.-2 - 33
R E M A R K S
OF
HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, OF ILLINOIS,
On seizure of Arsenals at Ilarpeer's Ferry, Va., and Liberty, MIo., and
in vindication of the Republican Party and its Creed, in response
to Senators Chesnut, Yulee, Saulsbury, Clay, and Pugh.
Delivered in the United States Senate, December 6, 7, and 8, 1859.
twenty individuals, out of more than twenty mil lions of people, is to be permitted, in his own
way; and in defiance of the laws of the land, to
undertake to correct those evils, there is not a
Government upon the face of the earth that could
last a day. And it seems to me, sir, that those
persons who reason only from abstract princi ples, and believe themselves justifiable on all
occasions, and in every form, in combating evil
wherever it exists, forget that the right which
they claim for themselves exists equally in every
o. other person.  All Governments, the best which
have been devised, encroach necessarily more fir
less on the  individual rights of  man, and to    that
extent may be regarded as evils.   Shall we
therefore destroy government, and in place of
regulated  and constitutional liberty inaugurate
a stat e  o f an archy, i n which    e very man shall be
permitted to follow the instincts of his own passions or prejudices, and where there will be no
protection to the physically weak against the
encroachments of the strong?  Till we are prepared to inaugurate such a state as this, no man
can justify the de eds  don      e           at Harper's Ferry.
In regard to the   misguided man who led    the
insurgents on that occasion, I have no remarks
to make. He has already expiated upon the gallows the crime which he committed against  the
laws of his country; and to answer for his errors
or his virtues, whatever they may have been, he
has gone fearlessly and willingly before that
Judge who cannot err; there let us leave him.
The amendment which I propose to offer to
the resolution which is pending, and in which,
I trust, I may have the support of every Senator,
provides for the'investigation of a like transaction which occurred in the State of Missouri. I
will briefly state what that transaction was, as
it may not be fresh in the recollection of Senators.
The Government of the United States had an i:,;f
arsenal at the town of Liberty, in the State ol.''i.
Missouri, of which Captain Leonard bad charge,.  a.
In December, 1855-and the facts which I state
appear upon the official records of the countryCaptain Leonard testifies that a Judge Thompson, in company with a large numbger of others,
appeared at the arsenal, overpowered him, co)nfined him, broke open the magazines, supplied ~
DECEMBER 6, 1859.
-   The  Senate having  under consideration the
following  resolution, offered by  Mr.  MAsoN, of
Virgi-.ia:
Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into
the facts attending the late invasion and seizure of the ar mory and arsenlal of the United States at Harper's Ferry
in Virginia, by a band of armed men, and report             whether
'he same was attended by armed -restance to the authori,ics and public force of the United States, and by the mur der ot any of the citizens of Virginia, or of any troops sent
there to protect tile public proper ty, whether such invasion
and seizure was made under  col or of any organization in )ended to subvert the Government of any or the States of the
Union  what wAs the character and e:kW    f-mchorganl tation  and whether any citizens of the United States, not
present, were  ilmplicated therein or accessory thereto, by
contributions of money, arms, munitions, or otherwis       e;
what was the character and ex tent of the military equip ment in the hands or tinder the control of saidl armed band,
and whtore anu how  and oanhen the same was obtained and
transpo. ted to the place so invaded.  And that said commit tee rep;rt whether a ntiy an( what legislation may, inl their
opinion, be necessary, on                                                                   her the part of the United States, for
the future preservation of the peace of the country, or for
the safety of the public property; and that said committee
have poster to send for persons and papers.
Mr. TRUMIBULL said:
Mr. t'resident, when that resolution was offered yesterday, I stated  that I would move  an
amendment  to it when  it should come  up  for
consideration;  but, before  proceeding  to offer
the amendment, I will state that the resolution,
as offered by t]c Senator from Virginia, will receive my support.  If any other persons than the
twenty-two whose names are known to the country are implicated in, or in any way accessory to,
the seizure of Harper's Ferry, and thefturder of
the  citizens of Virginia, let us ascertain  who
they are, and let them  be held responsible for
their acts.          -
I hope    this                               investigation will be thorough  and
complete.   I believe  it will do good by'disabusing the public mind, in that portion of the Union
which  feels  most  sensitively  upon  this  sub;ect, of the idea that the outbreak at Harper's
Ferry receive, any countenance or support from
any considerable number of persons in any portion of this Union.  No man who is not prepared
to subvert the Constitution, destroy the Government, and resolve society into its original elements, can justify such an act.   No matter what
evils  eithei real or imaginary, may exist in the
body politic. if each individual, or every  set of
I..
/7,i7 
2
Perhaps the latter would never have occurred if
inquiry had been made, and the proper steps had
j been taken when  the  cry for succor  came front
Kansas, and her citizens were  murdered by the
very arms taken from  this arsenal  or at  any
rate by persons in the  same army   vith them.
Then the complaints that were made were treated
as  the  "shrieks of bleeding Kansas," and they
could  not  be  heard.    I trulst they  may  get
a  better  hearing  now.    Now.  sir, when  the
shrieks of Virginia are heard, and the ears of
the  c ountry ar e opened, I truist those from Koan. sas may get a hearing also. I am prepared to
h ear  both; and I hope that   the  investigation in
regard to   Harper's Ferry      may be  impartial,
thorough, and complete, and let w ho e     ver is im plicated in the unlawful transactions there be
held responsible; and so, too, in regard to the
seizure of the arsenal in the State of MissourL
I offer the following amendment:
After the word 1' invaded," near the end of the resolution
insert:
And that said committee also inquire into the facts attend.
ing the invasion, seizure, and ro'6berv, ill l)cceniber,  S i,
ot the arsenal of the Unitecd States, at Liberty, ill the State of
Missouri, by a mob or body of armed  menoii, and rcport
whether such seizure and robbery was  attended by resist ance to the atttlhorities of the ULnited States, a!n i ollowed by
an invasion of the Territory of Kansas, and the plunder and
murder of any of its inhabitants, or of any cilizeui of the
United States, by the persons who thus seized the arms acid
ammunition of the Govcrnment, or others combined w:ithi
them, whether said seizure and robbery of the atrseniial were
made under color of any organization intenddc tat subver-t
the Governiment of any of the States or Territories of the
Union; what was the character and extent of sclh or-ganiza tloto, and whether any citizens of the United States, not p3res eiut, were imiplicated therein, or accessory  theretto, by  (;on tribtitionis of money, arms, ammuniition, or otherwise; what
w,vas the character and extent of the military equipments in
the lhands or under the control of said tnol), arnd  how and
when and where the same were subsequently used l)y said
mob; what was the value of the arms.anl atommititio.n of
evcry  description so taken from the saidl ai-scnat! by the
mob; whether the same or alny part thereof lha,vC been rc turned, and the value of such as were lost; - whether Citpl in
Luther Leotnard, the United States officer ill comnmanid of{ii
arsenal, commutiicateq the fa(c-ts in relation to its seizture a d
robbery to his superior officer, alnd what iicasur,s, if at
were taken in reference thereto.
D~~r~IUER 7, 1859.
Mlr. PUGIH, of  Oliio, h,aving made an appevq
to iMr. TRUMfBULL to withdraw his amendment,
Mir. TRUMBULL said:
After what has been said, particularly by th';
Senator who last addressed the Senate, [~I~.
CHESSNUT,] in regard to the apprehension  that
something  may be drawn out  ia the course of
this in vestigation which may fasten the insurrec tion at Harper's Ferry upon the Republican party,
aud it appearing, also, by the statements of the
Senators from Virginia, that the object of this
resolution is to ascertain the public sentiment
of the North, I aml a little astonished that acey
person can ask me to withdraw  an amendment
which will lead also to tscertainin,g what the
sentiment of the South may be.
I have  been appealed to to state  why  this
amendment was offered. I wil! tell y ou, sip, an~d
it will be but a repetition of what I stated y es terday. I believe thes outbreak at lIarpcr's Ferry
has arisen, not from the teachings and the factss
of the Republican party, or any of its leadlers, or
anybody in its ranks, as the Senator from Southl
Carolina supposes, but from the teachlings of tale
party with which he himself is associated. Thec
themselves wi                       th cannon                            re, rifles, wsords, and pistol s, w   ith  p owd   er and ball,  and  took them               away
fromn the  arsenal.  This        was      foll owed by the invasion of a peaceful Territory; not twenty-two
persons only,  but more             than   a    thousand  me n,
marched into th nt e   adjoi inng Terri                       tory,    armed with
weapons ta ke n by violence from an                      arsenal of   the
Uni        ted Stat es, under   th e  cha rg e   of an  offic er o f
th     e  U nited State s,  with  the avowed  object  of
m aking that Territory a slaveholding State.   It
app          ears           that societies were formed-secret  organizations-reaching from Missouri into various  St ates,  a   ttd,   am ong others,   the State of Virgirt, ia,     w       hose object and design was by fbrce to
intxoduce Slavery into Kansas; and  to carry out
this object, these med.  seized upon  these  arms
and  mu                               nitions belonging  to the Government      of
the United States.   Captain  Leonard,  in his
state    me      n    t under   oa            th, says:
" The Judge a nd o the r        s t old me      there were troubles in
anicsas, and they wanted  a rms, but would do nothin              g wrong
owith them  I t the    I       td the Judge this was aggressive  on the
part of Miss ouri, a     nd every community was competent to
take care of its o   wn affairs, and  that   the Missourians ought
not to  interfere.  A          good deal mo            re was said on both sides,
and I felt indignant                               at the aggression. The Judge himself
did not s    a y an uncivil   word to me. I    had not expected any
such  thing       as this  when I first saw the Judge, or I could
have                   ha d the gates locked.
" The m      ob         p roceeded    to take arms, forcing     the doors, and
took       three six-pounders,  some swords, pistols, rifles, and
ammunition, powder, balls, &c., as much as    they wanted.
They broke some doors open. I do not know how they got
t        he keys  to g et  in to the powder magazine, which is          composed
of brick, and hadl  d    oubl e d oors. Capt ain Price was the leading man hin the crowd, as I understood.  ir. Rou twas            there.
I was kept in the room until the men had got all the arms
and ammun         it    ion they wanted, and had gone away, Judge
Tho0  pson   bein   g       the l ast one;  w hen h e  le t me go out, and
the        n          he l eft himself.
d" Some          six or eight day s a     fterwards, the guns were retur        ned to          the arsenal. They were left, I was told,        at Col.
Alleuls place, some three-quarters of a mile from thi iie arsenal. In t h e mean time, I   had reported the facts to Col. Stimner, and  he h   ad s   ent dow n  a  company  of dragoons.  The
men sen t         o   e to me to know if I would receive the arms, and I
toldto hem I               was not  in command, and referred        the m to
Captain Beall, and he told them  to bring                      them along; they
did so, an  d they were received. Among the pro    perty    taken
was   som   e  artillery harne ss. I cannot  recollect how many
iets. There were   som     e d eficiencies in  the  number  of rifles,
sw ords, and pistols, an d      t   an some    harness returned- but I cannot state  th  e p recise particulars. These deficiencies have
aever been made up by th e  citizens of  Missouri;      but I          have
been   instructed by Col. Craig, the head of              the ordnance deQartment at Washington, to  purchase sufficient of such artia,les         as I could obtain iof the neighb              orhood to make up the
d e        fic iencyd  i   tsrs, and  e did so; but       the swords, pistols, an rirles, we hav         e not been able   to make up. I do no     t know how
meuch has             been expended in making up ths deficiency. Im,nedliately after this robbery, I reported thie circumstances to
.Col. Craig, at Washington, specifying the number and amount
,f each of the different articles taken. In the course of the
,winter, he sent me orders to ship the public property to
Fort Leavenworth and St. Louis arsenal, iving me a shed ule of the amount to be taken to each prce, which I didl as
soon as navigation opened. "-H'oue Report Ho. 200, Thirtyfourtht Cong,-ess,.firstsession, pages 1130-1.
It seems that the arsenal at Liberty was bro ken up, and what remained of the arms were
shipped to other military posts. Now, sir, there
is a very striking similarity between the break-,
-ing into that arsenal and the attack upon the
one at H~arper's Ferry. The question of Slavery
* *had to do with both. The arsenal in Missouri
was broken into for the purpose of obtaining
arms to force Slavery upon Kansas; the arsenal
at lIarper's Ferry was taken possession of for the
purpose of expelling Slavery from the State of
Virginia.-. both unjustifiable, and, it seems to
me, both proper subjects to be inquired into.
I
i 
3
passed resolutions calling upon the President, or
upon the proper Department, and probably upon
both, for all the papers  and  correspondence ill
regard to these matters, but I have no recollec tion of having ever seen the official report of the
officer commanding at Liberty at the time  the
arsenal was taken possession of by this Missouri
mob.
Now, sir, as I am up, I will reply to some of
the statements of the Senator from South Caro lina. He says that he claims only that which
is the right of the  South-the right to take
slaves to the common Territories of the United
States. Sir, they have no such right. We do
not deny the equality of the States which hold
slaves. Ia am as much for maintaining  the  equal -
ity     of t he  States  of  the  Union      as the Senator
from South Carolina; but what on earth has the
introdnction of Slavery into a Territory to do
with the rights of any State, North or Sou'h?
Has any State, as a State, a right to take a slave
into a Territory? The Senator will not pretend
that. Then why talk about State rights? The
most that can be claimed is, that individuals residing in different States of the Union may take
their property, if it happens to be in slaves, into
the Territories. Well, that is not a State right;
it is an individual right, if it exists at all. We
do not propose to impose on the Senator from
South Carolina, or any of his constituents, an
inequality in that respect. If he cannot. take a
slave into the Territory of Kansas, neither can 1.
If the citizens of South Carolina cannot take
Slavery there, neither can the citizens of Illinois.
The rights of each State are precisely the same.
Now, you of the South are threatening to
dissolve the Union, and break up the Confederacy, because, as you charge, the Northern
people are assailants and aggressors on your
rights. Is the whole history of this country forgotten? How is it, that the moment this Government was formed,' one of the first acts of the
men who made it was to provide that Slarvery
should not go into the Territories belonging to
the United States? Is it possible that the men
who made this Government would, in the first
Congress that met under it, pass a law so unjust
to a portion of the States of the Union as to
justify their breaking it up? How was it that
South Carolina herself agreed to exclude Slavery from the State, then Territory, which I
have the honor, in part, to represent?
Sir, we lived under this policy; the great
Northwest was settled under this policy of excluding Slavery from the Territories of the United States; and how is it that neither South
Carolina nor Virginia found out that they were
not treated as equals in this Confederacy?
Why,  sir, at so late a period as 1848, when -a
Southern man was President of the United
States, Congress, by direct act, excluded Slavery
from Oregon. Now, can it be that there is.xny
such thing as inequality or inljustic e to an y
State of this Union in the exclusion of Sla:very
from a Territory? Will the Senator fronm South
Carolina do his ancestors the injustice to b~elicev
that they submitted to the degradation andl( dig~
honor, as he nowr calls it, of being excludedl fromh
the common Territories of the country? Sir,
the~y chose it~ not as a degradation, not as a dis
Democratic party, by upholding an   d nevel re buking    the     sack ing of  the ars enal in Missouri, by
reward ing with            offic e  the men who did it, by
send     ing  the Federal  troops, they having control
of the Government at the             time,              int       o Kansas, to
ho       ld  in confinement men               indicted upon trumped up   charges of                   treason, set an example           to the
country which  engendered the  spirit that mad dened Brow n.  I            need  not and                will not go over
the   h         istory of    that transaction,  which the SenatS
from Wisconsin has just detailed.  I offered  th                        e
ama   ndment in good faith, as being pert       in ent  to
the       origin    al  resolution, a s        properly connected
with it, as relating to a similar transaction.
But it is asked why    I did      not call for         this in vestigation five years ago.  Well, to begin with,
the  occurre nce was only     fou r  years s inc e. But
of w         hat use would      it have been for me   to have
moved in the Senate for a   committee  of  investigation?          Do es the Senator from             South Carolina
suppose  that           th e Senate  or  the country has forgotten how every th ing  relating to Kansas was
managed        here?   A  proposition  off ered in the
Senate              of the United States to inquire into these
matters    w     oul  d              have been scouted at  the time.  I
recollenct     t    that  I offered several            propositions in
order to remedy                             the difficulties in Kansas, not
on e  of wh   ich          received the sanction of              the Sena te. I        propo sed                             o   a to repea ldin the las abridging the
freedom of speech  in Kansas-laws which subjected a man to imprisonment for years who
should venture  to sa                 y th a t Slavery did not exist
in                               that       Territory. All my  propositions were
voted down.
There was a condition of things then existing
that would have made any effort in this body to
ra ise a             committee of     this kind    p    erfectly useless.
Now, however, a different feeling prevails. Another arsenal has been taken possession of. There
is     a  diff erence     betwee n th    e two cases.  I do not
understan      d      that                  the arms of the Government at
Harper's            Ferry were appropriate d to    the use  of
the insurg     ents, bu                          t in Missouri the public  arms
were carrin'f away, part have never been returned, and the officer in command  was directed to
supply       other    portion        s       by purchase, which he has
done.
I think that the two things properly go together, an        d that one should                   be inquired into as
much  as  the o      ther.  A s  g  reat   an            outrage was
committed four years ago, in taking possession
o    f          the  arsenal   at  Liberty, as wa s committed a
month or two ago, in taking possession of the
armor        y         at Harper's Ferry.  I appWlhend                 that
where hundred         s  of dollars worth of property
were des troyed    at Harper's Ferry,                   thousands
were destroyed in consequence of          t      he taking
possession of the arsenal at Liberty. I apprehend that where one life was lost in cornsequence
of the acts at Harper's Ferry, many lives were
l      ost in       consequence of  the taking possession of
the arsenal at Liberty and the events that followed it. Sir, it was with the arms which were
supplied from that arsenal that Lawrence was
besieged. The army that encamped at Wakasusa were armed with weapons from the United
States arsenal, to what extent I am unable to
gaff. I should like to see the official report that
was made to the War Department at the time
this transaction occurred. I recollect that we
I
t 
4
that " this will be oer programme; this will be
the course of action that we will pursue, and we
notify you in advance."  Now, sir, what is that
programme?   What have they announced to us
as the "irrepressible conflict?"  Does the Sen ator suppose that when the distinguished leader
of that party announced to the world that the
wheat-fields and the rye-fields of Massachusetts
and New York must ultimately be tilled by slave
ellbor, that he'meant  any such thing-that he
supposed for a moment  that that was to be the
result of this "irrepressible conflict?' No, sir;
but the other branch of the alternative-that the
sugar plantations  of Louisiana and  the cotton
and rice plantations of South Carolina shall be
tilled by free labor, and by free labor only. That
is a declaration of war.
It is a declaration against the rights of the
people, secured by the compact and the Consti tution of the country, and we are forewarnedl.
Notwithstanding this may be a constitutional
election, that a majority, according to the pre scribed forms of the Constitution, have a right to
elect, and the election is valid, yet, rather than
submit to a fate forewarned, they who think so
give timely notice that they do  not intend  to
submit to it. It is a degradation by a proclama tion in advance, to be met by a counter-proclamation, without touching the inferiority of the
Northern States at all.  8ir, it is not the mene, it
is not the party, it is not the States, but it is the
principle, that "we subjugate you; give us the
reins of power, and we will place you at our
feet; we will take from you what you have, quietly if you will yield, forcibly if you do not i and
we will hold you under the power of this Federal Government, subject to the domination of a
party whose principles are in violation," according to our judgment, "of every principle of the
Constitution."  That, I presume, is the meaning
of those who profess.that sentiment.
IMr. TRUMBULL.   Mr. President, it is just
such speeches as this we have listened to from
the Senator from South Carolina, based upon a
misunderstanding of the Republican party of the
North, that has misled the South.   The Northl
intends no encroachment upon the South.  The
Republican party is a party, in its pridnciples, public and avowed to the world, end it is because of
the misrepresentation of the objects and views of
that party that the prejudices of the Sotuth have
been excited against it, and chiefly by the misrepresentations which hlave been made  by this
so-called Democratic party in the North.   Thley
choose to call every person that does not unite
with them an Abolitionist.
I was born and bred up in the Democratic
faith, acted with the Democratic party, sustained
its measures and its men  upon principle when
that party was divided from  the Whig party
upon questions of finance, in regard to the commercial interests of the country and other greit
questions.  But, in 1854, Ebat  wis done? 1
was one of those who acquiesced in the n21easulrcs
of 1850, and agreed to abide b' the settlenient
thhen made.  I heard with delight the dc' laratiio
of Franklin Pierce, when inaugurated IPresidoct,
and in his message, that the settlerment of 1530
should suffer no shock which he could prevent
during his Administration.   I was glad when
nonor, but for wise purposes, and to aecorplish
great ends.  The founders   f         of our  Gov ernment
were men who,  in their day, believed the   ins                  ti tut ion of           Slavery to be an evil in the               country.
They found it here.  Ther did not see the means
of getting rid of it immediately. They would
not abolish it at once. They conferred upon the
Feder        al Government no power to interfete   with
it  in the States which formed the Federal Gov ernment; but they gave power to this Federal
Government to prevent its extension. They took
steps immediately after the Government was
organized to prevent Slavery from going into
any portion-of the territory then belonging to
the United States. I know, sir, that Slavery
went into Tennessee, Mississippi, and other
States, but it went there in defiance of the Federal Government.   The territories composing
those States were ceded to the United States o)n
condition that the United States should not exclude Slavery from them; but the territory
nortlhwe-st of the river Ohio was ceded without
any such condition, and Congress immediately
excluded Slavery, with the acquiescence of the
South-yea, sir, the South itself moving in the
matter; and your own great man, the great
statesman of America, himself is the author of
the provision which excluded Slavery from the
Northwlvestern Territory.
We de.ny that there is any disposition in any
portion of the North to treat the South as unequial3 in this coummon Confederacy.
Ilatsing. shown that to some extent, I wish to
come baclk, and inquire of the Senator from
South Carolina, and his associates, what is the
meaning of the resolutions adopted in the Southfern States, and of the speeches made by prominent men in the Southern States, in which they
decl 4re that in case a certain individual is elected President of these United States, in a constitulional way, or in case the Republican party
elect a Presidtent of the United States, that they
will take steps for the formation of a Southerni
Confederacy and the dissolution of the Union.
Is not that treating us as unequals? What do
you mean by it? You come into the Senate of
the Un;ted States, and charge the North with acting unequally and unjustly towards you; and yet
you say to the North, " although we have united
together in a common Confederacy, is which we
have agreed that the Chief Magistrate shall be
electd,l in a particular way, and by a majority
expressed in the constitutional form, yet, if you so
elect a man, we will break up the Goternment!"
IV Lit is that but saying, " we are your superiors,
and your majority shall submit to what the minority think proper to dictate?"
Mr. CIIESNUT.  Does the Senator desire an
answer now? "
MIr. TPR.UMBULL.  Yes, sir.
Mr. CIIESNUT.  I will simply state, so far as
it is within my knowledge, what I believe to be
the meaning of that declaration. It is not charging the North with inferiority. The declarations
lhaving been made by those who entertain them,
I presume go upon the ground of a distinct, unmistakable, clear enunciation of principles —
principle3 which subvert the Constitution of the
Unitedl States, the rights and equality of the
States, and which are held up in advance to us, 
5
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was introduced, ac   companied by the report of a committee in tlis
body, declaring that to repeal the Missouri com  promise would be a departure from the meas  ures of 1850.  It was said that the compromise
measures of 1850 had given peace to the coun  try; that the Slavery question was forever after  wards to be banished from the Halls of Congress,
and that no man was to be tolerated who shoulds
under any pretence whatever, in Congress or out
of Congress, attempt to stir up again this exci  ting question.
I, in good faith, supposed that these declara  tions meant -something; and therefore when, in
1854, notwithstanding these assurances to the
country, the proposition was sprung upon it to
repeal the Missouri compromise, and open Kan  sas to Slavery, and when the measure was made
the test and the only test of party faith, I did
refuse to co-operate with the party which made
that the only test of its political faith.  Then it
was that the old Democratic party and the Whig
party were broken up.  They were both disband ed, and a new question was thrust upon the
country, which had not before been in issue be tween parties.  When it was thrust upon us, and
parties and persons took issue upon the question
of the repeal of the Missouri compromise and the
opening of Kansas to Slavery, I united with that
party which took ground against the repeal of
the Missouri compromise, and in favor of stand ing by what all parties had agreed to but four
rears previous-ay, sir, but two years previous,
when they nominated their respective candidates
for the Presidency.  To style the party that now
calls itself Democratic-, the successor of the old
Democratic party, is a misnomer.  It is no more
the successor of that party than the Republican
party.  The country seems to have forgotten,
and gentlemen who use this word "Democratic,"
as if it had some meaning, at this day, seem to
have forgotten that a majority of the members
of the House of Representatives from the North ern States of the Democratic party voted against
the repeal of the Missouri compromise.  It was
a minority of the Democratic party that favored
that measure, and then it was that these new
parties were formed, composed of persons who
had before belonged indiscriminately either to
the Whig or the Democratic party.
When the Senator from South Carolina attributes to the Republican party of the North the
views which he does, h3 entirely misapprehends
the views of that party.  They have%een reiterated a hundred times.  I wish I had a voice
that I could reiterate them so that every man in
the South should hear.  I would say to every
man from the Gulf to the Potomac, the Republican party plants itself on this Slavery question
precisely on the ground upon which your own
Washington and Jefferson stood.  We avow in
our platform of principles that we will abide by
the Constitution.  We have no intention of in-.
terfering with your domestic institutions; and
when the Senator from South Carolina talks
about the North interfering with the institutions
of the South, I ask when, where?  Never, sir.
"OhI but you exclude us from the common territory."  Is that an interference with your institutions?  Was it an interference in 1787?  Was    M
it an  in terference in  1789, when your  own great
men  passed the act to  exclude Slaver y from the
Terr i tories? Yo u  di d not so regard it. Did
those men put a dishonor upon themselves? We
believe that these Territories are the common
property of the United States, as much as you;
we tell you that a man who has no slaves has
as much right to go there as a man who has
slaves; that one has just as much right to settle
in the Territories of the United States as another;
but we tell you that no man can take the insti  tutions of his State, tlong with him wherever he
goes. When he goes, beyond the j urisdiction of
his State, and enters some other jurisdiction, the
local laws which governed him in the State
whence he emigrated cease to operate.
The Constitution of the United States has ex  pressly conferred upon Congress authority to
govern these Territories, and the authority has
always been exercised. It is altogether a mis  taken notion that any inequality is put upon
Southern men by refusing to extend Slavery in.,
to the Territories. Why, sir, in the Southern
States, a majority of your white population are
not slaveholders. Not one in ten, only about
one in twenty of your population own slaves,
and if you will divide them into families, I sup.
pose that not one family in five in all the South  ern States owns a slave. We believe that it.s
for the interests of this great country, for the
interests of the people who are to settle our
Territories, that they should be settled by free
white peo-le. What interest have four families
out of five in the Southern States in introducing
Slavery into Kansas, or into any free territory?
Will you tell me that it is putting a degradation
on them, unless they are permitted to introduce
slaves into the Territories? They have none to
introduce.  They do  not want  Slavery.   Nine
out of ten of your white population in Carolina
own no slaves, and at least four out of five of
the families of that State, I presume, have no
slaves. Is it a degradation then upon them?
Who is it upon? Why, iron any one, it is on
your one-twentieth person; and legislation to
protect his interests, at the expense of nineteen twentieths, is to be brought about in the name
of Democracy. I said a degradation upon the
one-twentieth  person.   lrt is no  degradation
upon him. It is no degradation upon any man.
You of the South, as citizens of this common
country, are as much interested in keeping the
Territories free as we of the North. Most of
your people own no slaves, and, as a matter of
course, would prefer, when they emigrate, to
come into a non-slaveholding country.    The
State in which I reside has in it hundreds and
thousands and tens of thousands of people from
the slaveholding Stattes. They want no Slavery,
and I suppose if the question were to be sulbmilitted to the citizens of Illinois to-morrow, whether
Slavery should be introduced, allhough1 thereX
are thousands of voters from M~aryland, VSirginial,
Kentucky, Tennessee, ~North Carolina, Geolrgiz,
rnd South Carolina, it would not get one vol. t
in ten thousand in the State.
Mr. YULEE. Will thue Senator allows tie t:)
interrupt him a moment?
Mr. TRUMBIULL. Yes, sir.
Mr. YULEIE. The Senator xundertook; just
/    ,    11 I I I. I k, 
6
now to enlighten us in respect to the attitude of
the party of which he is a member upon this
slave question.  I am very solicitous to know
precisely where the Senator's party stands upon
that question, and what is the purpose of the
organization, for I understand the organization
to refer mainly to the question of Slavery.  I
desire to know the precise position of the party
to which the Senator belongs, and which principally prevails in the Northern States on that
subject.
Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Florida
cannot understand the principles of the Republican party, which  have  been proclaimed  and
published to the   world                        he e is certainly not a very
apt scholar, and I shall almost despair of enlighteuing him.  Our principles are emblazoned before the country and published in the platforms
of the party. Did he never read them, or has
he gone on, without reading our principles, and
misunderstanding them?
Mr. YULEE.  I have certainly read them;
but, unfortunately, never understood them.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  Then, if I can be the means
of enlightening my friend from Florida as to
any particular part of our platform that he cannot understand, it will afford me great pleasure
to do so.
Mr. WADE.    I                       think  it will  take until morning
to do this, and I therefore move that the Senate
do now adjourn.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate
adjourned.
DECEMBER 8, 1859.
Mr. TRUMBULL said:
Mr. President, just before the adjournment of
this body yesterday, I was called upon by the
Senator from Florida [Mr. YULEE] to state what
were the principles of the Republican party.
Sir, I did suppose that the Senator from Florida, and every Senator, could understand, if            he
desired to do so, what our principles were. They
have been proclaimed by an authoritative Convention of the party, in language as p!ain as it is
in the power of man to employ; and it is only by
mystification, by misrepresentations of them in
many portions of the country, as I think, that
the public mind of the South has been excited
against the Republican party.  I have brought
along with me their declaration of principles,
and, so far as it relates to the Slavery question,
I will read it; it is brief, and I should like to
know to what portion of it the.,enator from
Florida, or any other Senator or individual,
North or South, objects.  Here it.is:
II Resosed, That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaraition of Independence, and embodied in
the Federal Constitution, are essential to the preservation of
our RepuLbl;cani institutions, and that the Federal Constitut/on, the rights of the Statss, and the Union of the States,
must and shall be preserved.'?
Does the Senator from  Flo'rida understand
that-that the Constitution of the United States,
the rights of the States, and the principles embodied in the Constitution, must and shall be
preserved?
Mir. YrULEE. I want to know how you construe the Constitution?
M~r. TRUJ.MBULL. We will tell you. We say
ourselves how  we construe it on the Slavery
question:
"Resolved, That, with our reoublican fathers, we hold it
t o be a self-evideut truth that all men are endowed with the
inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi.
les s; and that the primary  object and ailteie o r design of our
Federal Government is, to grant these rights to all persons
under its exclusive jurisdiction. That as our republican
fathers, when  they had abolished  Slavery in all our national
territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becrAnes
our  duty to maintain    this provision  of the Constitution
(against ain atte mpts to violat e it for  the  pur pose of  esta,blishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States) by
positive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension
therein.  That we deny the atuthority of Congress, ofea Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory
of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be
maintained.
"Resolved, That the Constitulion confers  upon Congress
sovereign power over the Territories of the United States, for
their government; and that, in the exercise of this power, it
is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, Polygamy and Slavery."
That is the whole platform of the Republican
party on the subject of Slavery.
Mr. SAULSBURY.   Will the Senator from Illinois allow me to  as k him a question?
Mr. TRUMBULL.   Y es, sir.
Mr. SAULSBURY.  If it be true, as that last
r esolution states, that  the Constitution confers
up o n Congress sovml   o erei gn power  ove r the Territories   of  th e Un   ite d States, for their government,
why is iat that that power, which the  res o lution
declares to  be s o vereig  n  in Congress-by which,
I presume, is meant a supreme power, a power
which has no superior-is not capable of being
exercised for the establishment of Slavery in a
Territory, as well as for the prohibition of Sla.
very in a Territory?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the power
which the Federal Government may exercise
over a Territory is sovereign power in its government, as we all know and understand, within
the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the Unhted States declares that Congress shall pass no law establishing any particular form of religion or abridging the freedom of
speech or of the press. I readily admit, and so
does the Republican party, that the Congress of
the United States cannot pass a law abridging
the freedom of speech in any one of the Territories.   They are expressly prohibited from so
doing. They have the sovereign power over the
Territories, to legislate for them in all matters
within the Constitution of the United States; and
the Constitution of the United States does not
authorize Congress to establish Slavery. The
Constitution is based upon this principle.  It
does not establish Slavery at all, but merely
tolerates it where it already exists by virtue of
State laws. That is the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.  It is a Constitution
of Freedom, the word " slave" not occurring in
it, and the men who framed the Constitution be.
lieved that in the process of time there would be
no slaves in any portion of the Confederacy, and
one of its principal authors objected to the use
of the word " slave," lest future generations
might know  that there was Slavery in some of
the States when the Constitution was fornmed
If you will turn to that clause of the Conslitti.
tion relating to the reclamation of fugitive slaves,
you will find that it reads, that " no person hiel'l
to service or labor in one State, under the la,wa
I
I
I 
7
thereof," that is, under the laws of the State,        I
"escaping into another, shall, in consequence of I
any law o(r regulation therein, be discharged
from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
up."  There is no provision for the delivering
up of a man who is held to service by any other
than a State law.  If held to service by virtue
of the Constitution, that instrument contains no
provision for his return when he escapes from
one State to another.  This shows that the fra mers of the Constitution never contemplated that
a person could be held to service, whether as a
slave or as an apprentice, except by virtue of
State laws, else the provision for reclamation
would have been general, and not limited to
persons so held.  Would the Senator from Del aware contend that, under this clause of the
Constitution, he could reclaim a person held as
a slave, by virtue of that instrument, who had
escaped from one State into another?  Suppose
a person comes into the State of Delaware, who,
it is contended, is a slave, and his alleged owner
comes to reclaim him-would you give him up if
he did not show that he was held as a slave
under the laws of the State from which hlie escaped?  If you would not, then, as a matter of
course, you could not give up a person who was
held as a slave in one of the Territories, because
he could not be so held in a Territory tBy virtue
of any State law.
Lest I be misunderstood, I will state that I
do not mean to say that if there is Slavery in
one of the Territories of the Union, as there was
by the acquiescence of Congress in Tennessee
and Kentucky and in the Southwestern States
while they were Territories, a negro who is held
as a slave there, and escapes into any of the
States of the Union, may not be reclaimed.  I
hold to no such doctrine.  I contend that the
Congress of the United States have sovereign
power over the Territories, to legislate for them
within the Constitution, and had the right to
provide, as it did in the enactment of the oi dinance of 1787 for the Northwestern Territory, that
fugitives who should escape to that Territory
from slaveholding States should be surrendered
up.  It is by virtue of its sovereign power over
the Territories, and not by virtue of the clause
of the Constitution relating to the return of fugitives from one State to another, that Congress
provides a law by which a person held to service
or labor in a slaveholding Territory may be reclaimed when he escapes into a State, and by'
which a slave in a State who escapes into a free
Territory may be reclaimed and brought back to
the State whence. he fled.
Now, sir, what portion of this platform or
creed does the Senator from Florida  object to?
I know what he will say.  He objects to that
part which excludes Slavery from the Territories.
Is there any other?
hMr. YULEE. l desire to hear from the Senator an illustration and exposition of his creed;
swhether he intends us to understand, or his
party intend it to be understood, that by the
Cons'itution of the United States property in
slaves was abolished, and stands abolished in
all national territory, and in all territory over
which we have exclusive jurisdiction.  Does het
mean to say that the tenure in slave property in
the District of Columbia, and ill the forts and in
the arsenals,  as well  as in tae Ter ritories of th e
United States, was abolished under the Con stitution, and stands abolished now?
If there be any meaning in this platform, it is
a meaning wh ich  strikes at  the  root  of property
in slaves in all the ne  w  States o f th is Con federacy. The ground upon which you rest
yourself is, that it is not only not in the
power of Congress, but that it is not in the
power of a Territorial Government or of any as sociation of' individuals, under any pretext or in
any form, to give existenie to Slavery in a Terri tory. If' that be so, all the slaves in Louisiana,
all the slaves in Tennessee, in Missouri, in every
other new State of this Confederacy, were free by
virtue of the Constitution, and are illegally held.
When the Senator attempts to present to us
here a principle by which his party is to be ruled,
we have a right to ask  him, and to know, by
what practical measures of legislation his party
propose to give effect to the principle which they
undertake to assert. Now, let us take the case
of a Territory immediately occupied by emigrants
from sa Southern State, and by them alone, ac
companied with their slave property, which the
Supreme Court declares to be legally their property there-I wish to know by what practical
measure of legislation the Senator proposes to
give effect to his principle. Is it by a code to
abolish the property of the slaveholder in his
slaves there? Is that what he proposes to do?
If tlhe people of the Territory desire to use that
form of labor, does he mean to deny them that
right, and to deny it by an act of the Federal
Legislature prohibiting the enjoyment of that
right to the inhabitants of the Territory?
M~ore than that; if, when they come to form
themselves into a sovereign community, and present themselves here, under the Federal Constitution, for admission as a State of this Union,
with a clause in their Constitution protecting
slave property, I wish to know whether it is a part
of the policy and purpose of the party of which
the Senator is a member, giving effect to the
principle here asserted as their rule of action, to
reject the application.
If the end and aim of the Senator's organization is limited to the Territorial question, and
when that is done with, all is done with it on the
slave question, then the South will know, so far,
~bhat to expect from them.
Next, so tar as the Territorial question is concerned, I ask the Senator to give us the practical
measures by which they propose to give application to their principles, and to tell us upon what
ground they assert that property in slaves is abolished by the Constitution, and yet justify a continued recognition of that right in the District of
Columbia, the forts and arsenals, and those of
the Territories of' the United States in whlich it
has been permitted, not only by the acquiescence
but by the direct authority of l~aw, to exist, for
such was the case in Tennessee, and in other
portions of the new States. Congress did, by express enactment, authorize the existence of Slavery. I yield to the Senator.
M~r. TRU.MBUJLL. Mir. I'resident, I am glad
this discussion has arisen. I hale no right~ to
impeach the mlotivse of gentlemen onl the other
I
'a
A 
the Senator seemed to cast a suspicion upon the
platform.'Why, sir, there is but the one.
Mr. YULEE. It may be.  I would state here
to the Senator, that I did not use the term Black
Republic-,n.
MAr. TRUMBULL.  I have said you did not.
Mr. YULEE. But I did not use th( term  Re    publican here, for the reason, as I said last night,
that that termra and that party denominat,ion hav    ing been once consecrated by a nattional party of
far other, and, as I humbly think, higher ol)bjects
than the present party, no party,,Ahatever its
objects may be, has the right to appropriate that
name.  It has become the prope-rtv of a precc    ding party, and therefore some qualification of
the ter m Republican, by which the gentleman's
party may be defined, ought so be adopted.   I
will not myself apply a qialification, but leave
it to ahat par t y to discover, as I hope they will)
some qualification of the term Republican.
Mr. TRUNIBULL. Mr. President., it is because
we advocate every principle advocated  by the
old  Republican party that  we adopt ith  name;
and I g ay to the  Senator  to-day, show  me a de   paarture Rrom the principles o f the Rep ublican
party  o f T homa ersevs J e erso' s  d ays,   nd I will op   pose that  departure  in the  P,c o)ublicawn part y of
to-day.  It is  because we  advocate the princi   ples  of Thomas Jefferson, becautsel Do a e advocate
the  p rinciples of the  Republican  party of  i S00,
that  we call ourselves  Republicans; pard, if I
know myself,   I will adhere to the ptriaciples  of
the old Republican party in regard to this ques  tion. The fathe r o f that par ty is our great model.
Our principles are taken from himn.  The very
words of our platform which the gentleman ob  jects to, were indited by his hand.
Mr, YULEE. "To create, riot to destroy, a
free government?"
Mr.  TRUM,IBJULL. Yes, sir; and we will per  potuate free  government  by continuing th e priti  ciples that he advocated. But, sir, what beyond
that? How has it come, from a gentleman upon
that side of the House, to tell us we must not
call ourselves Republicans, when they assume
to call  themselves  Democrats?  Democrats I
And the illustration of your principle, democ racy, is the supremacy of an aristocracy of slave holders in this country.  Any man  can be  a
member of the Democratic party who wil adopt
your creed on the subject of the spread of Sla very, and the upholding of slaveholding inistitui tions in this country, which concern directly not
one man in sixty of the population of this Union.
That is the party that has arrogated to itself
the name of'- Democrat," and that reproaches
us for calling ourselves  Republicans.   Dem ocratts l A party that legislates for the interest
of one out of sixty —forgetting the interest of
four-fifths of the families of the South to promote that of one-fifth.
The Senator wishes to know if Slav.Nery was
abolished by the Constitutionl of tile UniteoT
States. I have already said, no; Sl1vr-ey was
not abolished by the Constitution of the Unlited3
States. I stated belore, and I swill try to repeat
it again, that the Constitution wlas based  uponz
the idea of Freedom, but it did not abol-sh Silavery where it existed by State or local lass. It
did not interfere to do that. It allowed the
side; I suppose they really labor und-r so'me
misapprehension in regard to our principles.  I
think, if we could understand each other, the
good old times, when a man from the South and
a man from the North could meet together in a
friendly spirit, without any dispute upon this
question, would  return. I think misapprehension
is the   f oundation of the great controversy upon
the Slavery question.
The Senator   h      as thoeught proper               t     o speak  of 
th    e      So uth. H e  spe aks  of th e degradation, as         he
calls it, t    o    the So  u         th, of excluding   them from a
T er       r        itory              f
pIr. YUILEE. That w     as the  Senator's own
word.   I m     Trely qu oted      his       own language.
Mr. TRUMBULL. We me        a    n  no degradation
to the South. I am sorry that th       e        word "South"
h as b          een used with            regard to this alleged right
to    ext              end Slavery to a Territory.  I tried yester   day to  exp la       in  that the South is made up of a
grea         t  many  perso ns                      who are not slavehojders,
by tf ar many more than the slaveholtl ers, and
therefore I do not know  what   right those  who
hold slaves have to arrogate to themselves that
the    y        are      the Sou th.  They are a portion             of the
South, and   at small        porti on only, about one   twentieth part, as       shown by the                     census.
The Senator asks if th       is                   platform of principles
is only intended to apply to the Territories. Mlost
assu redl    y  th e  Republican  party bad its origin in
the question of Slavery  in r         egar d       t o        the Territo  ries.  It was the departure from the policy of
this Government, f      rom  the day of its foundation
down            to 1854,  whi ch gave rise to the Republican
party.  It was  an o rganiz      a ti                      o n in   reference to
the questio         n  of Slavery  in the Territories, and
nowhere else.  There is nothi          ng iu this platform
in regard to t    he qu   estion  of Slavery in the States
of this   Union;  and, les   t I fo.get it, permit me  to
say        that I spea k  n ot  for   the  Republican p arty,
except as its platform  speaks.  I cl aim  no au thority to be its exponent.  Its exponent is its
principle s, as declared here in this document.
Mar. YULEE. I  desire to hav       e       his exposition of
the platform, or what  he presents  as his plat form.
Air. TPUMNIBULL. The Senator speaks of what
I present as the platform.  Now, is it possible
that the ~enator from Florida has not seen, and
does not know, this platform? Is there any
other?  Why say, " what I present as the plat form? "  Why n,.t say, " the platform of the Republican., ty b"  Why should we seek here, in
the Senate of the United States, to mislead anybody?  I am sorry we cannot speak of admitted
facts, as they are.  We are try-irng here, I trust,
to arrive at an undeerstanding with each other.
That is my object; and I wish to do away with
all these clap-trap expressions and these ugly
names that are used for the purpose of exciting
prejudice. W5h~y is it that members of the Senate of the United States, and that the Cabinet
officers of the country-, talk of the Republican
party as the Black Republican party? Do they
wnvlt to create a prejudice against it? "The Senator did not use that word.
Mr. YUaLE<E. No, I did not use it.
Mrt. TRUJ51BULL. I happened to speak of it
n~ow —it has been used in this debate —because
V."18 
States  to                        manage that for  themselves, and/pro*ided that, when one held to service should escape to  another S tate,  * here  S lavery  d id no t
exist, he might be        recl aimed;   and I w    ish the
Senator to understand from me that I acquiesce
in that clause of the Constitution of the United
States.   I recognise your right    to      reclaim  the
p       erso   n who run s         away,  but I t hink  it should  be
done in a judicious and proper manner, without
exciting bad feeling in the country.
Or. CLAY. Will the Senator allow me a moment, to ask him whether he recognises the
right to reclaim fugitive slaves in the Territories?
Mr. TRUMBULL.  I do, under an' act of Congress applicable to Territories.
Mr. CLAY.  Then I will ask him to reconcile
the apparent discrepancy between the platform
from which he has read and the position he now
assumes; for in that platform, as he read it, it
i,i declared that neither Congress nor any indiviCLaal can give any legal assistance to Slavery
within the Territories.
Mr. TRU.NIBULL. " Give legal existence to
Slavery in a Territory," is the language: We
dery that the right to reclaim a fugitive proves
the existence of Slavery in a Territory, any more
than it does in a State. We have expressly provided by our Constitution, in the State of Illinois,
that Slavery shall not exist there, and yet I will
say to the Senator from Alabama, that if a slave
of his escapes to the State of Illinois, we recognise the right of the owner to reclaim him, and
I recognise the same right in a Territory.
Mr. CLAY.   If the Senator will pardon me
for interrupting him, I will say that in the platform of that party from which I just now read,
the word is "1 assistance," not " existence; " and
I have never yet, in any platform of that party
which has corse under my view, seen the word
"existence."  It is " assistance."  It is so published in that which I have before me, and I have
never seen it otherwise.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  The word is "existence)
in the platform as I have it, and I never understood it to be otherwise. I have the platform as
used in the Northern States. If it has been differently published, I was not aware of it.
Mr. CLAY. Still, if the Senator will pardon
me, suppose the copy I have is wrong, and the
word should be " existence," as claimed by him,
I ask him, then, how he can reconcile with his
theory, as proclaimed in this platform, of the
rig,ht of all men to liberty, and the o]igation of
the Fede.al Government to secure that right
within the Territories, the countervailing obligation to restore a fug,itive slave.
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I will try to
do so. I will give him my understandhag of it
as calmly and impartially as I am able. I understand that part of the platform to be the as8ertion of a great natural right, and that is what
I understand by those words in the Declaration
of Independence, wherein it is declared that " al]
men are created equal, and endowed by theil
(Creator,;' not by the Government, "~ with certain
inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty
anld the pursuit of happiness." Now, I do nol
understand that our fathers supposed they could
carry out these principles perfectlj' in govern
ment.  Every Government, as I had occasion to
say in this debate before, is an encroachment,
more or less, on the natural rights of man. Wvhat
did they mean?  Why, sir, the men who signed
their names to that immortal Declaration of In dependence were men who either themselves or
their ancestors had fled from despotisms in the
Old World. They had seen men claiming to rule
by Divine right as kings; they had seen another
class of men claiming to rule and lord it over
the mass of their fellow-beings by hereditary
right, and they intended to put it upon record in
this formation of the Government which they
were making, that their posterity in all time
might know that they recognised no Divine right
of one man over another, no hereditary right of
lords and nobles to trample upon their fellow
men.  Naturally, no such right can exist.  It is
but the assertion of power growing out of the
organization of Governments.  Our ancestors intended to form a Government as near the great
principles of natural right as they could.  As
wMr. Jefferson said, the most perfect Government
on earth would be one which secured to honest labor the fruits of its own industry, and interfered no more than was necessary to prevent
anarchy, or the encroachments of the strong
upon the weak.  I do not quote his beautiful
language, but the idea.  This is what I understand to be meant by this platform of principles
in that respect.
Mr. CLAY.  Will the Senator pardon me for
asking him a further question?
Mr. TRU.~IBULL. Undoubtedly.
Mr. CLAY.   I do not mean to interrupt him;
but as he seems disposed to be candid and communicative, I will trouble him with a further
question.  I would be glad if he can explain how
he can reconcile with the personal integrity of
the framers of the Declaration of Independence
and the Federal Constitution, their holding slaves,
and retaining them as slaves, and distributing
them by their last will and testament among
their children, with their -declaration that those
men were entitled to life and liberty; and if he
can reconcile these matters, I would ask him,
furthermore, whether he understands the words
of the Declaration of Independence, or of the
Federal Constitution, which declares that the
Constitution was formed for ourselves and our
posterity. to embrace also the negroes.
Mr. TRUMBULL.   I reconcile what seems to
the gentleman lo be a contradiction in this way:
Our fathers had to deal with circumstances as
they were.  They declared great fundamental
principles.   The  Senator from Alabama  will
agree with me, that any evil is wrong; that any
encroachment upon the natural rights of any ol
us (and our Government restrains us more or
less) is only to be justified upon the ground that
it is necessary for organized society asid for
government, and that men could not live tt,gether, except in eternal quarrels, unless we l).'tl
a government of some kind; but that does not
militate against the truth that the great AutlhLlor
of all created us equal and with the same rights.
wMr. CLAY.  The Senator does not seem to
apprehend the force of my question.  I'Pti':lps I
did not put it fairly.  According to the declassrtion in your platform, as read, I understou~ roas
I
t
9
A 
,10
I* upon  the laws of society or upon the tone ot
moral sentiment of society.
t    Mr. TRUMBULL.  Not entirely, MIr. Presid(lent,
do i concede them to be conventional.  Many
things, doubtless, are either criminal or innocent
according to the circumstances; and when  we
speak of crime in human society or in political
organizations, we mean some violation of the
t  laws of the land; and I take it there are no laws
of the land upon  the subject of polygamy  in
some countries, and I suppose it would not, in
that sense, be a crime in those countries. If the
gentleman wants my opinion of it morally, which
I presume he does not, of course I am very will  ing to express it.
Mr. CLAY.  Will the Senatorpardon me for
interrupting him?  Would not the taking of a
human being's life without justifiable or excusa  ble cause be a crime, independent  of all statu  tory provision or legal enactment; and if so, by
parity of reasoning, is not polygamy a crime?
and if so, by the force of your own platform,
which condemns Slavery equally with polygamy,
is that not a crime, independent of all human
legislation?
Mr. TRUMBULL.   The taking of human  life
in the instance-the Senator puts, unjustifiably,
would undoubtedly be a great wrong  and  a
crime, and so it would be a grest wrong and  a
crime  to deprive a person of his liberty without
justifiable or excusable cause.  It is always a
natural wrong, but it is not, in my judgment, a
crime in every instance.   I have never  so re garded it. This is my explanation of that part of
the Declaration of Independence which declares
that all men were created equal, and of the
enunciation of the same principle in the platform
of the pRpublican party.  If it means  anything
else, I do not understand it, and the people of
the State of Illinois do not understand it.  It is
the doctrine we have proclaimed there alfways,
and the people of the State of Illinois who  b~ long to the Republican party, belong to it as a
party adopting the principles of the old Repub lican party; and as that old Republican party
kept Slavery out of the Territories, believing it
to be an evil, we desire to do the same thing,
and for that purpose the present Republican
party was organized, because of the change of
the policy of the Government on the subject of
Slavery, in undertaking to extend it.
I may omit to answer fully the Senator from
Florida.  I hope I shall not, and certainly I will
not omit answering frankly, so far as I am able
to do so, if I recollect the positions which he
has assumed, f or in this debat e it is no interiruip tion to me that gentlemen ask questions. I wish
to deceive nobody. I have no prepared speech
to make, and therefore it is no interruption to
me. If I can afford information to any gentle man from the South, that shall disabuse hiis
mind as to the objects and views of the Northern
people, I shall consider treat I am per'brinzing a
service to my country in giving the informat~ion.
I have not been able to get through with isatil
t designed to say in reply to the Senator f'ronm
Florida, the Senator fromh Alabama havsingr iz~terposed some questions in the mean time, di; erting my attention from hlim. I shall endca-lor to
,answer him.  The Republican party,a I3 1un1der
party to maintain that the negro eijoys, in com  mon with the white man, an inalienable right to
liberty. You denounce the violation of that
right  a     s a crime, a sin in the ey   e         of H eaven,
and a crime against the laws of man; a violation
Df the                              d     octrines of Christianity.  You denounce
it as a      twi n       re lic of barbarism with polygamy.
Now, I ask y           ou how you can reconcil    e it with
thie personal   integrity of the framer                    s either of
the  Declarati        on   of' Iodependence or of         th         e Fed  sral Constitut        ion,               that they sanctioned a crime
at the same time that they protested against it.
hMr. t'ITUiMBULL.  Mr. President, I                         am satis f      i e          d that I      am  not understood by  the Senator
fcom Alabama.     I                        say that      the negro has the
s ame natural rights        that I have;  and now I              say
it is not a       crime, u nder all circumstances, to hold
a negro in slavery.
Mr. CLAY. Why, then, does the Senator's
party denounce it as a twin relic of barbarism
with polygamy? Is not that a crime? Do not
your laws punish it? Do not the laws of my
State punish it? And if Slavery is equal in ini quity with polygamy, why should not the laws
of all the States punish it?
MIr. TRUMBULL. We would punish polygamy
in Illinois as a crime; and we would punish the
holding of a slave in Illinois as a crime.
Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator pardon me? I
do not mean to be officious,  and I do not intend
to be offensive.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I do not take it so. I am
very glad, indeed, to be interrogated. I wish to
express my gratification at Senators' efforts to
obtain explanations.
Mr. CLAY. I wish the Senator to explain
whether, according to his code of ethics, or that
of the party to which he belongs, it becomes
any civilized, any Christian Government, to rec ognise crime; whether there be any circum stances under which crime can be justified, excused, or palliated?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I will not
cavil about the word "crime."  1 do not call it
a crime in citizens of the South to hold slaves
at all.
Mr. CLAY. Is not polygamy a crime?
Mr. TRUMBULL.  Polygamy is a crime under
some circumstances, but not always a crime. I
take it that polygamy is no crime in Turkey
- ISr. CLAY. Thank you for that concession,
in this Christian country.         t
Mr. TRUMBULL.  I think it is no crime in
Turkey. It is a crime in our Christian country.
We regard it so, but other nations do not regard
it as a crime. I do not regard the holding of
slaves as they are held in the Soutlern States
of this Union, and in many other countries, as,
necessarily criminal.  That is not the term I
apply to it. I think it is a wrong to those persons who are so held, but it is a wrong which
had b~etter be endured than to do worse. It- is
better to be endlured than to undertake to right
it by committing a greater wrong and a greater
evil.
Mr. CLAY. Then, if the Senator will pardon
me, [ understand him to maintain that right andl
wrong[ are merely conventional- that whether
~l'g'ara3 be a crime or not, depends merely,
I
I 
11
- out; how much difference there is between the
Senator and the rest of his party.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  I do not believe there is so
wide a difference as that.
Mr. YULEE.  But the Senator wondered yes terday evening that I was unable to understand
his platform.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  It seems to me  a  plain
,  platform.  It has no Northern and Southern face,
like your Cincinnati creed.  We do not preach
* popular sovereignty in the North, and scout it
* as a humbug in the South.
Mr. PUGH.  You do not preach it in the South
at all.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  No, sir; we do not preach
f it in the South at all; and yet the men who do
not' allow our principles to be proclaimed in the
South, talk about sectionalism.  A sectionalism
so pure and unadulterated that it will not toll  erate the exposition of the principles of its oppo nents at all where it is in power, talks to the
other party about sectionalism I
I say that Slavery was not abolished in Ten nessee and Louisiana by the Constitution. Why,
sir, does not the Senator from Florida know that
we ac(quired Tennessee by a deed of cession that
U   prohibited the extension to it of that portion of
.  the ordinance of 1787 -hich excluded Slavery?
Slavery existed there, not by virtue of the Con
stitution creating it, but by virtue of local law,
) and that is the authority which establishes Slar  very everywhere.  Slavery can exist nowhere
f except by virtue of local law, and that is the
1 reason why the person who owns a slave in a
State cannot hold him as a slave, under the law
of his State, in a Territory where Slavery has
never been established.  The Senator wants to
know if Congress can confiscate his property.
Surely not. That question cannot arise; he can not hold the property there; he does not own
r the man; he voluntarily goes into a jurisdiction
where there is no law to establish Slavery, and
when he goes there the shackles of the slave fall
i                           off, not  by  virtue  of the  Constitution  of  the   Uni  ted States abolishing Slavery everywhere, but by
M  the universal law of mankind, that this thing of
Slavery is so odious that it can only be sust rained by positive law.
Mr. YULEE.  As  I wish to understand the
Senator perfectly as we proceed, I will ask him
- this question:  When he spoke of the existence
of Slavery in Tennessee by virtue of the local
f law, did he mean the local law of the Territory,
or the local law as established and recognised
by Congress by virtue of the compact with North
f Carolina?
-    Mr. TRUMBULL.   I mean the local law exist ing in that Territory when it was  ceded, and
r which Congress, in accepting, agreed not to in terfere with.
The local law in Tennessee authorizing Slao  very was not a law to which Congress gave exr istence; it was a law in existence before Con> gress had any jurisdiction over the Territory.
t The Constitution did not intervene by its terms
- to exclude Slavery, there being a local law in
r existence, not made by Congress, authorizing it.
f   Congress had nothing to do with the making of
that local law.  It was there; men had. a right
1 - to their slaves as property in the Territory before
stand, was organized with regard to the Territo
rial question; but if the Senator, when he says
it is confined altogether to that, means to understand me as saying that the Republican party
would not make itself efficient in preventing the
violation of the law in the revival of the African
slave trade, or anything of that kind, he misunderstands  me.  The Republican party,  on this
subject of Slavery, would prevent its extension,
and;t would enforce the lawi equally in the
North and in the South. While it would not interpose to prevent the owner of 9 slave from recapturing him in a free State, it would make itself active in preventing violations of the law in
the Southern States by                the introduction of negroes from  the coast of Africa,  an    d  th e revival of
the African slave trade.  We would administer
th          is Government ver  differe-tly  from the m annher in w     hich i   t           is now administered; and if we
had control, the army and navy ot the land would
be as ready to arrest your vessels loaded with
slaves, when they landed upon the Southern
coast, as they are to arrest a negro that may be
found loose somewhere in the city of Boston.
The Senator asked me the question distinctly,
Was Slavery abolished by the Constitution of the
United States?  No, sir.
Mr. YULEE, No, sir; I did not ask that question. I asked the meaning of this clause in the
Republican platform.
Mr. TRUIIBULL.  Perhaps I shall be able to
answer; if not, when I get through, the Senator
can repeat the question. Ile wanted to know ii
the slaves in Tennessee and Louisiana are freed
by this platform. No, sir; the Senator certainly
understands that.
Mr. YULEE. I do.
Mr. TRUMBULL. He wanted to know if the
slaves are free in the District of Columbia by this
platform. No, sir.
Mr. PUtGH. May I ask the Senator whether
he is speaking for himself or for the party?
Mr. TRUMBULL.  I am speaking for myself;
and as I understand
Mr. PUGH. I thought you were interpreting
the party.
Mr. TRUIMIBULL. I am giving my understanding of the Republican creed, and the way it is
understood by the people of the Northwest, who
are a conservative, UDion-loving, Constitutionabiding people, loyal to the Constitution and to
the Union, and are no ultraists in any sense of
the word.                           *ss
Mr. PUGH. Will the Senator permit me to ask
him whether he considers Governor Chase, of
Ohio, an exponent of the principles of the Republican party?
Mr. TRUMBULL.  Mr. President, I'consider
that (the platform) the exponent of the principles of the Republican party, and not what any
one man may say. It is the creed of one million
three hundred thousand men, and Governor
Chase may or may not precisely agree with me
in his interpretation of every clause. I do not
believe it possible there can be as much difference between us as there is between the Senator
from Ohio with his popular-sovereignty dogma
and the great Democratic party. [Laughter.]
M~r. PUGHI That is just what I want to find 
12
it belonged to the United States at all.  Now,
he wants to know whether Congress can confis  cate that property.  No-not if it is property;
but if it was in a Territory where there had been
no law establishing Slavery, and if, as he sup  poses. people from the Southern States exclu  sively go into such a Territory with their slaves,
they do not hold them by virtue of any law when
they  ge t there, a    nd it is n o  c onf isc ation of prop  erty so  t    o de. lare.  They have  no property in
slaves in such a case.
Mir. YULEE.  Suppo    se they make       a law.
hM r. TRUMBULL. Th ey             cann           ot. That is     the
very   thing t     he Republican party  say     they cannot
do                 while in a Territorial condition.  They have
no  r igh t to do it. The creed of the    R    epubli can
party,  as I u      nderstand it, is,    that you cannot ex tend Slavery, under the    Fed        e     r        al Government,
i nto the Territories  of  the United States. There
m    ay b     e          Slave           ounry in a  country which  does not be long  to the  United        States;                    the United States
may        acqu ir   e             that c ountry, and may not abolish
Slav          ery, because               the right to hold      slaves existed
w    h      e         n the country was acquired; but it does not
follow, that                 i        f the country was free when we  ac quir          ed  it,       men        could  afterwards have property in
slaves in it;  and  that is    the di                  stinction.
The Sen ator                           w ants to know  whether it is a
part        of t h e R e publican creed to keep           ou       t of  the
Union       a           S tate tolerating  Slavery,  which      a    pplies
for admission.  Read         the creed;  is              there any
such  w   ord  in it?  Is there       an          ything  that looks
like        i     t? Why not ask m e      if it is a part  of the
Republican creed to keep out of the Union a
State apply ing            for admission into the Union, the
Const,itution of which provides that her people
s          hall elect her own Governor?  We    have  never
said so. What right have you to assume any
such thing? It is no part of our creed, as laid
down in our platform, to refuse a State admis sion into this Union because she may or may not
have Slavery. Look into it; see if you can find
any such thing. Why, then, propound a question founded upon a hypothesis which has no
foundation in the creed of the party?
If the Senator wants my individual opinion,
he can have that. I have no concealments. I
stated it here at the first session of Congress 1
served. I stated that it was not. with me, a
fundamental principle that a State should not
come into this Union as a slave State. I would
regret the application of a State of that character; but I have adopted it as no part of my political faith, that under no pos,ble circumstances shall a State be admitted into this
Union that tolerates Slavery. The Republican
party is not to be charged with having assumed
the ground, that a State may not be admitted
into the Union that has Slavery.  The old Republicatl party, from which we learn our principles, didl not keep slave States out, although
theoy provided against t~he extension of Slavery'
into all territories, whlen they were not prohibite- 1 from so doing by the terms of cessionl; find
if we (lo that, we will never, I trust, be troubled
with the application of a slave State for admissioni.
The Senator says that the Supreme Court has
decided that sl. aes- m.-y be legally hlled in a Territory. I deny it. The Supreme Court has de
cided no such thinc. The Suprem e  Court  has
no power to lay do wn political  doctrines  in this
country. It  may decide a   case  that come s be -
fore it, and by the decision of the  Court in    thiat
case I am willing to abide. The Court did de  cide that Dred Scott had no right to bring a suit
in the  Unit ed States courts, and that is all it   de -
cided. Tha t de cision  is fina l as t o  him in    that par  ticular case; but, when the  judges of the  Court
travelled out  of the re cord, and unde rto ok t o lay
down political principles for this Government, they
departed,  in  my judgment,  from the line of  their
duty, and the expression of thei r  op ini ons is en  ti t le d to no more credit with me,  upon political
questions, than the   expressio n o f the opinion of the
same number of gentlemen off the bench. Why, sir,
there had bee n decisions   icvolving the  question
o f the  right t o govern the Territories before the
present Chief Justice pr es i ded.  Lo ok back,  sir,
[lNvr. iISoN in the chair,] to the doctrine promul gate d by your own Marshall, the ablest la   wyer
tha t  ever sat on that  bench, a  Southern  man.
In one of his opinions, which   is  the  opinion of
the whole and not of a divided Court, he says,
that in legislating for the Territories, Congress
poss esse s  the   combined  powers of  the Federal
and  a  Stat e  Go vernmen t. If so, and if a  State
Government may prohibit  Slavery, then       Con gress, possessing in a  Territory the  powers of a
State  Government and of the F ed  era l  Gover n ment combined, may do    the same thing;  and
where is your reverence  for th e  doctrines    or the
Supreme Court, when you attack that decision?
Sir,  for sixt y yea rs that was the doctrine of the
country, acquiesced in  by all  parties.  Why dlid
you assail it, and open up this exciting ques tion?  I den y that  any such decision has beetf
made  as that Slavery exists in a Territory, or
that the owner of a slave has a right to take him
to a Territory, and hold him there as a slave.
I believe, sir, that I have answered-I have
certainly endeavored to do  so-the questions
which the Senator from Florid;[ propounded to me.
Mr. YULEE. Is the Senator proposing to leave
the suoject?
Mr. TRUMBULL.  Yes, sir; I propose to leave
that point.
Mr. YULEE. I am very sorry to trouble the
Senator. But suppose the inhabitants ol'a Ter ritory chose to recognise Slavery, and to legis late with reference to the protection of that
property; and, without undertaking to discuss
with him whether the courts hosve already de clared that the right of property in a slave is not
changed by migration to a Territory, suppose a
local law of the Territory authorizes it, and suippose the courts of the Territory and the courts
of the United States sustain  the lIgality of it,
will then the party to which the gentleman b-elongs feel themselves bound to legislate for the
destruction of the right asserted of properly in
slaves within that Territory? I am not speak~ing
of territory in which there was any p~rev-iou~s e!;istence of Slavery-, * * *x buts Territory in
which the inhabitants choose to recognise 81lavery and to legislate for it, and in which the
courts suslain it; wvouldl it be incumbent upon
the gentlema~n's party under thlis platform lo
legislate to exclude it? Blaat IS x-hat I wantt to
know'.
I 
13
ing-, or otherwise, in the District of Columbla,
and in the forts and arsenals, and  other places
in whoriche  eto   o                      the exclusive jurisdiction of the  nited
States prevailed  by the Constitution.  These are
the words    Mir. TRU.MIBULL. I will answer the question
without troubling the Senator   to  rea d the  plat form.  I conceiv ta   n   te that in the District  of Colum bia the    Constitution of the  United States ha s
not, ex vi temUini, abolished Slavery, because  it
existed here, by virtue of  local law, when  the
United States obtained jurisdiction  o   ve r th e
District.
Now, sir, I think I have  answered these gen tlemen so  that  they cannot    at  a.n y rate mi sap prehend my views, and I have  done  it without
concealment or  hol ding ba ck at all; and, as I
said, if  I have be en the  means  of disabu sing the
mind of a  single Senator,  or of a sinale    person
in' the South who  may ever take occasio    n to
look over the desultory remarks I have made,   I
shalsl re joi ce a t        it.
Having endeavored to show what the Repub lican  platform is, having given my under stand -
in, of  it, I wish to ask Southern Senators why
is there such  a persistence  in choosing to  mis understan d  u3? I  do no t charge  that upo n any
p a r    ticular Senator; but why is it that in the
Southern  States  ot' this Unio n  w e  are  called
Abolitionists. Would      Senators   induce their
constituents to think more harshly of us than we
ouight t o  be th ought  o f'?   What   is to be gained
by it?  Is the South to gain anything by ma king its inhabitants believe, and inducing, if' you
please, the slave s  to  believe, that  the  great Rb e publican party is read y to put knive s    and pistols
into the hands of the slaves, to murder their
masters? What  will you have accomplished
when you shall have induced such a belief
among the white people of the South, or among
the slaves of the South? AVill you be more se cure? Will there be hany less likelihood of ant
insurrection, when you have circulated through out the whole slave population the idea that the
great mass of the people of the North are ready
to arm thein to slaughter their masters? Whby
not, then, I ask, treat us us brethren?  Treat us
fairly, take our platform as it is. When we say
that all ragu are created equal, we do not mean
that every man in organized society has the
same rights. We do not tolerate that in Illinois.
I know that there is.a distinction between these
two races, because the Almighity himself has
marked it upon their very faces; and, in my
judgment, man cannot, by legislation or other wise, produce a perfect equality between these
races, so that they will live happily together.
I have alwvays been a D.mocitt; sand yet, now'
I am'denounced as.t Black R';epublican, as an'
Abolitionist; for some of the Soui hern Governors, I believe, choose to call us all Abolitionists.
I havre changedl no sentiment on the subject of
Slavery since the time when l acted with the oldl
'Democratic party. I tom no more averse to it
now than I was then. I has-e livedl amidst it,
and would be as far as any Senator from interferin, faith this domestic relation where it, exists in
the States.
I inquired what gentlemen meant by talking
about an inequality of rights between the Nrorth
Mfr. TRU,BIfULL.  Mfr. President, in iny judg ment, w.hey slhouldl exclude it, as was done in the
cases of Indiana and Illinois, when Territories,
and whose inhabitants were refused permission
t introduce Sl; very when they asked it of Con
If the SuTreme Court of      the United States
should makle a decision so utterly variant from
t'ic repea+ted decisions of the courts in the South ern States, and of the former decisions of the
Siil)reme Couirt itself, as to say that one person
had a right to ho-d another.s % slave in a Ter ritor, by virtue of' any action of the inhabitants
of a Territory, in defiance of Congress, I would
acqliesce in the decision of the court as to the
particular case.  If A sued for his freedom, and
the court deci'ded thast he was not entitled to it,
I would not revolutionize the Government upon
that; but it wouldl be a decisi;.on in that case, and
in that case only, and I would cowest it on the
morrow in the next.  I would contest it day by
day, until the court was reformed, and another
Ml:rshall p it at its head(, who should administer
the liaw as cur fathers Tmade it.
Mlr. YL'ULEE. I do not ask the Senator's opin ion.  I aslk himn to expound the platform.
lir. TiU-IIBLULL. I have expounded it. It deniaes any such right. Your hypothetical case will
never arise.    I e deny that a court will ever
make such a decision; and if it should, we will
resort to the constitutional means, to the ballotbox, to the people; we will appeal from the exposition of our political rights by men dressed in
r owvns to the great body of the people, who make
Jtldges and Presidents too.
,it. YULEE.  You would legislate to exclude
it'
ilr. TRPUIMTBTTLL.  We would legislate to exclu,e it; anl the d eci sion           of     a cas   e would no
more establish Slavery in a Territomy, except as
to the  individual ctse, than         has your decision as
to Dred  Scot,, tla,t  h e could not, sue in                      the Federal courtq, established the fac                                                          that that Congress
cotlil cot le  islate  to keepSlav ery     out       of  a Territors;  a decision which scarcely  a justice of
the peice in the St-Lte of Illinois would have
made.  Wh1y, sir, if an individual had come before one of' our j istices with a claim ex(:eetding
the jirisdic-tion of a j.,tsti, e of the peace, and the
justice had ex.ir~irned it, and had seen that he
ha,1 no juIrisdiction, and then had gone on and
inve,tigtlte l the case, and staid how  he would
h-ave decided it' hte had had jurisdiction, I think
the whole c,musunity would have lghed at
his folly.  That is exactly what the Supreme
a -;-t of the U"nitedl States has done in the Dred
Scott case.  The idea that the Supreme Court
of the U.!it#[ States' eal establish political principled~ in tiles country is a newv article in the creed
of' the De-,,ocra-ic party.  It was not the former
doctrine of the present Chief Ml!agistrate of the
country. it Alas not the doctrine of Thomas
Jeff;erson. tie regawrded the Supreme Court as a
sat of sappers and miners, digging under the
Constitution, who might ill process of time subveart andl dest roy it.
M~r. YUl>LEIS. No~w, then, I would turn the
$enator's attention to another question. I asked
',,hetbc(r, under the first clause of this platform,
the Sena.tor construed Slavery to be legally exists 
14
ah Mr. CHESNUT.   May I ask the Senator one
question?
Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.
Mr. CHESNUT. Does   he  repud i ate  those views
of the Senator from New York?
Mr. TRUMBULL.      I repu diat e th e construction
that  you have put upon those views.  And now
I wish to ask the Senator from South Carolina,
who read from that speech, which I    have here
before me, if it comnported exactly withl  hi s sense
of fair dealing and propriety as  a Senator  of  the
United States, speaking il his place here for the
inform    ation of t he S en ate and  the    country, and
his own constituents in  the South,  to  attribute
to him such sentiments as these: " We  (of the
North) will subjugate you; give us the reins of
power, and we  will place you at our feet?"
Mr. CHESNUT. I quote    d no  such  language as
having been used by the Senator from New
York. I quoted from the speech of the Senator
from N,,w York, in which he expressly stated, as
the result of this " irrepressible conflict," that
the wheat-fields and rye-fields of New York and
Massachusetts would ultimately be tilled by slave
labor, or that the sugar plantations of Louisiana
and the rice-fields and cotton-fields of South
Carolina must ba tilled by free labor. That was
the language of the Senator from New York.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  I will ask the Senator, then,
if it comports with his sense of fair dealing to a
Senator from one of these United States, to quote
that portion of the speech, and leave out this:
" On the other hand, while I do confidently bclieve anl
lope that my cou-ntry will yet become a land of uinlivers&l
Freedom, I do not expect that it %Vill be inide so othcrw:.s 
than through the action of' the several States co-operating
with the Feder;a! Government, and ill acting in strict conlormity with their respective Colxstitutiois."
Mr. CHESFNUT. True, Mr. President, that part
of the speech is there.  *  *  *  I quoted, from
another speech, a portion which I thought bore
; trongly upoo the recent occurrences; but from
the speech from which the gentleman now quotes,
I made a quotation ex,-ressly to show what was
the purpose of the gentlemen, and what they had
in view. I do not care,by what means they seek
to bring it about. They may take one means or
another, but they have the end in view; and it
is that which we resist, and which we will resist.
Mr. TRUNIBULL. This is the speech where the
term " irrepressible conflict " occurs; and if the
Senator is satisfied to go before the country in
the attitude of having quoted one portion of the
speech, and given to it a meaning at variance
with another portion which he has left out,
wherein it is stated in express terms, by the Senator from New York, that he has no expectation
that this country will all become free, except
through the action of the States in a constitutional way, it is his privilegee to doso. I draw
his attention to it in fairness and in candor, as
I have conducted this whole discussion on my
|part; and it seemed to me that it leas, at least,
Idue to the Senator who was not here, that hlis
own explanation of the langulageg whic h he bad
used should go along with what had been quoted; particularly as the Senator from South
Carolina drew inferences which led him to use
language wherein he spoke of subjugating the
South, and placing them under the feet of the
North, as if that were a legitimate deduction
and the South; and about aggressions of the
North upon the South; and when and where
they were made.   In reply, the Senator from
South Carolina, instead of taking our platform
as the exponent of our principles, adverted to
what a single individual of the Republican party
had said.  Now, sir, does it comport with the
candor and the fairness of that distinguished
Senator, who is, I believe, ordinarily, a very candid and fair gentleman, to attribute to a great
party in the country, which has declared its
principles in Convention assembled, what any
onie individual member of the party may say are
his own opinions?
The Republican party has declared no such
principles as the Senator attributes to it. Would
he mislead his people?  Would he deceive himself?
Mr. CIESNUT.  Mr. President 
The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. MAXSON.)
Does the Senator yield the floor?
Mr. TRUMIIBULL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHESNUT. The Senator has been pleased
to comment on a portion of the remarks which I
made yesterday, as not presenting a candid view
of the subject, as if I did not speak in candor.
MIr. TRUMBULL.  I do not mean to impute a
want of candor, in any offensive sense, to the
Senator; but I think he has not fairly stated our
principles.
Mr. CHESNUT.  Mr. President, I merely rose
to state, in response to what the Senator asked
of me, whether I would take the opinion of a
party from an individual, that ordinarily I would
not; but when I find the party acting upon such
principles generally; when I find him who is acknowledged as the distinguished leader of that
party, and so admitted, I believe, everywhere,
and I suppose among themselves, uttering his
well-considered and elabo, ate opinions; opinions
which have been promulgated, and which have
had their effect upon the country; opinions which
have never before been denied by the party;
which have ntiever before been questioned, so far
as I am aware; which have never been resplonded to by the gentlemen who belong to that party, as not being the opinions of their party, I felt
at liberty, and I think I was authorized in feeling myself at liberty, to hold them as the opinions, the we'l-considered opinions, of the leader
of this great party in the North.  That is the
reason why I chose, upon the discursive debate
of yesterday, having that speech before me, to
predicate my remarks of the purposes and principles of that party upon the speech of that distinguished leader.
Mr. TRUMBULL.  Mr. President, I wish to
say that 1 acknowledge, and, so far as I know,
the Republi(an party acknowledges, no man as
its leader. Ilowever high my respect for the distinguishled Senator from New York, not now with
us, I do not acknowledge him as the leader of
the Republican party- nor do I hold myself responsible for the opinions he may express.  We
acknowledge no leaders.   Whether the views
enunciated by the Senator from New York are
correct or not correct, is not the question; if they
differ from the creed of the Republican party as
announced in its authoritative Convention, then
they are not the creed of the party.
I
I 
O      /;';')",J /       a
15
from the remarks which he quoted, though the 
Senator who made these remarks had himself
taken occasion, in the same speech, to guard
against such an interpretation.
Mr. CHESNUT. One word, by the permission
of the Senator.  I think, if the Senator will read
that speech again, he will discover that, no matter what means may have been mentioned specifically, the speaker indicated to his audience,
to the people of the North, that it is in their
power; that this conflict is to be carried on;
that through them and by their power they can
produce this result.  *  *  *  I consider that I
have done no injustice.  I am willing to go before the country and before the world upon the
question of fairness and justice to the views of
the Senator from New York.  *  *  *
Mr. TRUMNBULL. I am sorry that the Senator
f     r      o      m        South Carolina, who usuall y  speaks with
so much candor, should not be willing that the
qualifying remarks made by the Senator from
New York should go out with those which he'
thoughit proper to quote,                 and especially when he
put an interpretation upon them different from
that of their author.  But, sir, if he is satisfied
that it shall go betfore country as he has stated
it, that is a matter of taste and propriety with
him.
One word in reply to the Senator from South
Carolina, as to the constitutional question.  He
says, if Congress has sovereign power, and can
exclude Slavery from a Territory, why may it
not establish Slavery?  I tried to answer that
question some time ago.  I shall not repeat the
argument; but let me put a question in turn.
The Congress can prohibit the establishment of a
monarchy in a Territory; can it therefore establish a monarchy?  It can prohibit murder; can         r
it legalize murder?  I suppose by a law of Congress we can and we do prevent murder in the
Indian country; we may do so in a Territory.
Can anybody pretend that, under the Constitution of -he United States, Congress could sanction murder?  Let me not be misunderstood, or
my remark misapplied, by saying that I compare
Slavery to murder. I have already said that Slavery may not be a crime at all.  I put these as
illustrations, to show that it does not necessarily
follow that Congress can establish a thing because it can prohibit it. But I will not dwell on
that.
Sir, the sentiments of the Senator from New
York, which have been so much commented
upon, are not new to this country. He is not the
author of the declaration of this princip'e, that
there is a conflict between right and wrong between good and evil; nor is he the first person
who has looked forward to the time when all th       e
States should be free.  Let me read to the Senate what thie Father of his Country skid upon
this very subj ct. General W ashington, in a letter written to Gene al Lafayette, in 1798, said:
Slavery into the new Territories, and I trust we shal have  a
Confederacy of free States."
What more than that is the declaration of the
Senator from New York? Were these doctrines
considered  heretical  in   1798?   Did  General
Washington promulgate a principle which was
to degrade the South, reduce it to subjection,
trampl      e  its rights  under   foot?      This p rinciple
th en  met the   approbation of the       people of    the
South;    t      he preva           iling sentiment of Virginig was
against the spread of Slavery into new Territories, and suc h  is      th e  prevail i ng sentiment of the
people  of Illin ois. Hear further, sir, what th          e
found aer        of the old Republican  party said upon
this subject:
" With the morals of the peop le, their  industr y a lso is destroyed; tor, in a wariii clim    ate, no man will  labor for himseil' who can make another labor for him. This is so true,
that,  of  the proprictors  of slaves, a very small proportion
ii,iced are cver seen to labor.  And can the liberty of a nationi be thought  secure when  we  have remo ved  their only
fitm basis-a conviction ill the min ds of the people that these
liberties  are   t it   ona ut the git o Go-tt they are no t to be violated
ibut with His wmatl? Ind  eed, I tremnble f or my country
w hen  I  relflect that God  is just  that  is justic cannot  sleep
aorever; that,   considering  numbers, nature, aInd natural
o ecaus only, a re volution of the  vlhiel  of fortSlic, an exchange el'situation, is aomoig poss:ble c cvents; ilht  i t  omay
become probable by supernatural ifli.encel The Alnighty
has no at tribute whiaclh can take side with (Is ill such a conte6t. "
That was the language of Thomas Jefferson,
the great apostle of human liberty in this country. Again: ThomasJefferson, in 1821, referring
to a number of bills which h,ad been introduced
into the Legislature of Virginia, with regard to
the emancipation of slaves, used this language:
"The bill on the subject of slaves was a mi-ore digest of the
existinlg lawvs respelcting them, without ally initilmiation of a
plan lot a future and general emancipation. It wa;s thought
better that this should be kept back, and attempted only  by
way of amiiiendmenit whenever the bill should be brought on.
The princil)les of the ame ndment, howeve(r, vere agreed on
that is to say, the freedom of all born after a ce:'tain day,
and (Icportatio,n at a proper age.  But it was  1, unid that the
public mind would not yet bear the proposition, nor will it
bear it even at this day.   Yet the day is not distant when it
inist bear and adopt it, or worse will follow. Nothing is
more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these
people are to be free."
Where was the Senator from South  Carolina
in 1821, when Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that
nothing,was more certainly written in the book
of fate, than that these people were to be free.
Let me read further:
", Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free,
cannc, t live in the saine Government. Nature, habit, opinion, have drawnl indelible lines of distinction between them.
It is still in ourt power to direct the process of emancipatien
and depor1ttation peaceably, and in such slow degree as that
thle evil will wlear off insenisibly, atnd their place be, pari
passu, filled up by free white laborers.  If, on the contrary,
it. is left to Io:'ce itself on, human  nature must shudder it the
prospect held up. We should in vain  look for an example in
the Spanislh deportation or deletion of the Mloors.  This precedenit would tall far short of our case.
"I consider four of these bills,  passed or report~ed, as
forminlg  a soystem by which every fibre would  be eradicated
of acllienet or t'uti'e aristociracy, Clad a foulllat.oi laid for a
GoverLnmenit truliy republican."
Where, then, was the feeling which  is now
exhibited, that the South ought to dissolve the
Union on account of the utterance of such sentiments, and especially when the Senator from
Nest York has taken the pains to gua~rd against
the itnference that he was for using any other than
constitutional and legal means in co-operation
wih the States in getting rid eventually, in the
far distant future, of this thing of Slavery. It
will be Been that the idea is not new nor peeu
met w   ith   yth  ap -,o   idias n                                     in your views in regard to
nlegro slavery.  I lhave long conisidleredt it a most serious
e vl, tloth soe.e.ally aniil)(,Iitically,and I should rejoice in any
fca      s,;ie scheme t) ridl our  States of such a burden.
I'le  Congress of 17,7 adopl,ted an ordinance which prohibits the ex;stefice  of involhntary servitude in ouir Northwestern Territory forever-. I consider it a wise measure. It
met withl the approval and assent of nearly every member
of the States more immediately interested in slave labor.
The prevailing opinion in Virginia is against the spread of
I 
16
liar to the Senator from New York.  It bad its i no man's property.  It neither has the power nor the will
orig,in in Virg,inia years ago; and I trust that  to allect the property ot' any one' contrary to his consent.
origin in Virginia Shears ago; and  I trust that   exeuon'flsYhmuolualtmll,Oliealotll
The execution of its scheme would augment, instead of di an idea  foreshadowed by Mr.  Jefferson  will mlishlling, the value of' the property leit behind.  The So hereafter become, although it is not now, part  ciety, coiniposed of freemen, concerns itself only with the
of the creed of the Repul.ican party-I mean the  free. Collateral consequences we are not responsible for.
oit is not this Society which has prodeced tile great moral
idea of the deportation of the free negro poplla- revolution  which the age exhibits. What would they, who
tion from this country.  I trust the Republican  thus reproach us, have done?" 
party will make it part of its creed, that this    Now, see how his language fits the declarations
Government should procure some region of coun-  of the Senator from South Carolina, who finds
try, not far distant, to which our free negro pop-  such fault with the idea of ultimate emancipa ulation may be taken.   I fear the consequences,  tion:.
which Jefferson so eloquently prophesied, unless    " If they would repress all tendencies towards liberty and
that is done.  The negro population is increas- ultimate emnalicipatioti, they must do more than put down
ing at a rapid rate. I agree with t            e          bment  t evolenotit effirts of this Society. They must go back
mg at a rapid rate.  I agree with the sentiment  to the or, out our liberty auin indeelietidetce, and muzzle the
of Mr. Jefferson, that two races which are marked  cannonl which thunders its aimnual jyots return. They
by distinctive features cannot live peaceably to-  must revive the slave trade, with all its train of atrocities.'
gether without one domineering over the other,    Ay, sir, revive the slave trade as we now see
especially when they differ in color.  The free  it being revived!
negro population of this country is a great evil   "T Ihey must suppress the workings of British philanthropy,
now.  I believe it to be the interest of the black  seeicing'to ameliorite the conditioni of the tini-ltunate West
population that they should go to some country  Iii(tiai slaves. They mustarrest the carcerof South Aier                                                     ican del-iveraince fr~om tlnraldom. They must blow out the
where they may develop their powers, and where  iandl ligh           t saldom. Thev muset blow out tche
Toorail lights sirorid ui<: anil extingus ~hata greatest toi cii
there shall be no superior race to domineer over al-.  wtl wi;( Ii Amet-ica presentso o 1 ).llightcl w0t'l(t, point them, and that it is the duty of this Government  i,,g t           heir riIlts,               their ii liappi
lurpose of freeing our   ess. Andi when they have achieved ali these purposes,
to use its means for the Ourpose of freeing -our their rworIkc will be yet incomplete. They must penetrate
country of that portion of this population that is the human soul, tnd eradicate the light of reason all,' the
willing to go.  I think, in that way, this thing  love il liberty. Then, and not till then, when utniversal
,)f Slavery may eventually be got rid of.  Thou-,,Idarkness tid despair prevail, can you I.ei'l'ptuate Slavery,
f Slavery maiy eventually be got riand h   relress all sympathies and all hiimlaie and benevolent
sands of masters would be willing to free their etforts atmoltg t'reemen in behall' of the ii hal)iy portioi of
slaves, if there was any provision for them when  our race who are doomed to bondlage."
freed; but in most of the States where Slavery    That, sir, was the language of Henry Clay in
exists, laws have been passed prohibiting eman-  regard to the colonization of the free blacks in
cipation except on condition that the emancipa-  Africa.  It seems to be impracticable to transted slave shall leave the jurisdiction of the State port this great population  to Africa.  Let us
Where are they to go?   The North does not  obtasin a country nearer home; and to show the
want a free negro population;  the South will   - mp)athy of the North for the South, I think I
not have them.  The consequence is, that eman- m.y say-I know I may say for the people whom
cipation has nearly ceased.  It, however, a cotin   I epresent-we will contribute liberally of our
t~~~~~~~~~~~~Irypeet-ewl contribuout ee proide,werallty                ofree
try contiguous were  provided, where the fiee  means to relieve the country of the free negro
ne_.gro population of the United States who were  population, and of all slaves who may be volunwilling might to-and I think they would soon all th t ily emancipated, by planting them  in some
be willing to leave if they could go under the continuous country by themselves. I hope that
fostirin, care of this Government until they be   miy become the policy of the Republican party.
came sufficiently numnirous to protect themselves  I hope that we shall join hands with the South
and establish a Government of their own -we'that, instead of reproaching each other, instead
might establish a system which, in process of of sa3in,  anything  which  would create a mistime, not in sour day, sir, nor in mine, nor per- understanding between different sections of the
haps in the day of the coming generation, but in  Union, we may come together as our tethers did
future time, -,N-ould relieve us of the black popfuntu  ime, w     d relineve vts of the black ~l w    tof od1(1 ill their strugg(le  for independence, and,
ulation  and   revent consequences  ich   e  side by side as brothers, adopt it policy which, if
shudder to contemplate.  I cannot so well ex-!it shall inot eventually deliver the country from
press my views on this point as by quoting from  the only element which ever seriously threatened
a speech made by a distinguished Senator fiom  its peace, shall at least prevent its spread tend
Kentucky, now no more, before the Auteritanl  increase, anti,it the same titue furnish the meant
Colonization Society.  He said:, of relieving the country of the evils of a larg(
We are reproached  ti doing mischief by the agitation free negro population. By such a course we may
of this question.  The Soc ety goes into no householit to dI;s-   
turb its deomestic trniquillity  it addiessesitselI'tonoslhtvs,  ly the foundation for continued and permanent
to weaken their obiigatiols o' obecdience; it scks to albect  prosperity.
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS.
1859.
I