mr. Speaker: I would have been content to have allowed the bill under consideration to have been acted upon by the Senate, without asking the indulgence of Senators to listen to any re marks or thoughts that I might offer upon the subject, had it not been for the fact that the amendment offered by me on Saturday last has been fruitful of so much discussion, and has met with such violent opposition, that I deem it my duty to say something in support of the proposition. The debate has taken a wide range, and many things have been said that is not germain to the ques tion under consideration ; national policies have been descanted upon at great length bythose honorable Senators whohave preceded me in opposition to my amendment. I do not propose to follow them through the windings of their political discussion, but the Senate will pardon me should 1 digress from the subject and attempt to answer some things that have been said upon the sub ject of national policies by those who oppose this amendment, before I take my seat. Mr. Speaker, it seems to be conceded by all that slavery, as an institution in Kentucky, is now in a very dubious and demoralized condition, and that the present statutes upon the subject are not fully adapted to the status of slavery. I believe it wise and proper to so modify the slave code of our State as to meet the present exigencies. I am, therefore, for the first section of the bill under consideration. In the present demoralized condition of slavery, the owner has but little security guaranteed him in the enjoyment of his property; the labor of the slave has very nearly ceased to be involuntary. Under the present law, if he escapes from his master, he may be captured by any adventurer and returned to the owner, and in such case the owner is compelled to pay the captor the reward now allowed by law, whether he desires the return of the slave or not; and the same process of escape, cap ture, and reward may be repeated upon the owner without limit — operating greatly to the prejudice of the owner pecuniarily, and thereby forcing him, in all probability, to pay a reward for a to tally worthlesss species of property. If the law is repealed, the owner of a slave, in case of an escape or runaway, will be at liberty to offer a reward for the capture and return of his property or not, as in his own discretion he may deem best. Such I think should be the law at the present time, considering the circum stances and difficulties that now surround the institution of slavery. The fourth section of the bill is a modification of the present law to an extent that challenges the closest investigation and •scrutiny, and will bring about a very material change inthe slave code, and its wisdom may -be questioned. If the fourth section should become a law by the action of this Legislature, it will per- mit the owner to turn upon the community and society the most worthless and vicious of the slave population, and by giving such slave a written permit to labor when and for whom he pleases, and to trade as a free man, it is, in fact, allowing the owner to eman cipate his slave without complying with the constitutional provis ion, and is, in effect, in violation of the present statute which pro vides the mode and manner in which the owner of slaves may emancipate, which statute was made to harmonize with article tenth, section first, ofthe Constitution of this Commonwealth; or, in other words, it repeals the present statute upon that subject, without expressing that fact in the title of the bill; and the effect of the provisions of the section, when put into practical operation, will be to allow the owner of such slaves as he may see proper to give the liberty of trading as free men to enjoy the boon of such freedom contrary to the spirit and intent of the tenth article of the Constitution before alluded to, if not contrary to the letter. Section 1, article 4, ofthe present law, reads as follows: 'If the owner of an infirm, insane, or aged slave, or any person hav ing such slave under his control, suffers him to go at large, or fails to make adequate provision for his support, he shaU be punished by fine not exceeding fifty dollars," &c, &c. Thus you see, that if the fourth section ofthe statute is repealed, and there is no modification of the section above quoted, the owner who suffers his slave to trade as a free man may meet with great difficulty in the practical operations of the law. If the fourth section of the bill is adopted, the owner will have the high privilege of permitting his slave to become a free man, and yet, if disease or age should render the slave infirm, he must make adequate provision for his support ; and if he fails to do so, he will be punished by a fine of fifty dollars ; or, should any person administer to the wants of such infirm slave, the owner will be liable to such person for the care and maintenance of such slave ; or, the county court may, under the section referred to, provide for his maintenance, and require the owner to foot the bills quar terly or annually, notwithstanding the master has allowed the slave to go at liberty, hire his own time, trade as a free man, and enjoy all the benefits of his labor. Would this Legislature dare make such a law for a white man ? — allow him, as the laws now do, to work, trade, or follow the legal profession, and, when he may become unfortunate, afflicted by disease, and infirm, then to require some other white man to make adequate provision for his support without pay or reward, and, if he fails so to do, punish him by fine not exceeding fifty dol lars; or, should the county court provide for his maintenance, the court to have the power to force some citizen of the county to foot the bill quarterly or annually, as the court now has the power to do in regard to slaves. We have passed a bill whieh met with my entire approbation, and received my vote, which reads as fol lows : "§ 1. That if any slave shall hereafter voluntarily quit the ser vice of his or her owner, such owner shall not be compelled to pay for boarding, clothing, medical attendance, or other necessary assistance rendered such slave while so absent." That provision fully protects the interest and rights of the owner against ruinous charges that might be brought against him for a vicious, worth less runaway slave, from whose labors he cannot reasonably hope to ever derive any benefit; while the bill under consideration makes the owner an insurance office for the slave to draw his sup port and maintenance from, when he finds it impossible to provide a comfortable support and maintenance for himself; or, in other words, in effect it makesh im an heir at law of the estate of the owner, to the exclusion of all other heirs. I have no doubt the bill under consideration may be so amended and properly guarded as to protect the interest of the owner; and I desire that it be done, if practicable. Mr. Speaker, I enter my solemn protest against the third sec tion of the bill. Gentlemen who have preceded me in the argu ment on the opposite side concede that the institution of slavery is greatly demoralized, and they introduce this bill to remedy the evil that now exists, and to prevent the further demoralization of the institution. The patrol law of this Commonwealth is no modern law; it is coexistent with the Commonwealth, and was made by our fathers for the express purpose of preventing the demoralization of the institution of slavery. It has to an eminent degree answered the purposes for which it was made and intended; it has always had, and still has, a powerful restraining influence over the conduct of the slave ; and wherever a well- regulated patrol has been kept in existence, there you will find the institution the least demoralized. The slave will be found more quiet and submissive, and the master disposed to treat him with greater consideration and care. Both the whites and the blacks have been greatly benefited under its provisions. The Senator from Christian says the law is a dead letter upon the statute book; that it has ceased to be operative. If such is the fact, why does he desire its repeal? If his arguments be true, it is powerless for good or evil. But he says he always abhorred the law; thought it unwise and oppressive, and should never have disgraced the statutes. We have patrol laws upon our statutes to keep the white man in subjection to the law. Every city in the Union has its police regulations; their streets are patroled by day and by night. The Senator has never raised any objection that I have heard against those laws as unwise and oppressive. Why should he object to a patrol law to control and keep in subjection the negro, when he makes no objection to patrol laws to control and commit to prison white men for disorderly conduct? If the amendment I have proposed to the bill under consid eration is adopted, we all may be accommodated in our views upon the subject, and those who think the patrol law has a demoralizing influence, when enforced in their counties, can ask their county courts not to enforce the same. The law is not im perative on the courts. If the public peace and good order of society require it, then it is the duty of the court to appoint patrols and enforce the law. Such has always been the construc tion of the law, although the venerable Senator from Mason, for whom I entertain the highest respect, seems to entertain a differ ent opinion. By the fourth section of the bill under consideration you allow the owner to turn loose upon society his vicious and worthless slave, and by the third section you propose to take from society the only safeguard they have to protect them against such popu lation. I came here to legislate for the white man and to promote his interest, so far as possible by legislation, and will take no step that does not, in my judgment, to some extent, at least, accomplish that object. The patrol law is not a dead letter upon the statute book, as contended by Senators. I remember that, in 1861, the people in my county were threatened by a slave insur rection ; or, at least, they were much alarmed by reports of that character. Some of the whites were so much frightened that they left their dwellings and fled to the woods. The county court was convened; patrols were appointed under the provisions of the law you now propose to repeal; the people at once felt secure; peace and order were immediately restored. Such was the efficacy of the law in my part of the State. And if this Senate passes the bill repealing it, I will respectfully ask that the coun ties composing the district that I have the honor to represent be relieved from the operation of the bill. Mr. Speaker, as I have before remarked, this debate has taken a wide range. Those Senators who have so ably presented their arguments in opjiosition to my amendment, and in support of the bill, have thrust into the debate the policy of the present Admin istration in prosecuting the war for the suppression of the rebel lion. The venerable Senator from Mason refers us to the acts ofthe Administration, and urges those policies and acts of the Adminis tration in his argument as a reason why we should support the bill under consideration. And I must confess that I was greatly sur prised to learn from him what would be the fate of Kentucky and her people unless they repudiated all their conscientious political convictions, and become converts to the political views and policies of the Administration. He tells us that we need not expect pro tection by the Federal Government against invasion or domestic violence; that Kentucky will be given up to the ravages of guer rillas; and if they do not devastate it, the Administration will; that our property may be confiscated, and our citizens incarcerated in prisons, unless they will adapt themselves to the policy and measures of the Administration. The Constitution ofthe United States, article 4, section 4, says: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature, or ofthe Executive, when the Legislature cannot be convened, against do mestic violence." The constitutional provision referred to is too plain to be misunderstood. Kentucky is as much a State in the Union as Ohio or Indiana. The Constitution requires the United 6 States to protect her against invasion; it is the imperative duty of the Chief Executive to give the protection ; but the Senator from Mason says he will not do so, but will violate this plain provision of the Constitution ; refuse protection to the State; and if we do not submissively bow to the will of the Administration, and indorse its political policies, the Executive will use the power given him to protect us for our destruction and the devastation of our State! It is his sworn duty to protect us against domestic violence when called on by the Legislature, or the Executive ofthe State, when the Legislature cannot be convened This Legislature has sent a commission to Washington to make application to the Pres ident of the United States to protect the people of Kentucky against domestic violence; but the Senator now informs us that ' such a commission will prove fruitless, unless the people of our State are prepared to sell the dearest rights of a freeman. Our citizens are to be murdered; their dwellings to be consumed by the torch of the guerrilla; our property to be destroyed and State devastated by these marauding bands, unless the people of Ken tucky will all turn knaves and shout for the abolition policies of the Administration. The President of the United States has taken a solemn oath to "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and, to the best of his ability, preserve, pro tect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Does the honorable Senator believe the President is going to disregard his oath in order to wreak vengeance on a people be cause they happen to differ with him as to how the Government should be administered? Such is clearly the inference drawn from his argument. I think it a poor compliment indeed to the President of a great nation. I hope and expect better things of the President ofthe United States. The venerable Senator seems to desire to be the friend of the President; but I think if he had been present and listened to his argument in his behalf, he would have exclaimed, "God save me from my friends!" The people of Kentucky are as loyal to the Government of the United States as any people that live. They have freely given their money to sup port the Government in the prosecution of the war for the sup pression of the rebellion; her sons have poured out their blood like water upon every battle-field, from the inception ofthe rebel lion to the present time, in defense of the flag of our fathers and for the perpetuity of the Government made by Washington and his compeers. They are fighting to preserve a government — not to make one. But we are told that, notwithstanding the great sacrifices made and devotion to the Government by our people, the only reward we are to receive is the confiscation of our prop erty and the final devastation of our State, unless we control our domestic institutions according to the dictation ofthe powers that be. If such is to be the policy of the Administration, I would exclaim, "God save the Eepublic! This is the end of a republi can form of government, and we have a military despotism at last. Sir, I am one who believes that the Constitution of the United States guarantees to each Slate the right to control its own domestic institutions in its own way. The Constitution provides that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Con stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to tho people." I presume no Senator will contend that the power to control the domestic institutions of a State was ever delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The power exists some where; and if it be conceded that it does not exist in the United States, aud is not prohibited by the Constitution to the States, then it is reserved to the States respectively or to the people. Neither the Congress ofthe United States nor the President have any constitutional right to interfere or dictate to the States what shall be or what shall not be the character of the local institu tions of a State. Yet it has been intimated that this Administra tion would, by proclamation or otherwise, extirpate the institu tion of slavery in this State, unless this Legislature initiated measures for the abolition of the institution. If such authority as that is to be exercised by the Administra tion, then State lines and State Constitutions had as well be oblit erated and abolished, and let us declare for a centralized govern ment. Let us tell the gallant armies now in the field that you are not fighing to preserve the government of your fathers, but to destroy it, and build up a new one upon its ruins. Let us pro claim it upon the hill -tops and in the valleys to our people; let us no longer deceive them as to our objects. But I declare here, as I have elsewhere, that I am for the old Government. It is good enough for me. I am for it uncondition ally, and have been from the inception of the rebellion to the present time. I am for it without an "if" or a "but" — slavery or no slavery. If slavery should stand in the way of restoring this glorious Government of ours, I would say let it go; if it shall perish incidentally in the prosecution of the war, be it so. Mr. Speaker, I am not one of those who believe that it was necessary to make war upon the institution of slavery in the States for the purpose of crushing out the rebellion. I never thought the operation of freeing a negro in any manner whipped a rebel or compelled him to submit to the Constitution and laws of the land; but my impression is, and has been, that such policies have intensified the rebellion, and the effect has been to perpetuate the war. The anti-slavery policy of this Administration has been a firebrand thrown into the loyal States; it has distracted and divided our friends, and consolidated and united the people in the seceded States. I have opposed those abolition measures, because I believed they were injurious to the Union cause. I opposed the re-election of Mr. Lincoln, because I thought the policy enunciated in the Baltimore platform would prove disastrous to the interest of the Union. It indorsed the policy of Mr. Lincoln upon the slavery question, which I had always repudiated. Mr. Lincoln had issued his proclamation as follows: "Any proposition that embraces the restoration of peace, the integrity of the Union, and 8 the abandonment of slavery, and comes by and with an authority that can control the armies now at war with the United States, will be received and considered by the Executive Government ofthe United States, and will be met by liberal terms on substantial and collateral points." I , I was disposed to listen to any terms of peace that embraced the restoration of the Union that might come from the authorities at Eichmond. I was willing to have j>eace upon the basis of the Union and the Constitution, whether slavery was abandoned or not. If those in rebellion against the Government would willing ly return to the Union, submit to the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, I felt disposed to stop this bloody and fratricidal war. I would not make the abandonment of slavery one of the conditions of peace — one of the conditions of restoring the Union. As I before remarked, I am for the Union uncon ditionally, whether slavery is perpetuated or whether it is destroy ed. If the proclamation of the President I have just read means anything, it means that if slavery is not abandoned we are to have no peace — we are to have no Union except upon that condition; or, in other words, "no Union with slave States " was the oft-re peated declarations of the leaders of the Abolition party that supported Mr. Lincoln. They were not true Unionists — they were conditional Unionists — for the Union upon condition that slavery was abandoned ; and if slavery could not be extirpated by the force of arms, what were those gentlemen for? Of course, if they would not live in a Union with slave States, and they failed to abolish it under the policies of Mr. Lincoln, then they are for separation, for recognizing the independence of the Southern Confederacy, and for a Union composed exclusively of free States. They are determined, as they say themselves, to' have no other kind of Union. The third resolution of the platform made at Baltimore, and which Mr. Lincoln indorsed, merely reiterates the same policies that were enunciated in his proclamation, " To whom it may con cern;" which resolution reads as follows: "That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes the strength of this rebellion, and as it must be always and everywhere hostile to the principles of republican government, justice and the national safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the' soil of the Eepublic, and that we uphold and maintain the acts and proclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed a death-blow at this gigantic evil. We are in favor, furthermore, of such an amendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in con formity with its provisions, as shall terminate and forever pro hibit the existence of slavery within the limits or the jurisdiction of the United States." I could not indorse the policies enunciated in this resolution. I think the premises false. I do not think that slavery must be always and everywhere hostile to the principles of a republican Government. Our Government has prospered without a parallel with the institution. God has placed a mark upon the negro that 9 all the legislation in the world cannot efface; and, in my judg ment, as long as the mark exists, the poor African will be bound to submit to some species of slavery; and I believe one of the greatest calamities that will befall the negro race will be the im mediate and sudden emancipation of the slave by amending the United States Constitution — a calamity to both white and black — neither are prepared for the sudden transition. Emancipation should be gradual, if possible. I cannot see how such a policy is to crush out the rebellion and restore peace upon the basis of the Union and the Constitution. But, Mr. Speaker, I do see how peace may be restored upon such a basis under the policies proclaimed by that distinguished soldier, patriot, and statesman, George B. McClellan, whom I had the honor to support in the last political contest for the Presidency. He says in his letter of acceptance: " The Union was originally form ed by the existence of a spirit of conciliation and compromise. To restore and preserve it, the same spirit must prevail in our councils and in the hearts of the people. The re-establishment of the Union in all its interests must continue to be the indis pensable condition in any settlement." The Union, says McClel lan, "must be preserved at all hazards; " "the Union is the only condition of peace; we ask no more. Let me add, what I doubt not was, although unexpressed, the sentiment of the Convention, as it is of the people they represent, that when any one State is willing to return to the Union, it should be met at once with a full guarantee of all its constitutional rights." Those sentiments 1 indorse; they come from an unconditional Union man. But how do they compare with the proclamation of Mr. Lincoln, "To whom it may concern?" Abandonment of slavery is the condition of peace. They ask no more. . They will not allow the States to return to the Union with a full guarantee of their constitutional rights. Under the abolition policy they must divest themselves of all such rights ; they must abandon the right to control their domestic institutions in their own way. One tenth of the people have a right to make and unmake constitutions and laws for nine tenths, under the potent power of the bayonet. The latter policy may prevail, and I think in all probability will; but it will be at an immense sacrifice of blood and. treasure. I believe that if General McClellan had been elected to the Presidency, he would have proclaimed to the rebels in arms that when any one State is willing to return to the Union, it shall be met at once with a full guarantee of all its constitutional rights ; and my deliberate judgment is, that, under the influence of such a proclamation, State after State would have returned, until the whole galaxy would have again been under the protection of the flag of our fathers, and that, too, in a remarkably short space of time. Our country would have been united, prosperous, and happy, and an immense sacrifice of blood and treasure thereby avoided. Such were the motives that induced me to support General McClellan. "No compromise with rebels in arms "was the war-cry of the abolitionists. Such was the explicit declaration 10 of the Baltimore platform. I thought then, and I think now, that such declaration was unwise, and indicated great want of statesmanship. I would at all times be willing and ready to com promise with rebels in arms upon the basis of the Constitution and the Union; or, in other words, I would march on to do battle against those in arms against the Government with the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other. I hope the policies enunciated in the Baltimore platform will not be adhered to by the Administration. I believe Mr. Lincoln will pursue a different line of policy when he sees his country demands it. I think I already see a disposition to relent on the part of the President. He is beginning to think about compro mising with rebels in arms, if we can put any credence in the newspaper reports; but should he inflexibly pursue the line of policy that he has committed himself to in the Baltimore platform, then I fear that the prophesies of Kentucky's great statesman, Mr. Clay, will be too true, when he said, "With abolitionists the right of property is nothing ; the deficiency of the power of the General Government is nothing; a civil war, a dissolution of the Union, and an overthrow of the Government in which are concen trated the hopes of a civilized world, are nothing ; he must be •blind to what is passing before us who does not perceive that the inevitable tendency of their proceedings is to invoke, finally, the potent power of the bayonet." Or those of the great constitu tional expounder, Mr. Webster, when he prophesied as follows : " If the infernal fanatics and abolitionists ever get the power in. their hands, they will override the Constitution, set the Supreme Court at defiance, change and make laws to suit themselves, lay violent hands on those who differ with them in their opinions or dare question their infallibility, and finally bankrupt the country and deluge it with blood." Or the great warrior, patriot, and statesman of Tennessee, General Jackson, when he spoke in regard to the abolitionists of the country as follows: "The party is a disloyal organization. Its pretended love of freedom means nothing more nor less than a dissolution of the Union. Honest men of all parties should unite to expose their intentions and arrest their progress." Thus spoke the three great statesmen of America in regard to fanaticism and abolitionists. How much of these prophesies have been fulfilled the people of this nation now bear witness. How much more isto come to pass yet lies in the dim future; but it is to be hoped that fanaticism will no longer rule in the councils of the nation; that a national conservative course may yet prevail, and that constitutional liberty may be perpetuated. *"' Mr. Speaker, I now desire to pay my respects to the honorable Senator from Kenton, who, upon every occasion that an opportu nity offers, obtrudes upon the Senate his political views, and takes other honorable Senators to task for having, as he says, gone off after strange gods, and have abandoned their former political sen timents and principles. But he magnanimously proclaims that the door of his political church is open, and that we will be wel- 11 corned back to full political fellowship whenever we will abandon our present society and friends. He announces, as also does tho honorable Senators from Campbell and Christian, that they are in full fellowship with the abolition party of the country; that they supported the Baltimore platform and the Baltimore nominees, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Johnson; that they are now for striking the shackles from every slave in the universe; they are for amending the Constitution of the United States, making it illegal to hold slaves. Such are the present policies and views, as announced by those gentlemen upon this floor, and they undertake to castigate other Senators as well as myself for having gone off and left them — abandoned their party. Sir, I propose to look at the record, and see who has gone off — who has, changed. Let the record speak. I find in the Senate Journal of September, 1861, pages 339-40, the following : Resolved, That the existing civil war, forced upon the National Government with out cause by the disunionists, should not be waged upon the part of the Government in any spirit of oppression or for any purpose of conquest or subjugation or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of any of the States, free or slave, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpaired ; and that, as soon as these objects are accomplished, the war ought to cease. Resolved, That we have learned, with amazement, that the authorities of the Con federate States have armed negroes and Indians to wage war upon our Government and people, and utterly condemn it, and that we would deplore and protest against our National Government following their example, and arming slaves to be used as soldiers to fight in the existing war ; and we cannot believe that the National Execu tive entertains any such purpose. I find that the Senators from Campbell and Kenton voted for those resolutions. I would ask the Senators if they think the National Executive entertains any such- purpose now? I would ask them if they are still for those resolutions, or have they gone off after strange gods ? I find on page 341, same Journal, the fol lowing resolution, which was supported by the Senators from Kenton and Campbell, and was added to the series : That in his modification of Fremont's proclamation, and of Secretary Cameron's report, the President of the United States has given earnest and gratifying evidence of his purpose to administer the Government under the sanctions of the Constitu tion, and for his faithfulness under the circumstances he is entitled to, and should receive, the thanks of every loyal-hearted man in the State and nation ; and that we most respectfully request the President of the United States to dispense with the services of Mr. Cameron as a member of his Cabinet. The honorable Senators petitioned the President to turn one of the members of his Cabinet out of office because he was in favor of universal emancipation or abolishing slavery by proclamation. I would again inquire of those Senators if they still entertain the opinions they did then, or have they changed? Again, I find on page 903, February, Journal of 1862, a resolu tion which was introduced by the honorable Senator from Ken ton, and reads as follows: What Kentucky was willing to do for the preservation of the Union, the rights o* the States, she said on a former occasion ; what her sons have done in the face of the 12 foe is known to the world ; what her brave soldiers will do for the same purpose time will determine. To her former declarations she now adds this : Resolved, * * * That Kentucky will not inaugurate nor accept emancipation, compensated or otherwise ; that she will neither ask her sister slave States to submit to such apolicy, nor aid in forcing it upon them. I would again appeal to the honorable Senator to know if it is possible that he has changed, or does he still stand by those reso lutions? They are not consistent with the Baltimore platform nor with the policies he now announces. He now proclaims for universal abolition, whether compensated or otherwise, but pre fers the "otherwise." I find, upon the subject of furnishing men and money to prosecute the war and preserve the Government, a resolution on page 23, Senate Journal, May session, 1861, which was introduced by the honorable Senator from Kenton (Mr. Fisk), and reads as follows : Resolved, * * * That this State and the citizens thereof should take no part in the civil war now being waged, except as mediators and friends io the belligerent parties, and that Kentucky should, during the contest, occupy the position of strict neutrality. Resolved j urther, That the act of the Clover nor, in refusing to furnish troops or mili tary force upon the call of the Executive authority of the United States, under exist ing circumstances, is approved. On page 79, same Journal, I find the Senator introduced another series of the same import. The Senator had not then been worked up to the fighting pitch. He was for arresting the shedding of fraternal blood with fraternal hands. He desired Kentucky to occupy that position, and was willing that she should go before the civilized world and let her conduct pass into history. What has come over the dreams of the Senator ? He is now for blood— fraternal blood; war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt; he is for no mediation, "no compromise with rebels in arms." But I must stop to inquire again if he has changed? But, Mr. Speaker, the Senator from Kenton says the conserva tive members of this body have changed, and left their old politi cal landmarks. I say again, let the record speak. In the spring of 1863 the Union men of Kentucky met in convention at Louis ville, made a platform embodying their principles and policies, and nominated their candidates for Governor and Lieutenant Gov ernor. The platform was supported by tbe Senators from Kenton, Campbell, and, I think, by the Senator from 'Christian. It in dorsed the whole series of resolutions upon the subject of Federal Eelations adopted by the General Assembly of that year, each of which series was voted for and approved by the Senator from Campbell and the Senator from Kenton. The 4th of the series reads as follows: Resolved, That this General Assembly now, in the exercise of its rights to differ in opinion with the National Executive, enters its solemn protest against the proclama tion of the President of the United States, dated 1st of January, 1863, by which he assumes to emancipate all slaves within certain States, holding the same to be unwise, unconstitutional, and void. The 9th resolution of the series reads as follows: That this General Assembly hails with pleasurable hope the recent manifestations of conservative sentiment among the people of the non-slaveholding States in their late elections, and regard the same as an earnest of a good purpose on their part to 13 co-operate with all other loyal citizens, give security to the rights of every section, and maintain the Union and the Constitution as they were ordained by the founders of the Republic. The Northern States had succeeded in carrying the elections for the Democracy, and had thereby repudiated the radical poli cies of the Administration. The Senators from Kenton and Campbell "hailed" those elections "with a pleasurable hope." It was a manifestation of a conservative sentiment in tho North; the whole Conservative Union party of Kentucky rejoiced at the result. Do those Senators stand to-day where they did then? I imagine not. Does the Conservative Union party of Kentucky stand there to-day ? Yes; it has not changed. It still clings to its conservative policies as a last and lingering hope for the resto ration of their bleeding and distracted country. The Senator from Kenton now denounces that conservative party in the Northern States. He took occasion to read an article, copied from the Eichmond Enquirer, the other day, to prove that they had for their object the aiding of the Sotithern Confederacy in establishing its independence. If the Eichmond Enquirer is good proof for him it certainly is for me. I am disposed to intro duce his witness, and he certainly will not be allowed to contra dict or impeach his own witness. I read from the Eichmond Enquirer, September 5th. It says: "Now, between McClellan and Lincoln there are many points of difference. The former is a man of talents, of information, of firmness, and great mil- tary experience and ability. The latter is a supple, pliant, easy fool ; a good but vulgar joker. While McClellan has the interest of the Union only at heart, Mr. Lincoln has the fanatical object of freeing negroes for his inspiration. Between 'my plan,' as General Grant has conducted it, and the one by General McClel lan, there could not have been the same success that has already attended our arms, for we lost more men fighting the science of McClellan on the Peninsula than we have in repelling the furious but ill-conducted assaults of General Grant. Thus, whether we look at the nomination in the light of peace or war, we prefer Lincoln to McClellan. We can make better terms of peace with an anti-slavery fanatic than with an earnest Unionist. We can gain more military success in a war conducted on 'my plan' than one of a real soldier like McClellan, and sooner destroy the resources and strength of our enemy, where they are managed and manipulated by those light-fingered gentry, Messrs. Chase and Fessenden, than when husbanded and skillfully controlled by such a man as Guthrie. Our best hope is from the honest fanat ics of the United States, men who believe in their hearts that 'slavery is the sum of all villainies,' and who really and sincerely believe it to be their duty to separate their country from this relic of barbarism. Such men, when they find that their people are tired of the war, will end it by a peace that sacrifices territory to freedom, and will let the South go, provided she carries slavery with her. These men believe no less that the just powers of gov ernment are derived from the consent of the governed than 'that 14 all men are created free and equal.' The two postulates are of like importance to an abolitionist. Both the abolitionist and the Democrat is our enemy. The one because we have slaves, the other because we are disunionists. Nor does their enmity differ in degree; they both hate us most intensely. The Chicago plat form is, that peace may be restored on the basis of the Federal Union of the States." Now, Mr. Speaker, I have proven by his own witness that the party to which the Senator is attached is a conditional Union party, willing to let the South go so soon as they are convinced that they cannot abolish slavery by the force of arms; that the rebels in arms preferred Mr. Lincoln's election to that of General McClellan, because they had more to expect and hope for under his administration than McClellan — more certain to gain- their independence and destroy the Government, when in the hands of such light-fingered gentry as Chase and Fessenden, than when the resources of the Government are husbanded by such a man as Guthrie. With such lights as these before me, and I being an unconditional Union man, how could I do otherwise than vote for Little Mac? How could I fail to vote for Mr. Guthrie for United States Senator, though I must confess I disliked the idea of voting against the patriotic and gallant Eousseau. He deserves well of his country. He can yet do his country great service in the field, and Guthrie can best serve us in the councils of the nation. I will examine the record a little further to see who has changed their political status. The conservative Union men of this Legis lature, at its last session, adopted resolutions as follows: That we regard as impolitic the enlistment of negroes as soldiers into the armies of the United States, and we earnestly protest against their enlistment within the State of Kentucky, and we respectfully request the President of the United States to remove from our limits and borders all camps for negro soldiers by which our slaves are enticed to leave the service of their owners. That the inaugural address and message of Governor Bramlette to the present General Assembly, so far as the same treats of our federal relations, reflects truly the sentiments of the Union people of Kentucky, are approved by the present General Assembly, and are recommended to the patriotic consideration of the American people. The Senator from Kenton and the Senator from Campbell voted for the adoption of the foregoing resolutions, in conjunction with the conservative members of the Legislature, including myself. The Governor's message had paragraphs which read as follows: On the other hand, the Northern accomplices in this work of destruction appro priate this ill-advised issue as the work of their patriotism ; they gloat over the miseries and sufferings of the South, as if they were avenging angels ; they thank God that they are not as their Southern brethren, and swell with magnitude of their char ities as they devote the property of others to sacrifice. * * * Southern ambition strikes at the national sovereignty of the people, and Northern fanaticism at the sovereignty which, by national fiat, is reserved to them within the State ; each would form anew and different Government. The truly loyal man is struggling to maintain a government, not to make one . Thus spoke the Union party through their representatives less than a year ago. The honorable Senators from Kenton and Campbell indorsed those sentiments by their votes and speeches. They aoted and co-operated with the conservative members on this 15 floor upon all those resolutions. They have since turned their political coats — now repudiate all they did and said then. And the Senator from Kenton has the audacity to rise in his place and undertake to castigate the conservative members on this floor for having changed their political status. I will leave the public to judge who has changed from the record presented. Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat amused at the lecture the Senator from Campbell saw proper to deliver to the conservative members here, for standing neutral upon the great issues that was present ing themselves for our consideration. I thought I had done some little service for my country. I had responded to the call for volunteers made by the President in 1862; assisted in raising a regiment, and fought the rebels as long as I could see to fight them — my eyes becoming dim from wounds received in battle. Since my return from the army I have assisted in recruiting soldiers and putting them into the field, and the last thing I did before I left my home was to assist in inaugurating a system of recruiting for the Federal army. But Mr. Lincoln called for volunteers in 1862. The Senator from Campbell came not. He stood neutral. Mr. Lincoln called time and again in 1863. The Senator was deaf to the call, and stood neutral. Again he has called in 1864. The Senator is still neutral. I would advise the Senator to break off from his neutrality before he undertakes to lecture others upon the subject. He declares he is for the universal abolition of slavery, and in the same breath denies being an abolitionist; so does the Senator from Christian. 1 do not understand the force of such arguments. I don't understand how a man can be for and against a proposition of that sort at the same time, unless the declaration for is made and intended to be heard at Washington, in Massachusetts, Ohio, or for the Cincinnati Gazette, and the declaration against is intended for their constituents and the peo ple of Kentucky. I fear their constituents may be at a loss to know what those Senators are really for. I understand that Mr. Lincoln said in conversation a few days ago, that those friends in Kentucky who gave him their support were not all the most reliable Union men in that State. He was afraid that some were influenced more by political and mercenary motives than any other consideration. But I disclaim any allusions to the Senators referred to, as they are both honest and patriotic gentlemen, and I have no doubt pursued their political course from the most patriotic motives. The Senator from Campbell disdains and spurns the idea of negroes ever becoming politically or socially equal with the white man. I remember an occurrence which took place last summer with one of my constituents, who had always been an abolitionist, and in favor of abolishing slavery long before the war. He was unfortunately drafted last summer. He con cluded that he ought to serve his country in person, and therefore reported himself to the Provost Marshal's office in Covington for duty. He was at once placed under a negro guard and marched to the barracks, and was there kept under a negro guard for sev eral days. He communicated with his friends upon the subject, 16 and desired that they should obtain for him a substitute, which was done as speedily as possible. He returned home, and the Senator, with all his powers of argument and eloquence, could not make that man believe but what those negro guards were not only his equals, but greatly his superiors. It was a complete antidote for his abolition notions. He now stands with the con servative party ofthe State; and, should the Senator from Camp bell continue to stand neutral, and be caught by the next draft and served as my constituent was, I shall expect to hear that he has come to the same conclusion that my friend did. Mr. Speaker, the conservative Union men of the State haye not changed their views upon the mode and manner of prosecuting this war. They are for its prosecution until the rebellion is sup pressed and the Union of the States again consummated, and the Constitution and laws enforced over every inch of our territory. They desire that our national emblem shall in triumph wave in every State in the Union. Sir, I have followed that flag in prosperity and through ad versity. I have followed it --in a distant clime, and one of the proudest days of my life was when I saw that flag triumphantly wave over the plains of Buena Vista; but as proud a day as that seemed to be, I hope and expect to live to see a still prouder day. I hope soon to see the stars and stripes triumphantly unfurled over the capital of every State in the Southern Confederacy. I thank the Senate for its patient indulgence. \