Remarks of Hon. Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, on seizure of arsenals at Harper's Ferry, Va., and Liberty, Mo., and in vindication of the Republican Party and its creed, in reponse to Senators Chesnut, Yulee, Saulsbury, Clay and Pugh. Delivered in the United States Senate, December 6, 7 and 8, 1859

REMARKS

,7

OF

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, OF ILLINOIS,

On seizure of Arsenals at Harper's Ferry, Va., and Liberty, Mo., and
in vindication of the Republican Party and its Creed, in response
to Senators Chesnut, Yuhe, ^aulsbury, Clay, and Pugh.

Delivered in the United States Se? ate, December 6, 7, and 8, 1859.

December 6, 1859.

The Senate having under consideration tli

following resolution, offered by Mr. Maso^, c

Virginia :

Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire i
the facts attending the late invasion and seizure of 9 l
mory and arsenal of the United States at Harper's .
in Virginia, by a band of armed men, and report whei
the same was attended by armed resistance to the auth •'■
ties and public force of the United States, and by the mur-
der of any of the citizens of Virginia, or of any t: > s ;nt
there to protect the public property ; whether such \ asion
and seizure was made under color of any organization in-
tended to subvert the Government of any of the States ofthe
Union ; what was the character and extent of such organi-
zation ; and whether any citizens of the United States, not
present, were implicated therein or accessory thereto, by
contributions of money, arms, munition , or otherwise;
what was the character and extent of 1 tniil try iquip-
rnent in the hands or under the cum. ■. >i - umed bandj
and where and how and when the i i was obtained and
transported to the place so invaded. & ' that said commit-
tee report whether any and what ' ig lation may, in their
opinion, be necessary, on the pari ji the United States, for
the future preservation of the peace of the country, or wi-
the safety of the public property; and that si 1 committee
have power to send for persons and papers.

Mr. TRUMBULL said:

Mr. President, v. hen that resolution was offer-
ed 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 bv the Senator from Virginia, will re-
ceive my support. If any other persons than the
twenty-two whose names are known to the coun-
try are implicated in, or in any way accessory to,
the seizure of Harper's Ferry, and the murder 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 disabu-
sing the public mind, in that portion of the Union
which feels most sensitively upon this sub-
ject, of the idea that the outbreak at Harper's
Ferry received any countenance or support from
any considerable number of persons in any por-
tion of this Union. No man who is not prepared
to subvert the Constitution, destroy the Govern-
ment, and resolve society into its original ele-
ments, can justify such an act. No matter what
evils, either real or imaginary, may exist in the
body politic, if each individual, or every set of

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
other person. All Governments, the best which
have been devised, encroach necessarily more or
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 state of anarchy, iu which every man shall be
permitted to follow the instincts of his own pas-
sions or prejudices, and where there will be no
protection to the physically weak against the
encroachments of the strong ? Till we are pre-
pared to inaugurate such a state as this, no man
can justify the deeds done 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 gal-
lows 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 transac-
tion which occurred in the State of Missouri. I
will briefly state what that transaction was, a3
it may not be fresh in the recollection of Sena-
tors.

The Government of the United States had an
arsenal at the town of Liberty, in the State of
Missouri, of which Captain Leonard had charge.
Iri December, 1855 — and the facts which I state
appear upon the official records of the country —
Captain Leonard testifies that a Judge Thomp-
son, in company with a large number of others,
appeared at the arsenal, overpowered him, con-
fined him, broke open the magazines, supplied

themselves with cannon, rifles, swords, and pis-
tols, with powder and ball, and took them away
from the arsenal. This was followed by the in-
vasion of a peaceful Territory; not twenty-two
persons only, but more than a thousand men,
marched into the adjoining Territory, armed with
"weapons taken by violence from an arsenal of the
United States, under the charge of an officer of
the United States, with the avowed object of
making that Territory a slaveholding State. It
appears that societies were formed — secret or-
ganizations— reaching from Missouri into vari-
ous States, and, among others, the State of Vir-
ginia, whose object and design was by force to
introduce Slavery into Kansas ; and to carry out
this object, these men seized upon these arms
and munitions belonging to the Government of
the United States. Captain Leonard, in his
statement under oath, says:

" The Judge and others told me there were troubles iu
Kansas, and they wanted arms, but would do nothing wrong
with them. I told the Judge this was aggressive on the
part of Missouri, and every community was competent to
take care of its own affairs, and that the Missourians ought
not to interfere. A good deal more was said on both sides,
and I felt indignant at the aggression. The Judge himself
did not say an uncivil word to me. I had not expected any
such thing as this when I first saw the Judge, or I 'could
have had the gates locked.

" The mob proceeded to take arms, forcing the doors, and
took three six-pounders, some swords, pistols, rifles, and
ammunition, powder, balls, kc.,as much as they wanted.
They broke some doors open. I do not know how they got
the keys to get into the powder magazine, which is composed
of brick, and had double doors. Captain Price was the lead-
ing man in the crowd, as I understood. Mr. Rout was there.
I was kept in the room until the men had got all the arms
and ammunition they wanted, and had gone away, Judge
Thompson being the last one ; when he let me go out, and
then he left himself.

"Some six or eight days afterwards, the guns were re-
turned to the arsenal. They were left, I was told, at Col.
Allen's place, some three-quarters of a mile from the arse-
nal. In the mean time, I had reported the facts to Col. Sum-
ner, and he had sent down a company of dragoons. The
men sent to me to know if I would receive the arms, ami I
told them I was not in command, and referred them to
Captain Beall, and he told them to bring them along ; they
did so, and they, were received. Among the property taken
was some artillery harness ; I cannot recollect how many
sets. There were some deficiencies in the number of rifles,
swords, and pistols, and some harness returned ; but I can-
not state the precise particulars. These deficiencies have
flever been made up by the citizens of Missouri ; but I have
fieen instructed by Col. Craig, the head of the ordnance de-
partment at Washington, to purchase sufficient of such arti-
cles as I could obtain in the neighborhood to make up the
deficiency, and we did so ; but the swords, pistols, and ri-
£es, we have not been able to make up. I do not know how
much has been expended in making up this deficiency. Im-
mediately after this robbery, I reported the circumstances to
Col. Craig, at Washington, specifying the number and amount
if each of the different articles taken. In the course of the
■vinter, he sent me orders to ship the public property to
Fort Leavenworth and St. Louis arsenal, giving me a sched-
ule of the amount to be taken to each place, which I did as •
soon as navigation opened." — House Report J\'o. 200, Thirty-
fourth Congress, firstsession, pages 1130-31.

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 Harper'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 Harper'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 proDer subjects to be inquired into.

Perhaps the latter would never have occurred if
inquiry had been made, and the proper steps had
been taken when the cry for succor came from
Kansas, and her citizens were murdered by the
very arms taken from this arsenal or at any
rate by persons in the same army with them.
Then the complaints that were made were treated
as the " shrieks of bleeding Kansas," and they
could not be heard. I trust they may get
a better hearing now. Now. sir, when the
shrieks of Virginia are heard, and the ear3 of
the country are opened, I trust those from Kan-
sas may get a hearing also. I am prepared to
hear both ; and I hope that the investigation in
regard to Harper's Ferry may be impartial,
thorough, and complete, and let whoever 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 Missouri.
I offer the following amendment :

After the word " invaded," near the end of the resolution,
insert :

And that said committee also inquire into the facts attend-
ing the invasion, seizure, and robbery, in December, 1855.
ofthc arsenal of the United States, at Liberty, in the State of
Missouri, by a mob or body of armed men, and report
whether such seizure and robbery was attended by resist-
ance to the authorities of the United States, and followed by
an invasion ofthc Territory of Kansas, and the plunder and
murder of any of its inhabitants, or of any citizen of the
United States, by the persons who thus seized the arms and
ammunition of the Government, or others combined with
them, whether said seizure and.robbery of the arsenal were
made under color of any organization intended to subvert
the Government of any of the States or Territories of the
Union ; what was the character and extent of such organiza-
tion, and whether any citizens ofthc United States, not pres-
ent, were implicated therein, or accessory thereto, by con-
tributions of money, arms, ammunition, or otherwise ; what
was the character and extent of the military equipments in
the hands or under the control of said mob, and how and
when and where the same were subsequently used by said
mob ; what was the value of the arms and ammunition of
every description so taken from the said arsenal by the
mob ; whether the same or any part thereof have been re-
turned, and the value of such as were lost ; whether Captain
Luther Leonard, the United States officer in command of the
arsenal, communicated the facts in relation to its seizure and
robbery to his superior officer, and what measures, if any,
were taken in reference thereto.

December 7, 1859.

Mr. PUGH, of Ohio, having made an appeal
to Mr. Trumbull to withdraw his amendment,

Mr. TRUMBULL said :

After what has been said, particularly by the
Senator who last addressed the Senate, [Mr.
Chesnut,] in regard to the apprehension that
something may be drawn out in the course of
this investigation which may fasten the insurrec-
tion at Harper's Ferry upon the Republican party,
and 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 am a little astonished that any
person can ask me to withdraw an amendment
which will lead also to ascertaining what the
sentiment of the South may be.

I have been appealed to to state why this
amendment was offered. I will fell you, sir, and
it will be but a repetition of what I stated yes-
terday. I believe the outbreak at Harper's Ferry
has arisen, not from the teachings and the acts
of the Republican party, or any of its leaders, or
anybody in its ranks, as the Senator from South
Carolina supposes, but from the teachings of the
party with which he himself is associated. The

Democratic party, by upholding and never re-
buking the sacking of the arsenal in Missouri, by
rewarding with oilice the men who did it, by
sending the Federal troops, they having control
of the Government at the time, into Kansas, to
hold in confinement men indicted upon trumped-
up charges of treason, set an example to the
country which engendered the spirit that mad-
dened Brown. I need not and will not go over
the history of that transaction, which the Senator
from "Wisconsin has just detailed. I offered the
amendment in good faith, as being pertinent to
the criginal resolution, as 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 occurrence was only four years since. But
of what use would it have been for me to have
moved in the Senate for a committee of investi-
gation ? Does the Senator from South Carolina
suppose that the Senate or the country has for-
gotten how everything relating to Kansas was
managed here? A proposition offered in the
Senate of the United States to inquire into these
matters would have been scouted at the time. I
recollect that I offered several propositions in
order to remedy the difficulties in Kansas, not
one of which received the sanction of the Sen-
ate. I proposed to repeal the laws abridging the
freedom of speech in Kansas — laws which sub-
jected a man to imprisonment for year3 who
should venture to say that 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
raise a committee of this kind perfectly useless.
Now, however, a different feeling prevails. An-
other arsenal has been taken possession of. There
is a difference between the two cases. I do not
understand that the arms of the Government at
Harper's Ferry were appropriated to the use of
the insurgents, but in Missouri the public arms
were carried away, part have never been return-
ed, and the officer in command was directed to
supply other portions by purchase, which he has
done.

I think that the two things properly go to-
gether, and that one should be inquired into as
much as the other. As great an outrage was
committed four years ago, in taking possession
of the arsenal at Liberty, as was committed a
month or two ago, in taking possession of the
armory at Harper's Ferry. I apprehend that
where hundreds of dollars worth of property
were destroyed at Harper's Ferry, thousands
were destroyed in consequence of the taking
possession of the arsenal at Liberty. I appre-
hend that where one life was lost in consequence
of the act3 at Harper's Ferry, many lives were
lost in consequence of the taking possession of
the arsenal at Liberty and the events that fol-
lowed it. Sir, it was with the arms which were
supplied from that arsenal that Lawrence was
besieged. The army that encamped at Waka-
rusa were armed with weapons from the United
States arsenal, to what extent 1 am unable to
say. 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

passed resolutions calling upon the President, or
upon the proper Department, and probably upon
both, for all the papers and correspondence in
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 tho
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. I am as much for maintaining the equal-
ity of the States of the Union as the Senator
from South Carolina ; but what on earth has the
introduction of Slavery into a Territory to do
with the rights of any State, North or South?
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 re-
siding 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 I.
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 Confed-
eracy, because, as you charge, the Northern
people are assailants and aggressors on your
rights. Is the whole history of this country for-
gotten ? How is it, that the moment this Gov-
ernment was formed, one of the first acts of the
men who made it was to provide that Slavery-
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 Sla-
very 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 ex-
cluding Slavery from the Territories of the Uni-
ted 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 1S-18, 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 any
such thing as inequality or injustice to any
State of this Union in the exclusion of Slavery
from a Territory? Will the Senator from Somh
Carolina do his ancestors the injustice to believe
that they submitted to the degradation and dis-
honor, as he now calls it, of being excluded from
the common Territories of the country? Sir,
they chose it, not as-a degradation, not as a dis-

nonor, but for wise purposes, and to accomplish
great ends. The founders of our Government
were men who, in their day, believed the insti-
tution of Slavery to be an evil in the country.
They found it here. They did not see the means
of getting rid of it immediately. They would
not abolish it at once. They conferred upon the
Federal Government no power to interfere 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 Fed-
eral Government. The territories composing
those States were ceded to the United States on
condition that the United States should not ex-
clude Slavery from them ; but the territory
northwest 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
Northwestern Territory.

We deny that there is any disposition in any
portion of the North to treat the South as une-
qual in this common Confederacy.

Having shown that to some extent, I wish to
come back, and inquire of the Senator from
South Carolina, and his associates, what is the
meaning of the resolutions adopted in the South-
ern States, and of the speeches made by promi-
nent men in the Southern States, in which they
declare that in case a certain individual is elect-
ed President of these United States, in a consti-
tutional way, or in case the Republican party
elect a President of the United States, that they
will take steps for the formation of a Southern
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 United States, and charge the North with act-
ing unequally and unjustly towards you ; and yet
you say to the North, " although we have united
together in a common Confederacy, La which we
have agreed that the Chief Magistrate shall be
elected 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 Government ! "
What is that but saying, " we are your superiors,
and your majority shall submit to what the mi-
nority think proper to dictate?"

Mr. CHE3NUT. Does the Senator desire an
answer now?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir.

Mr. CHESNUT. I will simply stale, so far as
it is within my knowledge, what I believe to be
the meaning of that declaration. It is not charg-
ing the North with inferiority. The declarations
having been made by those who entertain them,
I presume go upon the ground of a distinct, un-
mistakable, clear enunciation of principles —
principles which subvert the Constitution of the
United States, the rights and equality of the
States, and which are held up in advance to us,

that " this will be our 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
labor, 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 right3 of the
people, secured by the compact and the Consti-
tution of the country, and we are forewarned.
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-procla-
mation, without touching the inferiority of the
Northern States at all. Sir, it is not the men, 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, qui-
etly if you will yield, forcibly if you do not; and
we will hold you under the power of this Fed-
eral Government, subject to the domination of a
party whose principles are in violation," accord-
ing to our judgment, " of every principle of the
Constitution." That, I presume, is the meaning
of those who profess that sentiment.

Mr. 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 North
intends no encroachment upon the South. The
Republican party is a party, in its principles, pub-
lic and avowed to the world, and it is because of
the misrepresentation of the objects and views of
that party that the prejudices of the South have
been excited against it, and chiefly by the mis-
representations which have been made by this
so-called Democratic party in the North. They
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 com-
mercial interests of the country, and other great
questions. But, in 1854, what was done? I
was one of those who acquiesced in the measures
of 1850, and agreed to abide by the settlement
thea made. I heard with delight the declaration
of Franklin Pierce, when inaugurated President,
and in his message, that the settlement of 1950
should suffer no shock which he could prevent
during his Administration. I was glad when

the Kansas-Nebraska bill was introduced, ac-
companied by the report of a committee in this
body, declaring that to repeal the Missouri com-
promise would be a departure from the meas-
ures of 1830. 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 should
under any pretence Avhatever, 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
1834, 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 Missduri 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
years 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 at-
tributes to the Republican party of the North the
views whicb he does, he entirely misapprehends
the views of that party. They have been reit-
erated 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 Republi-
can 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.
" Oh ! but you exclude us from the common ter-
ritory." Is that an interference with your insti-
tutions? Was it an interference in 1*78 V ? Was

it an interference in 1780, when your own great
men passed the act to exclude Slavery from the
Territories ? You did 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, along with him wherever he
goes. When he goes beyond the jurisdiction 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 rive in all the South-
ern States owns a slave. We believe that it is
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 people. 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. 13 it a degradation then upon them ?
Who is it upon? Why, if on 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
ot Democracy. I said a degradation upon the
one-twentieth person. It is no degradation
upon him. It is no degradation upon any man.
You of the South, as citizens of this eonimon
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 States. They want no Slavery,
and I suppose if the question were to be submit-
ted to the citizens of Illinois to-morrow, whether
Slavery should be introduced, although there
are thousands of voters from Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia,
and South Carolina, it would not get one vole
in ten thousand in the State.

Mr. YULEE. Will the Senator allow me to
interrupt him a moment?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir.

Mr. YULEE. The Senator undertook just

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 prin-
cipally prevails in the Northern States on that
subject.

Mr. TRUMBULL. If the Senator from Florida
cannot understand the principles of the Republi-
can party, which have been proclaimed and
published to the world, he is certainly not a very
apt scholar, and I shall almost despair of enlight-
ening him. Our principles are emblazoned be-
fore 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 can-
not 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 Flor-
ida, and every Senator, could understand, if he
desired to do so, what our principles were. They
have been proclaimed by an authoritative Con-
vention of the party, in language as plain 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 Senator from
Florida, or any other Senator or individual,
North or South, objects. Here it is :

" Resolved, That the maintenance of the principles promul-
gated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in
the Federal Constitution, are essential to the preservation of
our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitu-
tion, the rights of the States, and the Union of the States,
must and shall be preserved."

Does the Senator from Florida understand
that — that the Constitution of the United States,
the rights of the States, and the principles em-
bodied in the Constitution, must and shall be
preserved?

Mr. YULEE. I want to know how you con-
strue the Constitution ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. We will tell you. We say
ourselves how we construe it on the Slavery
question :

" Resolved, That, with our renublican fathers, we hold it
to bo a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the
inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi-
ness; and that the primary object and ulterior 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 becomes
our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution
(against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of estab-
lishing Slavery m the Territories of the United States) by
positive legislation prohibiting its existence or extension
therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Ter-
ritorial Legislature, of any individual or association of indi-
viduals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory
of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be
maintained.

"Resolved, That the Constitution 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 pro-
hibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism, Polyg-
amy and Slavery."

That is the whole platform of the Republican
party on the subject of Slavery.

Mr. SAULSBURY. Will the Senator from Il-
linois allow me to ask him a question ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SAULSBURY. If it be true, as that last
resolution states, that the Constitution confers
upon Congress sovereign power over the Terri-
tories of the United States, for their government,
why is it that that power, which the resolution
declares to be sovereign 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 gov-
ernment, as we all know and understand, within
the Constitution of the United States. The Con-
stitution of the United States declares that Con-
gress shall pass no law establishing any partic-
ular 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 Territo-
ries. 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 Consti-
tution cf 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 tbe use
of the word " slave," lest future generations
might know that there was Slavery in some of
the State3 when the Constitution was formed.
If you will turn to that clause of the Constitu-
tion relating to the reclamation of fugitive sla ve3,
you will find that it reads, that "no person held
to service or labor in one State, under the laws

thereof," that is, under the laws of the State,
''escaping into another, shall, in consequence of
any law or 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 he es-
caped ? 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 by 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 ordi-
nance 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 fugi-
tives 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 re-
claimed 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 knew what he will say. He objects to that
part which excludes Slavery from the Territories.
Is there any other?

Mr. YULEE. I desire to hear from the Sena-
tor an illustration and exposition of his creed;
whether he intends U3 to understand, or his
party intend it to be understood, that by the
Constitution 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 he
mean to say that the tenure in slave property iu

the District of Columbia, and in the forts and in
the arsenals, as well as in the Territories of the
United States, was abolished under the Con-
stitution, and stands abolished now?

If there be any meaning in this platform, it is
a meaning which strikes at I he root of property
in slaves in all the new States of this 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 existence 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 a Southern State, and by them alone, ac-
companied with their slave property, which the
Supreme Court declares to be legally their prop-
erty 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 the 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 ?

More than that ; if, when they come to form
themselves into a sovereign community, and pre-
sent themselves here, under the Federal Consti-
tution, 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 organiza-
tion is limited to the Territorial question, and
when that i3 done with, all is done with it on the
slave question, then the South will know, so far,
v'hat to expect from them.

Next, so far as the Territorial question is con-
cerned, I ask the Senator to give us the practical
measures by which they propose to give applica-
tion to their principles, and to tell us upon what
ground they assert that property in slaves is abol-
ished by the Constitution, and yet justify a con-
tinued recognition of that right in the District of
Columbia, the forts and arsenals, and those of
the Territories of the United States in which it
has been permitted, not only by the acquiescence
but by the direct authority of law, to exist, for
such was the case in Tennessee, and in other
portions of the new States. Congress did, by ex-
press enactment, authorize the existence of Sla-
very. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I am glad
this discussion ha3 arisen. I have no right to
impeach the motives of gentlemen ou the other

8

side; I suppose they really labor under some
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
19 the foundation of the great controversy upon
the Slavery question.

The Senator has thought proper to speak of
the South. He speaks of the degradation, as he
calls it, to the South, of excluding them from a
Territory

Mr. YULEE. That was the Senator's own
word. I merely quoted his own language.

Mr. TRUMBULL. We mean no degradation
to the South. I am sorry that the word " South "
has been used with regard to this alleged right
to extend Slavery to a Territory. I tried yester-
day to explain that the South is made up of a
great many persons who are not slaveholders,
by far many more than the slaveholders, and
therefore I do not know what right those who
hold slaves have to arrogate to themselves that
they are the South. They are a portion of the
South, and a small portion only, about one-
twentieth part, as shown by the census.

The Senator asks if this platform of principles
is only intended to apply to the Territories. Most
assuredly the Republican party had its origin in
the question of Slavery in regard to the Territo-
ries. It was the departure from the policy of
this Government, from the day of its foundation
clown to 1S54, which gave rise to che Republican
party. It was an organization in reference to
the question of Slavery in the Territories, and
nowhere else. There is nothing in this platform
in regard to the question of Slavery in the States
of this Union; and, lest I forget it, permit me to
say that I speak not for the Republican party,
except as its platform speaks. I claim no au-
thority to be its exponent. Its exponent is its
principles, as declared here in this document.

Mr. YULEE. I desire to have his exposition of
the platform, or what he presents as his plat-
form.

Mr. TRUMBULL. The Senator speaks of what
I present as the* platform. Now, is it possible
that the Senator 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 not say, ,; the platform of the Re-
publican party ? :' Why should we seek here, in
the Senate of the United States, to mislead any-
body ? I am sorry we cannot speak of admitted
facts, as they are. We are trying here, I trust,
to arrive at an understanding with each other.
That is my object ; and I wish to do away with
all these clap-trap expressions and these ugly
name3 that are used for the purpose of exciting
prejudice. Why is it that members of the Sen-
ate of the United States, and that the Cabinet
officers of the country, talk of the Republican
party as the Black Republican party ? Do they
want to create a prejudice against it? The Sen-
ator did not use that word.

Mr. YULEE. No, I did not use it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. I happened to speak of it
now — it has been used in this debate — because

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
Republican.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have said you did not.
Mr. YULEE. But I did not use the term Re-
publican here, for the reason, as I said last night,
that that term and that party denomination hav-
ing been once consecrated by a national party of
far other, and. as I humbly think, higher objects
than the present party, no party, whatever its
objects may be, has the right to appropriate that
name. It has become the property of a prece-
ding party, and therefore some qualification of
the term Republican, by which the gentleman's
party may be defined, ought to be adopted. I
will not myself apply a qualification, but leave
it to that party to discover, as I hope they will,
some qualification of the term Republican.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, it is because
we advocate every principle advocated by the
old Republican party that we adopt its name ;
and I say to the Senator to-day, show me a de-
parture from the principles of the Republican
party of Thomas Jefferson's days, and I will op-
pose that departure in the Republican party of
to-day. It is because we advocate the princi-
ples of Thomas Jefferson, because we advocate
the principles of the Republican party of 1800,
that we call ourselves Republicans ; and, if I
know myself, I will adhere to the principles of
the old Republican party in regard to this ques-
tion. The father of that party is our great model.
Our principles are taken from him. The very
words of our platform which the gentleman ob-
jects to, were indited by his hand.

Mr. YULEE. "To create, not to destroy, a
free government ?"

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir ; and we will per-
petuate free government by continuing the prin-
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!
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 will adopt
your creed on the subject of the spread of Sla-
very, and the upholding of slaveholding institu-
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-
ocrats ! 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 pro-
mote that of one-fifth.

The Senator wishes to know if Slavery was
abolished by the Constitution of the United
States. I have already said, no ; Slavery Was
not abolished by the Constitution of the United
States. I stated before, and I will try to repeat
it again, that the Constitution was based upon
the idea of Freedom, but it did not abolish Sla-
very where it existed by State or local law. It
did not interfere to do that. It allowed the

9

States to manage that for themselves, and pro-
Tided that, when one held to service should es-
cape to another State, where Slavery did not
exist, he might be reclaimed ; and I wish 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
person who runs away, but I think it should be
done in a judicious and proper manner, without
exciting bad feeling in the country.

Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator allow me a mo-
ment, to ask him whether he recognises the
right to reclaim fugitive slaves in the Territo-
ries ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I do, under an act of Con-
gress 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
is declared that neither Congress nor any indi-
vidual can give any legal assistance to Slavery
within the Territories.

Mr. TRUMBULL. "Give legal existence to
Slavery in a Territory,'' is the language. We
deny 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 pro-
vided 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 recog-
nise 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 plat-
form of that party from which I just now read,
the word is " assistance," not " existence ; " and
I have never yet, in any platform of that party
which has come under my view, seen the word
"existence." It is " assistance." It is so pub-
lished 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 under-
stood it to be otherwise. I have the platform as
used in the Northern States. If it has been dif-
ferently published, I was not aware of it.

Mr. CLAY. Still, if the Senator will pax-don
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
right of all men to liberty, and the obligation of
the Federal Government to secure that right
within the Territories, the countervailing obliga-
tion to restore a fugitive slave.

Mr. TRUMfJULL. Mr. President, I will try to
do so. I will give him my understanding of it
as calmly and impartially as I am able. I un-
derstand that part of the platform to be the as-
sertion of a great natural right, and that is what
I understand by those words in the Declaration
of Independence, wherein it is declared that " all
men are created equal, and endowed by their
Creator," not by the Government, " with certain
inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness." Now, I do not
understand that our fathers supposed they could
carry out these principles perfectly 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. What
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 lied 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 in-
tended to form a Government as near the great
principles of natural right as they could. As
Mr. .Jefferson said, the most perfect Government
on earth would be one which secured to hon-
est labor the fruits of its own industry, and in-
terfered no more than was necessary to prevent
anarchy, or the encroachments of the strong
upon the weak. I do not quote bis beautiful
language, but the idea. This is what I under-
stand 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. TRUMBULL. Undoubtedly.

Mr. CLAY. I do not mean to interrupt him ;
but as he seems disposed to be candid and com-
municative, I will trouble him with a further
question. I would be glad if he can explain how
lie can reconcile with the personal integrity of
the framers of the Declaration of Ibdependence
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 weuld 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 to 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 of
us (and our Government restrains us more or
less) is only to be justified upon the ground that
it is necessary for organized society and for
government, and that men could not live to-
gether, except in eternal quarrels, unless we had
a government of some kind; but that does not
militate against the truth that the great Author
of all created us equal and with the same rights.

Mr. CLAY. The Senator does not seem to
apprehend the force of my question. Perhaps I
did not put it fairly. According to the declara-
tion in your platform, as read, I understand your

10

party to maintain that the negro enjoys, in com-
mon with the white man, an inalienable right to
liberty. You denounce the violation of that
right as a crime, a sin in the eye of Heaven,
and a crime against the laws of man ; a violation
of the doctrines of Christianity. You denounce
it as a twin relic of barbarism with polygamy.
Now, I ask you how yon can reconcile it with
the personal integrity of the framers either of
the Declaration of Independence or of the Fed-
eral Constitution, that they sanctioned a crime
at the same time that they protested against it.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I am satis-
fied that I am not understood by the Senator
from Alabama. I say that the negro has the
same natural rights that I have ; and now I say
it is not a crime, under 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?

Mr. 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, ex-
cused, 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.

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for that concession,
in this Christian country.

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 Southern 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 per-
sons who are so held, but it is a wrong which
had better be endured than to do worse. It is
better to be endured than to undertake to right
it by committing a greater wrong and a greater
evil.

Mr. CLAY. Then, if the Senator will pardon
me, I understand him to maintain that right and
wrong are merely conventional ; that whether
polygamy be a crime or not, depends merely

upon the laws of society or upon the tone ot
moral sentiment of society.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Not entirely, Mr. President,
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
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 Senator pardon 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 great 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 Republican 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 always,
and the people of the State of Illinois who be-
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, for in this debate it is no interrup-
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 his
mind as to the objects and views of the Northern
people, I shall consider that I am performing a
service to my country in giving the information.

I have not been able to get through with what
I designed to say in reply to the Senator from
Florida, the Senator from Alabama having in-
terposed some questions in the mean time, divert-
ing my attention from him. I shall endeavor to
answer him. The Republican party, as I under-

11

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 under-
stand me as Baying 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 misun-
derstands me. The Republican party, on this
subject of Slavery, would prevent its extension,
and ;t would enforce the laws equally iu the
North and in the South. While it would not in-
terpose to prevent the owner of a slave from re-
capturing him in a free State, it would make it-
self active in preventing violations of the law in
the Southern States by the introduction of ne-
groes from the coast of Africa, and the, revival of
the African slave trade. "We would administer
this Government very differently from the man-
ner in which it is now administered ; and if we
had control, the army and navy of 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 Bostou.

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 ques-
tion. I asked the meaning of this clause in the
Republican platform.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Perhaps I shall be able to
answer; if not, when I get through, the Senator
can repeat the question. He wanted to know if
the slaves in Tennessee aud 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. PUGH. 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. TRUMBULL. I am giving my understand-
ing of the Republican creed, and the way it is
understood by the people of the Northwest, who
are a conservative, Union-loving, Constitution-
abiding people, loyal to the Constitution and to
the Union, and are no ultraists in any sense of
the word.

Mr. PUGH. Will the Senator permit me to ask
him whether he considers Governor Chase, of
Ohio, an exponent of the principles of the Re-
publican party?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I consider
that (the platform) the exponent of the princi-
ples 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 differ-
ence between us as there is between the Senator
from Ohio with his popular-sovereignty dogma
and the great Democratic party. [Laughter.]

Mr. PUGH. That is just what I want to find

out; how much difference there is between the
Senator and the rest of his pariy.

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
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 tol-
erate the exposition of the principles of its oppo-
nents at all where it is iu power, talks to the
other party about sectionalism !

I saj' that Slavery was not abolished in Ten-
nessee and Louisiana by the Constitution. Why,
sir, does not the Senator from Florida know that
we acquired Tennessee by a deed of cession that
prohibited the extension to it of that portion of
the ordinance of 1787 which 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 Sla-
very everywhere. Slavery can exist nowhere
except by virtue of local law, and that is the
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
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
off, not by virtue of the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States abolishing Slavery everywhere, but by
the universal law of mankind, that this thing of
Slavery is so odious that it can only be sus-
tained 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
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
Carolina ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I mean the local law exist-
ing in that Territory when it was ceded, and
which Congress, in accepting, agreed not to in-
terfere with.

The local law in Tennessee authorizing Sla-
very was not a law to which Congress gave ex-
istence ; it was a law in existence before Con-
gress had any jurisdiction over the Territory.
The Constitution did not intervene by its term3
to exclude Slavery, there being a local law in
existence, not made by Congress, authorizing it.
Congress had nothing to do with the making of
that local law. It was there ; men had a right
to their slaves as property in the Territory before

12

it belonged to the United States at all. Now,
be 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 get there, and it is no confiscation of prop-
erty so to de'.lare. They have no property in
slaves in such a case.

Mr. YULEE. Suppose they make a law.

Mr. TRUM13ULL. They cannot. That is the
very thing the Republican party say they cannot
do while in a Territorial condition. They have
no right to do it. The creed of the Republican
party, as I understand it, is, that you cannot ex-
tend Slavery, under the Federal Government,
into the Territories of the United States. There
may be Slavery in a country which does not be-
long to the United States ; the United States
may acquire that country, and may not abolish
Slavery, because the right to hold slaves existed
when the country was acquired ; but it does not
follow, that if the country was free when we ac-
quired it, men could afterwards have property in
slaves in it; and that is the distinction.

The Senator wants to know whether it is a
part of the Republican creed to keep out cf the
Union a State tolerating Slavery, which applies
for admission. Read the creed ; is there any
such word in it? Is there anything that looks
like it? Why not ask me if it is a part of the
Republican creed to keep out of the Union a
State applying for admission into the Union, the
Constitution of which provides that her people
Shall 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 ques-
tion 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 I
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 charac-
ter ; but I have adopted it as no part of my po-
litical faith, that under no possible circum-
stances 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 Re-
publican party, from which we learn our princi-
ples, did not keep slave States out, although
they provided against the extension of Slavery
into all territories, when they were not prohib-
ited from so doing by the terms of cession : and
if we do that, we will never, I trust, be troubled
with the application of a slave State for admis-
sion.

The Senator says that the Supreme Court has
decided that slaves may be legally held in a Ter-
ritory. I deny it The Supreme Court has de-

cided no such thing. The Supreme Court baa
no power to lay down political doctrines in this
country. It may decide a case that comes be-
fore it, and by the decision of the Court in that
case I am willing to abide. The Court did de-
cide that Dred Scott had no right to bring a suit
in the United States courts, and that is all it de-
cided. That decisiou is final as to him in that par-
ticular case; but, when the judges of the Court
travelled out of the record, and undertook to lay
down political principles for this Government, they
departed, in my judgment, from the line of their
duty, and the expression of their opinions is en-
titled to no more credit with me, upon political
questions, than the expression of the opinion of the
same number of gentlemen offthebenck. Why, sir,
there had been decisions involving the question
of the right to govern the Territories before the
present Chief Justice presided. Look back, sir,
[.Mr. Mason in the chair,] to the doctrine promul-
gated by your own Marshall, the ablest lawyer
that 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
possesses the combined powers of the Federal
and a State Government. 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 Federal Govern-
ment combined, may do the same thing ; and
where is your reverence for the doctrines of the
Supreme Court, when you attack that decision ?
Sir, for sixty years that was the doctrine of the
country, acquieBced in by all parties. Why did
you assail it, and open up this exciting ques-
tion ? I deny that any such decision has been
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 Florida propounded to me.

Mr. YULEE. Is the Senator proposing to leave
the subject?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Yes, sir ; I propose to leave
that point.

Mr. YULEE. I am very sorry to trouble the
Senator. But suppose the inhabitants of a Tei>
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 have 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 sup-
pose the courts of the Territory and the courts
of the United States sustain the legality of it,
will then the party to which the gentleman be-
longs feel themselves bound to legislate for the
destruction of the right asserted of property in
Slaves within that Territory? I am not speaking
of territory in which there was any previous ex-
istence of Slavery, * * * but a Territory in
which the inhabitants choose to recognise Sla-
very and to legislate for it, and in which the
courts sustain it ; would it be incumbent upon
the gentleman's party under this platform to
legislate to exclude it? That is what I want to
know.

13

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, in my judg-
ment, they should exclude it, as was done in the
cases of Indiana and Illinois, when Territories,
and whose inhabitants were refused permission
to introduce Slavery when they asked it of Con-
gress.

If the Supreme Court of the United States
should make a decision so utterly variant from
the repeated decisions of the courts in the South-
ern States, and of the former decisions of the
Supreme Court itself, as to say that one person
had a right to hold another as a slave in a Ter-
ritory by virtue of any action of the inhabitants
of a Territory, in defiance of Congress, I would
acquiesce in the decision of the court as to the
particular case. If A sued for his freedom, and
the court decided that he was not entitled to it,
I would not revolutionize the Government upon
that ; but it would be a decision in that case, and
in that case only, and I would coniest it on the
rnorrow in the next. I would contest it day by
day, until the court was reformed, and another
Marshall put at its head, who should administer
the law as our fathers made it.

Mr. YULEE. I do not ask the Senator's opin-
ion. I ask him to expound the platform.

Mr. TRUMBULL. 1 have expounded it. It de-
nies any such right. Your hypothetical case will
never arise. We deny that a court will 3ver
make such a decision ; and if it should, we will
resort to the constitutional means, to the ballot-
box, to the people ; we will appeal from the ex-
position of our political rights by men dressed in
j;owns to the great body of the people, who make
Judges and Presidents too.

Mr. YULEE. You would legislate to exclude
it?

Mr. TRUMBULL. We would legislate to ex-
clude it ; and the decision of a case would no
more establish Slavery in a Territory, except as
to the individual case, than has your decision as
to Dred Scott, that he could not sue in the Fed-
eral courts, established the fact that Congress
could not legislate to keep Slavery out of a Ter-
ritory ; a decision which scarcely a justice of
the peace in the State of Illinois would have
made. Why, sir, if an individual had come be-
fore one of our justices with a claim exceeding
the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, and the
justice had examined it, and had seen that he
had no jurisdiction, and then had gone on and
investigated the case, and said how he would
have decided if be had had jurisdiction, I think
the whole community would have laughed at
his folly. That is exactly what the Supreme
Court of the United States has done in the Dred
Scott case. The idea that the Supreme Court
of the United States can establish political prin-
ciples in this country is a new article in the creed
of the Democratic party. It was not the former
doctrine of the present Chief Magistrate of the
country. It was not the doctrine of Thomas
Jefferson. He regarded the Supreme Court as a
set of sappers and miners, digging under the
Constitution, who might in process of time sub-
vert and destroy it.

Mr. YULEE. Now, then, I would turn the
Senator's attention to another question. I asked
whether, under the first clause of this platform,
the Senator construed Slavery to be legally exist-

ing, or otherwise, in the District of Columbia,
and in the forts and arsenals, and other places
in which the exclusive jurisdiction of the United
States prevailed by the Constitution. These are
the words

Mr. TRUMBULL. I will answer the question
without troubling the Senator to read the plat-
form. I conceive that in the District of Colum-
bia the Constitution of the United States has
not, ex vi termini, abolished Slavery, because it
existed here, by virtue of local law, when the
United States obtained jurisdiction over the
District.

Now, sir, I think I have answered these gen-
tlemen so that they cannot at any rate misap-
prehend my views, and I have done it without
concealment or holding back at all; and, as I
said, if I have been the means of disabusing the
mind of a single Senator, or of a single person
in the South who may ever take occasion to
look over the desultory remarks I have made, I
shall rejoice at it.

Having endeavored to show what the Repub-
lican platform is, having given my understand-
ing of it, I wish to ask Southern Senators why
is there such a persistence in choosing to mis-
understand us ? I do not charge that upon any
particular Senator; but why is it that in the
Southern States of this Union we are called
Abolitionists. Would Senators induce their
constituents to think more harshly of us than we
ought to be thought of? 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 slaves to believe, that the great Re-
publican party is ready to put knives 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 ? Will you be more se-
cure ? Will there be any less likelihood of an
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 them to slaughter their masters ? Why
not, then, I ask, treat us us brethren? Treat us
fairly, take our platform as it is. When we say
that all men 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 Almighty 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 always been a Democrat; and yet, now
I am denounced asSa Black Republican, as an
Abolitionist ; for some of the Southern Govern-
ors, I believe, choose to call us all Abolitionists.
I have changed no sentiment on the subject of
Slavery since the time when I acted with the old
Democratic party. I am no more averse to it
now than I was then. I have lived amidst it,
and would be as far as any Senator from interfer-
ing with this domestic relation where it exists in
the States.

I inquired what gentlemen meant by talking
about an inequality of rights between the North

14

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 can-
did and fair gentleman, to attribute to a great
party in the country, which has declared its
principles in Convention assembled, what any
one 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 him-
self?

Mr. CHESNUT. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Mason.)
Does the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. TRUMBULL. 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. .

Mr. 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 ac-
knowledged as the distinguished leader of that
party, and so admitted, I believe, everywhere,
and I suppose among themselves, uttering his
well-considered and elaboiate 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 ; I
which have never before been questioned, so far |
as I am aware ; which have never been respond-
ed to by the gentlemen who belong to that par-
ty, as not being the opinions of their party, I felt
at liberty, and I think I was authorized in feel-
ing myself at liberty, to hold them as the opin-
ions, 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 prin-
ciples of that party upon the speech of that dis-
tinguished leader.

Mr. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, I wish to
say that I acknowledge, and, so far as I know, |
the Republican party acknowledges, no man as j
its leader. However high my respect for the dis- j
tinguisbed Senator from New York, not now with j
us, I do not acknowledge him as the leader of
the Republican party ; nor do I hold myself re- !
sponsible 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 I
differ from the creed of the Republican party as i
announced in its authoritative Convention, then
they are not the creed of the party. '

Mr. CHESNUT. May I ask the Senator one
question ?

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.

Mr. CHESNUT. Does he repudiate those views
of the Senator from New York?

Mr. TRUMBULL. I repudiate the 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 comported exactly with his sense
of fair dealing and propriety as a Senator of the
United States, speaking in his place here for the
information of the Senate 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 quoted no such language as
having been used by the Senator from New
York. I quoted from the speech of the Senator
from Now 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 be tilled by free labor. That wa3
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 believe and
hope that my country will yet become a land of universal
Freedom, I do not expect that it will be made so otherwise
than through the action of the several States co-operating
with the Federal Government, and all acting in strict con-
formity with their respective Constitutions."

Mr. CHESNUT. True, Mr. President, that part
of the speech is there. * * * I quoted, from
another speech, a portion which I thought bore
.strongly upon the recent occurrences ; but from
the speech from which the gentleman now quotes,
I made a quotation expressly 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. TRUMBULL. This is the speech where the
term " irrepressible conflict" oceurs ; anrl 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 term3, by the Sen-
ator from New York, that he has no expectation
that this country will all become free, except
through the action of the States in a constitu-
tional way, it is his privilege to do so. 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 was, at least,
due to the Senator who was not here, that his
own explanation of the language which he had
used should go along with what had been quo-
ted ; 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

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 mat-
ter what means may have been mentioned spe-
cifically, 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
hare done no injustice. I am willing to go be-
fore the country and before the world upon the
question of fairness and justice to the views of
the Senator from New York. * * *

Mr. TRUMBULL. I am sorry that the Senator
from South Carolina, who usually 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
thought 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 before 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? 1 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 estab-
lish a monarchy ? It can prohibit murder ; can
it legalize murder ? I suppose by a law of Con-
gress we can and we do prevent murder in the
Indian country ; we may do so in a Territory.
Can anybody pretend that, under the Constitu-
tion of the United States, Congress could sanc-
tion murder? Let me not be-misunderstood, or
my remark misapplied, by saying that I compare
Slavery to murder. I have already said that Sla-
very 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 be-
cause 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 principle, that
there is a conflict between right and wrong, be-
tween good and evil: nor is he the first person
who has looked forward to the time when all the
States should be free. Let me read to the Sen-
ate what the Father of his Country said upon
thi3 very subject. General Washington, in a let-
ter written to General Lafayette, in 17 98, said :

:< I agree with you cordially in your views in regard to
ne/ y. I have Long considered it a most serious

evil, I oth socially and politically, and I should rejoice in any
■ to rid our States of sucti a burden.

"The Congress. of 1787 adopted an ordinance which pro-
hibits the ex:stc3ce of involuntary servitude in our North-
western Territory forever. I consider it a wise measure. It
met with the approval and assent of nearly every member
ol' the States more immediately interested in slave labor.
The prevailing opinion in Virginia is against the spread of

ry into the now Territories, and I trust wo shall 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 1708? Did General
Washington promulgate a principle which was
to degrade the South, reduce it to subjection,
trample its rights under foot? This principle
then met the approbation of the people of the
South ; the prevailing sentiment of Virginia was
against the spread of Slavery into new Territo-
ries, and such is the prevailing sentiment of the
people of Illinois. Hear further, sir, what the
founder of the old Republican party said upon
this subject:

" With the morals of the people, their industry also is de-
stroyed; for, in a warm climate, no man will labor for him-
self who can make another labor for him. This is so true,
that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small proportion
indeed are ever seen to labor. And can the liberty of a na-
tion be thought secure when we have removed their only
firm basis — a conviction in the minds of the people that these
liberties are the gift of God — that they are not to be violated
but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country
when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep
, irever; that, considering numbers, nature, and natural
means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an ex-
change of situation, is among possible events; that it may

b ic e probable by supernatural influence! The Almighty

has no attribute which can take side with us in such a cou-
test."

That was the language of Thomas Jefferson,
the great apostle of human liberty in this coun-
try. Again: Thomas Jefferson, in 1821, referring
to a number of bills which had been introduced
into the Legislature of Virginia, with regard to
the emancipation of slaves, used this language :
"The billon the subject of slaves was a mere digest of the
existing laws respecting them, without any intimation
pian for a future and general emancipation. It was tin
better that this should be kept Lack, and attempted only by
way of amendment whenever the bill should be brought on.
The principles of the amendment, however, were agreed on;
that is to say, the freedom of all born after a certain day,
ami deportation at a proper age. But it was found 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
must 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,
cannot live in the same Government. Nature, habit, opin-
ion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them.
It is still hi our power to direct the process of emancipation
and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degree as that
the i wl will wear off inseusibly, and their place be, pari
passu, tilled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary,
it is left to force itself on , human nature must shudder at the
prospect held up. We should in vain look for an example in
the Spanish deportation or deletion of the Moors. This pre-
cedent would tall far short of our case.

"I consider four of these bills, passed or reported, as
forming a system by which every fibre would be eradicated
ient or future aristocracy, and a foundation laid for a
Government truly 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 senti-
ments, and especially when the Senator from
New York has taken the pains to guard against
the inference that he was for using any other than
constitutional and legal means in co-operation
with the States in getting rid eventually, in the
far distant future, of this thing of Slavery. It
will be seen that the idea is not new nor pecu-

16

liar to the Senator from New York. It had its
origin in Virginia years ago; and I trust that
an "idea foreshadowed by Mr. Jefferson will
hereafter become, although it is not now, part
of the creed of the Republican party— I mean the
idea of the deportation of the free negro popula-
tion from this country. I trust the Republican
party will make it part of its creed, that this
Government should procure some region of coun-
ts, not far distant, to which our free negro pop-
ulation may be taken. I fear the consequences,
which Jefferson so eloquently prophesied, unless
that is done. The negro population is increas-
ing at a rapid rate. 1 agree with the sentiment
of Mr. Jefferson, that two races which are marked
by distinctive features cannot live peaceably to-
gether without one domineering over the other,
especially when they differ in color. The free
negro population of this country is a great evil
now. I believe it to be the interest of the black
population that they should go to some country
where they may develop their powers, and where
there shall be no superior race to domineer over
them, and that it is the duty of this Government
to use its means for the purpose of freeing our
country of that portion of this population that is
willing to go. I think, in that way, this thing
of Slavery, may eventually be got rid of. Thou-
sands ofmasters would be willing to free their
slaves, if there was any provision for them when
freed ; but in most of the States where Slavery
exists, laws have been passed prohibiting eman-
cipation except on condition that the emancipa-
ted slave shall leave the jurisdiction of the State.
Where are they to go ? The North does not
want a free negro population ; the South will
not have them. " The consequence is, that eman-
cipation has nearly ceased. If, however, a coun-
try contiguous were provided, where the free
nf^'ro population of the United States who were
willing might go— and I think they would soon all
be willing to leave, if they could go under the
fostering care of this Government until they be-
came sufficiently numerous to protect themselves
and establish a Government of their own — we
might establish a system which, in process of
time, not in your day, sir, nor in mine, nor per-
haps in the day of the coming generation, but in
future time, would relieve us of the black pop-
ulation, and prevent consequences which we
shudder to contemplate. I cannot so well ex-
press my views on this point as by quoting from
a speech made by a distinguished Senator from
Kentucky, now no more, before the American
Colonization Society. He said :

•' We are reproached with doing mischief by the agitation
of this question. The Society goes into no household to dis-
turb its domestic tranquillity ; it addresses itself to no slaves,
to weaken their obligations of obedience ; it seeks to affect

no man's property. It neither has the power nor the will
to affect the property of any one contrary to his consent.
The execution of its scheme would augment, instead of di-
minishing, the value of the property left behind. The So-
ciety, composed of freemen, concerns itself only with the
free. Collateral consequences we are not responsible for.
It is not this Society which has produced the great moral
revolution which the age exhibits. What would they, who
thus reproach us, have done?"

Now, see how his language fits the declarations
of the Senator from South Carolina, who finds
such fault with the idea of ultimate emancipa-
tion:

" If they would repress all tendencies towards liberty and
ultimate emancipation, they must do more than put down
the benevolent efforts of this Society. They must go back
to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzle the
cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. They
must revive the slave trade, with all its train or atrocities.''

Ay, sir, revive the slave trade as we now see

it being revived !

" They must suppress the workings of British philanthropy,
seekingto ameliorate the condition of the unfortunate West
Indian slaves. They must arrest the career of South Amer-
ican deliverance from thraldom. They must blow out the
voral lights around us, and extinguish that greatest torch
of all, which America presents to a benighted world, point-
ing the way to their rights, their liberties, and their happi-
ness. And when they have achieved all these purposes,
their work will be yet incomplete. They must penetrate
the human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the
love of liberty. Then, and not till then, when universal
darkness and despair prevail, can you perpetuate Slavery,
and repress all sympathies and all humane and benevolent
efforts among freemen in behalf of the unhappy portion of
our race who are doomed to bondage."

That, sir, was the language of Henry Clay in
regard to the colonization of the free blacks in
Africa. It seems to be impracticable to trans-
port this great population to Africa. Let 113
obtain a country nearer home ; and to show the
sympathy of the North for the South, I think I
may say — I know I may say for the people whom
I represent — we will contribute liberally of our
means to relieve the country of the free negro
population, and of all slaves who may be volun-
tarily emancipated, by planting them in some
contiguous country by themselves. I hope that
may become the policy of the Republican party.
I hope that we shall join hands with the South ;
that, instead of reproaching each other, instead
of saying anything which would create a mis-
understanding between different sections of the
Union, we may come together as our fathers did
of old in their struggle for independence, and,
side by side as brothers, adopt a policy which, ii
it shall not eventually deliver the country from
the only element which ever seriously threatened
its peace, shall at least prevent its spread and
increase, and at the same time furnish the mean?
of relieving the country of the evils of a large
free negro population. By such a course we may
lay the foundation for continued and permanent
prosperity.

WASHINGTON, D. C.

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS.

1859.