Mr. WILKINSON:--I wish to ask the gentleman a question.

Mr. BAKER:--Do, sir.

Mr. WILKINSON:--I understand him as saying that the whole of the

twenty States which were assembled in this Peace Convention agreed to

this proposition.

Mr. BAKER:--My distinguished friend was writing, instead of listening,

when he understood that. I did not mean to say that, and I did not.

Mr. WILKINSON:--I understood the Senator to say that twenty States

appealed to us.

Mr. BAKER:--Yes, sir; just as I say that the Government appeals to

another Government, I do not say every individual in it; just as I say

that Congress appeals to another Government, not every individual

member of Congress; but I do say, in the words of the proposition

before us, that "they," the Peace Convention, composed of the States

recited, "have approved what is herewith submitted, and respectfully

request that your honorable body will submit it to conventions in the

States, as article thirteen of the amendments to the Constitution of

the United States." That is all I said, or, at least, it is all I

meant to say.

Now, sir, suppose every argument that the distinguished Senators from

Virginia have brought to bear on this proposition was true: what then?

Is that any reason why it should not be submitted to the people?

Suppose they do not approve of it: what then? It is their business,

not ours. Suppose they should: it is a measure of peace, of security,

of union. Sir, I know, as you do, many of the members of that

Convention. I have acted with them as Whigs in old times, and I wish

they could come back. I know they have proved in old times, as they

will prove again, that they love this Union to the very depth and core

of their hearts. I do not propose to give them up; I do not propose to

weaken them; I do admire, with my whole heart, the sacrifice of

opinion which they make, and which is typified by the noble expression

of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky to-day. Party or no party,

North or no North, I, at least, will meet him half way. My State is

very far distant. She had no members in that Convention. I do not know

whether she will approve this measure; but I know it will neither hurt

that State nor me to give her a chance to determine. I know very well

that the Senators from Virginia do not approve it. That is the very

reason I do. [Laughter.] If I was sure they would not think me guilty

of disrespect, I would remind them of what was said by a distinguished

man in old times. Phocion, in the last days of his Republic--and I

hope in that respect, at least, there will be no parallel--Phocion was

once making a speech to the Athenian people, and something he said

excited very great applause. He turned around to gentlemen, friends

near him, and said: "What foolish thing have I been saying, that these

people praise me?" Sir, if Virginia, represented as she is to-day--not

as I believe she really is--but if Virginia, represented as she is

here to-day, and as she has been during this session, were to approve

these propositions, I should doubt them very much indeed.

I was surprised, however, to hear some things that the distinguished

Senator from Virginia--I do not know whether to call him junior or

senior--said. I do not mean the Senator who spoke last. He [Mr.

HUNTER] says that this proposition here is worse than the old

Constitution. If that be really so, what in the world has he been

complaining of so bitterly? He tells us, now, that under the old

Constitution slavery was secure. Then, why do you grumble? He

considers it as secure, not only wherever it is, but wherever it can

go--nay, more than that; wherever the Stars and Stripes of the

American Republic can float. I have been telling my people that, as a

Republican, for a long while, and complaining of the Dred Scott

decision; but he says slavery is secured. All the complaint that the

other Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] makes, is against the decision

of the courts in the free States we have been in the habit of making,

which he insists are against the decision of the Supreme Court,

constituted other than we wished it was. We have been in the habit of

believing that one of the great evils we complained of was under the

old Constitution, and that a new construction was given to it, alien

to the intention, wish, construction, of our fathers; and we have

complained that the Supreme Court was so constituted that it could not

be reversed. We complained, as partisans, that now this Senate and the

other House were so composed that we had no power in the Government,

save through the President. Now, the Senator from Virginia indorses

the whole of it, and says they were very well off, and did

beautifully. Then why dissolve; why threaten; why make a Peace

Conference necessary?

Mr. President, let us be just to these propositions. As a Republican,

I give up something when I vote for them; but remember, sir, I am not

voting for them now; I am only voting to submit them to my people; and

I shall go before them, when the time comes, being governed in my

opinion and advice as to whether they shall vote for them or not, as I

see that Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Missouri,

by their people, desire. To be frank, sir; if this proposition will

suit the Border States, if there will be peace and union, and loyalty

and brotherhood, with this, I will vote for it at the polls with all

my heart and with all my soul; but if I see that the counsels of the

Senators from Virginia shall prevail; if my noble friend from

Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] shall be overwhelmed; if secession shall still

grow in the public mind there; if they are determined, upon artificial

causes of complaint, as I believe, still to unite their fate, their

destiny, and their hope, with the extremest South, then, perceiving

them to be of no avail, I shall refuse them. Therefore, at the polls

at last, I shall be governed as an individual citizen by my

conviction at the moment of what the ultimate result of these

propositions will be; but I am not voting for that to-day. I am

saying: "People of the United States, I submit it to you; twenty

States demand it; the peace of the country requires it; there is

dissolution in the very atmosphere; States have gone off; others

threaten; the Queen of England upon her throne declares to the whole

world her sympathy with our unfortunate condition; foreign Governments

denote that there is danger to-day that the greatest Confederation the

world has ever seen is to be parted in pieces, never to be reunited."

Now, not what I wish, not what I want, not what I would have, but all

that I can get, is before me. I know that I do no harm. If the people

of Oregon do not like it, they can easily reject it. If the people of

Pennsylvania will not have it, they can easily throw it aside. If they

do not believe there is danger of dissolution, if they prefer

dissolution, if they think they can compel fifteen States to remain in

or come back, or if they believe they will not go out, let them reject

it. I repeat again, it is their business, it is not mine.

But, sir, whether I vote for it at the polls or not, in voting for it

here it may be said that I give up some of my principles. Mr.

President, we sometimes mistake our opinions for our principles. I am

appealed to often; it is said to me: "You believed in the Chicago

platform." Suppose I did. "Well, this varies from the Chicago

platform." Suppose it does. I stand to-day, as I believe, in the

presence of greater events than those which attend the making of a

President. I stand, as I believe, at least, in the presence of peace

and war; and if it were true that I did violate the Chicago platform,

the Chicago platform is not a Constitution of the United States to me.

If events, if circumstances change, I will violate it, appealing to my

conscience, to my country, and to my God, to justify me according to

the motive. [Applause in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FOSTER in the chair). Order will be

preserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared.

Mr. BAKER:--Again, sir, let us see how, as a Republican, I give up any

thing. First, suppose I did: I would give up a great deal to preserve

a great Government; I would give up a great deal to be able to shake

hands with Kentucky and Tennessee as friends for the rest of my life,

as I have in all that has gone before. I would not be ashamed to give

up. I would not at least be giving up to traitorous secession, such as

Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina are guilty of to-day; but I

would be giving up to loyal and affectionate brethren, who implore me

for the love of a common Union to do something to satisfy the doubts

and fears of their people. I can stand that; I will do it.

Again, sir; how much do I give up? I have said, as a Republican, that

Congress has the power to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of

the United States. I believe it to-day. Talking about giving up, there

are a good many other people that give up something here. Gentlemen on

the other side, who have been contending that Congress had no power

whatever to prohibit slavery, acknowledge that they were mistaken; at

any rate they go for it; they do prohibit it by law, by the

Constitution itself. Therefore I am not the only one that gives up.

Again: I believe it is wrong, politically wrong--I am not now

discussing the social and moral question--but I believe it to be

politically very wrong to establish slavery in the name of freedom.

Sir, twelve years ago or more, it was my fortune, perhaps, to wander

in a foreign land beneath the Stars and Stripes of my country. I went

there, as I think, impelled by motives of patriotism, perhaps having

mingled with them not a little desire of adventure, love of change,

and that feverish excitement for which we people of this country are

always and everywhere remarkable; but I believe, if I know myself,

that I did suppose I was doing something to repay the country for much

that she had done for me. Sir, often and again, wandering sometimes

beneath

"Where Orizaba's purpled summit shone,"

sometimes by the dark pestilential river that marks the boundary

between the two countries, often and often have I wondered to myself

whether I was wandering and suffering there to spread slavery over an

unwilling people. I am not sorry to see that now that is rendered

impossible. I am not sorry to see that it is impossible, first, in the

course of events; but if it were not so, I know, if these propositions

shall pass, that the foul blot of slavery never will be extended over

one foot of territory to be stolen or conquered by the people of the

United States.

But I am asked, "What do you say about New Mexico?" I will tell you in

twenty words. I am an older Republican than many of those I see around

me, who vote to-day differently from me; not a better but an older. I

voted in 1850, on the floor of the other House, against the compromise

measures of that year. I did so, among other reasons, because I was

not willing that Utah and New Mexico should become slave or free

according to the wishes of their people, believing as I did then (I

have changed my opinion in some respects since), that that was not

best for the whole country. Contrary to my wishes, those compromise

measures prevailed. New Mexico is nominally now, I believe, a slave

Territory; that is, to use the words of the distinguished Senator from

New York [Mr. SEWARD], there are some twenty slaves in the whole

Territory. There they may, they probably will, remain. I submit to my

people a proposition, that if they approve it as a compromise, as a

concession, for peace for the Union, as it happens that that little

Territory includes all that possibly can be slave territory, they will

let it alone till the people are able and willing to make their own

State constitution. That is all. Do I state it fairly? Does it go

beyond that?

First, I contend that I give up but little. I give it up, as I

understand, for purposes of freedom; and the distinguished Senators

from Virginia agree with me. They say, in substance, that I am getting

a great deal more than I give; and I confess, taking that view of the

subject, at least in part, I wonder that a good many more of my

Republican friends do not go with me.

Again: it is said on the Republican side that we protect slavery. In

one sense we do, and in another sense we do not. In the offensive idea

to me and to you of protecting slavery, I do no such thing, and I

would die first. When the resolutions of the Senator from Kentucky

were up the other day, I voted for the amendment of the other Senator

from Kentucky [Mr. POWELL], in order to make them clear, to show what

I was voting against. I was unwilling that territory hereafter to be

acquired should be rendered slave territory; and I put that

proposition distinctly in it, in order that when I voted against them,

it might be seen why and how I did it. As I have said, this

proposition renders that impossible. First, it refers only to the

territory we now possess; that is, New Mexico alone. As to the

territory north of 36° 30´, I need not speak. We know that God

Almighty has registered a decree in Heaven that that shall never be

slave. We, on our part, want no WILMOT proviso there; we all agree

that we are willing to let it alone. South, there is but the barren

Territory of New Mexico. Beyond that, who knows? If we are to acquire

it, we are to acquire it by this proposition, by the assent of a

majority of the States of both sections and two-thirds of the whole;

and I do not know a man living who believes that with that proposition

incorporated in the Constitution, slavery is probable, or even

possible.

Therefore, Mr. President, I agree that in the compromise I, as a

Republican, do give up to that extent, and no more, what I have said;

but doing that, I believe that I consecrate all the territory between

here and Cape Horn to freedom, with all its blessings, forever and

forever.

So far, sir, as the discussion as to the meaning of this phrase about

the common law is concerned, I do not care to indulge in it, and for

this simple reason: first, according to the legal view of the Senator

from Ohio, everybody knows that this expression, "the course of the

common law," means the duly established forms of procedure known to

the courts; that is all. In the next place, I am not afraid of the

common law. I have been reared under it. With all its imperfections,

and they are many, I love it. While it may be an objection to Virginia

to quote it, to me it is full of guardianship and blessing. I do not

stop to talk about the Somerset case, nor the decision in Salkeld, nor

the Modern Reports. It is enough for me that I know, taking the whole

proposition together, that slavery is impossible beyond where it now

is, and, as a Republican, I can justify myself to my conscience in

giving that vote.

Mr. President, I add very few more words. I should have been

excessively pleased, as a partisan and a man, if the inauguration of

Mr. LINCOLN could be one at which all the States would attend with the

old good feeling, and with the old good humor. I have seen six States

separate themselves, as they say, from us, and form a new confederacy,

with great pain and greater surprise. I cannot shut my eyes, if I

would, to the existing state of things. I listen to the warning of my

friend from Kentucky. I listen to the warning of my friend from

Tennessee. I have been in both States. I know something of their

people. I believe that there, even there, the Union is in danger; and

I believe if we break up here without some attempt to reconcile them

to us, and us to them, many of the predictions of friends and foes as

to the danger will be accomplished. I said, in the earlier part of the

session--I repeat it--I would yield nothing to secession. When the

Representatives from South Carolina and Mississippi and Alabama and

Louisiana came here invoking war, telling us that if we did not yield

to them they would secede, they would confederate with foreign

Governments, they would break this Union, they would hold us as aliens

and strangers and enemies, I believed then, as I believe now, that

that was too dear a price to pay even for Union and peace; but to-day

the case is altered. Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, reiterate their

love for the Union. They tell us in unmistakable terms that they

desire to remain; and in every county, nay, in every township of those

States, we have staunch and true and ardent friends who would be

willing to seal their devotion to this Union with their blood. It is

they to whose appeal I would listen. It is from them that I would take

counsel and advice; and when they tell me, "pass these resolutions;

they are resolutions of peace; submit them to your people; listen to

what ours say in reply; if it appears to you at the polls that these

resolutions will produce peace, restore union, create or renew

fraternal, kindly feeling, pass them; let us settle this question, and

be one people," I agree; with all my heart, I will do it.

Now, as I close, let me ask what evil; who will be hurt? Suppose, when

I get home, I find that the Senators from Virginia are on the stump

and they are convincing their people that they are a great deal worse

off; the more they convince Virginia that she is worse off, the more

Pennsylvania and New York will be convinced that they are better off;

and every argument they make against it in Virginia will have a

twofold weight North and West. I could not make half as good a speech

in favor of these propositions of Union, even in Oregon, or

California, or Illinois--I speak of the States I know best--as I

should make if I were to read their objections to these propositions.

But suppose--which I do not think possible--they could succeed, not

only in Virginia (which I do not believe), but in Kentucky and

Tennessee; suppose they were to swear, by the throne of God, they

would not take them, but would dissolve and go off whether we passed

them or not: we could very easily refuse to vote for them and be in as

good a condition as we are to-day, and, in the mean time, next Monday,

Mr. LINCOLN will be inaugurated. I desire to see around him thronging,

nay forming the procession, every augury of hope and peace.

I expect to hear from his lips words of manly trust and confidence in

the Union, and of concession, kindness to all its constituent parts. I

have hoped that, in response to what he shall say, I shall hear from

every part of what is now acknowledged everywhere yet as our

Confederacy, a perpetual hymn of hope and praise rising from all parts

of the Union; and, above all things else, I have hope and trust in

time and patience. Therefore it is that I shall do no harm.

I know that there are very excited feelings upon this subject North

and South. I understand that Massachusetts, an honored State--let me

say, to qualify what I am going to say, first, that I believe that

Massachusetts is the pattern of a community in the world; as well

represented here as any State can be; representing herself better than

anybody else can do it for her--I know that there are excited feelings

in Massachusetts, and I think she has good cause. The act that more

than any other else, perhaps, leads to this proposition of a Peace

Convention--that "Congress shall provide by law for securing to the

citizens of each State the privileges and immunities of citizens in

the several States"--was an act which I abhorred and condemned from

the beginning, and which I am not sorry to perceive that

Massachusetts remembers now. Many gentlemen on the floor know to what

I allude. On the other hand, South Carolina and Louisiana are

ferocious for disunion; and I am afraid that their young men do want

war. There is not excitement enough on the plantation and the farm,

and in the streets of the towns; but they really want contest,

excitement, and bloodshed. What they want I do not; I am trying to

keep from it. I do not apprehend, therefore, that the sentiments which

I have expressed here to-day will meet the approbation of the extreme

men upon either side. I have no doubt my republicanism may be doubted.

I think I can see in the look of my friend on my left now [Mr. KING]

that he has various convictions that I am very far from being sound in

the faith. [Laughter.] Sir, it may be. I come from the midst of a

people not directly concerned in this controversy; a population about

half northern, half southern. We have intermarried together. Our

interests, our fears, our hopes, our recollections, are mingled North

and South; and I believe I am expressing their opinions--which perhaps

form my own--when I say that I can see no possible harm to anybody

anywhere in submitting these propositions to the people, who are, and

ought to be, sovereign.

Besides, sir, what else can I do? As I sit down, let me ask Senators

upon every side, what else can any of us do? Shall we sit here for

three months, when petition, resolution, public meeting, speech,

acclamation, tumult, is heard, seen, and felt on every side, and do

nothing? Shall State after State go out, and not warn us of danger?

Shall Senators and Representatives, patriotic, eloquent, venerable,

tell us, again and again, of danger in their States, and we condescend

to make no reply?

Sir, there is other business to be done here besides the mere ordinary

business of the Government; besides the voting of supplies, and the

raising of means by which to buy them. We have questions here to-day,

as I believe, of peace and war, and I have waited long to see some

mode of their solution. I repeat, I go for this proposition, and agree

to submit it to the vote of the people, not because I believe it the

best that can be done. I believe, however, that, to-day being two days

from the close of this session, it is all I can do. When my people ask

me, on my return, "Sir, have not States gone out?" I will say, "Yes."

"Do not more threaten it?" if that is the word (I trust it is not the

best one), I say, "Yes." They say, "Sir, do you believe they will do

it?" "On my honor and on my conscience," I say, "if something is not

done, yes." They then ask, "What have you done?" Mr. President, what

have we done? I believe that is the question the country will ask of

us; and I, for one, will vote for this proposition, that I may be able

to respond.

Mr. GREEN:--Mr. President, I regard the consideration of this question

as one of the most important which has ever been presented to the

Senate since I have been a member of it. The Union is in danger; the

fate of the country is at stake; and whatever the Senate or the House

of Representatives or Congress combined can do, ought to be done to

save the country. I have very little faith or hope, and I would

express the reason why. But as little as there is, I will cling to the

last remaining straw, and sink with it grasped fast in my hands, if I

have no other resource. This country is of too much importance to me,

to my family, to my friends, to my State, to my associates everywhere,

to give up without a struggle. That struggle may prove to be

fruitless; it may prove to be unavailing. The taunts and jeers thrown

out are calculated to stir up ire and ill-feeling; I shall pass them

by with disregard. I choose to sacrifice my feelings, and to make

myself a burnt-offering on the altar, if I can do any thing to save

the country.

What, then, shall we do? These propositions, presented by what is

called the Peace Conference, are not to be compared to the

propositions of the Senator from Kentucky; and I will not vote for a

single one of them, while I will vote for his. They amount to a

sacrifice of my honor, and a destruction of the rights of my State. I

am permitted to say that the representatives from my State in the

Peace Conference condemned them all, while they are willing to go for

the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky. We cannot stand by this,

and we will not.

Let us not deceive each other; let us not undertake to practice a

system of deception which will sound pleasant to the ear, but will be

bitter to the taste. I will not do it. Here is a positive prohibition

of slavery north of 36° 30´, and then a doubtful question whether it

is recognized south of 36° 30´. The Senator from Kentucky thinks it

is; but I will not act upon a doubt. We have had too many doubts

heretofore, and out of those doubts have grown many difficulties. I

shall never permit, so far as my action is concerned, another question

of doubt.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Did he

understand me as admitting that it was a doubtful recognition of

slavery?

Mr. GREEN:--Not at all. I said expressly that the Senator from

Kentucky contended that it did amount to a recognition, but others

denied it, and that made it a question of doubt. I will not

misrepresent anybody if I know it. Now, sir, I will not act upon a

question which admits of doubt. We have passed along in our career for

so many years that we have arrived at a point when we must understand

each other distinctly and unequivocally, and I will not leave a single

point open to equivocation. It must be expressly settled, and settled

not only in express words, not only in unmistakable language; but I go

further than that; it must emanate from the hearts of a people

disposed to stand by it; and if they will not stand by it, I will not

associate with them.

I want to preserve this Union; I want to maintain the constitutional

rights of all classes, North and South; but to give me a mere written

guarantee on parchment, and file it in the office of the Secretary of

State, with a predetermination in the hearts and minds of the northern

people inculcated and instructed to violate it, I cannot live with,

and I will not. I would rather go where I naturally belong, with

southern men; but if the true-hearted, the patriotic, and the

honorable portion of the North will reverse this inculcated spirit of

hostility to southern institutions, and bring them up to the mark

where they will recognize constitutional guarantees, then I say,

"Hail, thou my brother, we can go together;" but never till that comes

to pass. We have approached that period in our country's history when

there should be no cheating or attempt to cheat. We must understand

each other, and make a permanent, lasting Union, or a permanent,

lasting, peaceful separation.

This proposition presented by the Peace Conference, as it is called, I

think the merest twaddle--and I use the term with entire respect to

the members--the merest twaddle that ever was presented to a thinking

people. The proposition of the Senator from Kentucky has some sense in

it. If he chooses to desert his own, I shall not complain of him; for

I know that warm, patriotic impulses move him in all his action; but I

cannot accept the other, and I shall vote against every one of its

provisions. When it is said to me that the territory south of 36° 30´

has adopted slavery--that New Mexico has--I must reply to Senators

that they misunderstand the law. New Mexico has never adopted slavery.

New Mexico has done this: she has provided remedies for redress of

wrongs, including wrongs affecting slave property; but she has never

established slavery; nor has Utah. Utah has never even recognized it

by implication. Utah passed a law of this character: apprentices bound

to service for a period of years may be held there; but when their

servitude has expired, according to their articles of apprenticeship,

they are free; so that the law of Utah absolutely, if it has any

effect, prohibits slavery.

Senators overlook these facts. I take the broad and the bold and the

unmistakable ground, not that the Constitution establishes slavery

anywhere, but that the Constitution, extending over a Territory, will

protect me in all my rights not prohibited by a local competent

authority; that my rights are to take any property which I own in any

part of the Union, Yankee clocks from the North, polar bears from the

Rocky Mountains, mules from the Middle States, and slaves from the

South; and that, unless there is a competent local authority to

prohibit my rights in these respective classes of property, I am to be

protected. The second step is that there can be no local authority as

long as the territorial condition remains, competent to prohibit

slavery in any Territory.

These are my positions; and hence, so far from this extraordinary

position that slavery is local being true, the reverse is true. It may

be local in the United States, but so far from its being local to the

Territory in the United States, the reverse is true. Talk about

freedom being national, and slavery local! I have a right to pass

through Pennsylvania, and my right of transit is as perfect this day

as it was when Pennsylvania was a slave State....

I have been anxious from the beginning of this session to stave off

public action, to hold the public pulse still, and give an opportunity

for reaction of northern sentiment. I want no reaction south. It has

been my only hope, and my last hope, and that hope has failed....

These resolutions are intended to lull old Virginia, Maryland,

Missouri, and Kentucky, until we are hand-cuffed and tied fast, and

then action is to commence. They are all designed simply to lull us

into a fancied security; but if we are wise betimes, and look forward

to coming events, we will at once strike the blow, and separate from a

Confederation which denies us peace, denies us protection, denies us

our constitutional rights, and seek them in some other association of

States....

Now, Mr. President, I want all these propositions voted down, and I

hope my friend from Kentucky will revive his propositions and bring

them up again. There is some vitality in them; there is some point in

them; but as for these wishy-washy resolutions, that amount to

nothing, it is impossible that any Senator here will, for a moment,

entertain the idea of supporting them. The Peace Conference! And the

smallest peace that ever I have heard of. Let the Senator adhere to

his original propositions; let the Senator bring them up and press

them upon the attention of the Senate. That is as far backing down as

I will go. It is a little more than I want; but still, as a last

effort to save the Union, I would go that far. Talk about these

measures! These measures that have no vitality--these measures that

amount to a total surrender of every principle--I never will vote for;

and let the consequences of the future be what they may, I stake my

faith and reputation upon the vote I intend to cast.

Mr. WADE:--I move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. LANE:--I hope the Senator will give me the floor before he makes

that motion.

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I ask the Senator from Oregon to yield to me a moment.

Mr. LANE:--For a motion to adjourn, I will.

Mr. TRUMBULL:--Yes, sir; I desire the floor with a view to make that

motion. It is apparent that no good is to come out of the discussion

of the proceedings of this Peace Conference. It is a proposition got

up for the purpose of satisfying the Border States; and the Border

States, Missouri and Virginia, say they will have none of it. The

first section is a proposition establishing slavery--

Mr. MASON:--I rise to a question of order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Senator from Illinois will pause. The

Senator from Virginia rises to a question of order, which he will

state.

Mr. MASON:--I understand the motion to adjourn has been made.

Mr. TRUMBULL:--I have not made the motion yet. I stated that I would

make that motion, and I was merely going to give the reason. The

Senator from Oregon will have the floor to-morrow. I was stating the

reason why I should make the motion to adjourn, which I intend to make

in the course of a minute, and I merely made that statement to show

that there was no object in sitting here and punishing ourselves in

regard to resolutions which manifestly cannot command the assent of

this body. I now move that the Senate adjourn.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I call for the yeas and nays on that motion.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

And the Senate refused to adjourn, and, for special business, the

peace propositions were set aside. The same day they were introduced,

as follows:

Mr. LANE:--Mr. President, my object in getting the floor, was to give

the reason why I cannot vote for the resolution now before the Senate.

You are aware, sir, that I did vote for the propositions of the

Senator from Kentucky to amend the Constitution, with the hope, if

they could be adopted, that peace, perhaps, might be restored to the

country; but those propositions have been superseded, and the Senator

from Kentucky himself says that he is willing to sacrifice, on the

altar of his country, as he terms it, his own propositions, and take

the amendments which are proposed to the Constitution presented by the

Peace Congress to the Senate. The resolutions proposed by the

distinguished Senator from Kentucky were as low down as I could go.

They did not secure to every State that right they have under the

Constitution, as I understand it; but the resolution now before the

Senate, to speak modestly, as I look at it, with all due respect to

the great men who met here to consider this matter, who deliberated

for many days, and presented this as the result of their

deliberations, is a cheat, a deception, a humbug--nothing that any

State can take as a final settlement of the questions that are now

giving trouble to this country, nothing that can settle permanently

those difficulties. We must have something more definite, something

more certain, or there can be no Union even of the States that now

remain in the Union, as I believe.

Mr. GREEN:--Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--Does the Senator from Oregon give way?

Mr. LANE:--Only for an adjournment.

Mr. GREEN:--I rise to make that motion, that the Senate do now

adjourn.

So the motion was agreed to; and the Senate by a vote--23 to

22--adjourned.

_March 2d._--Senator LANE having secured the floor, made the following

speech on the report of the Peace Conference:

Mr. LANE:--Mr. President, I hope I shall be permitted to proceed

without interruption, and I trust not to consume much time. While I

had the floor yesterday, I stated some of my objections to the

proposed amendments to the Constitution which are now before us. They

are: that they do not do justice to the whole country--that they do

not do justice to all the States. I have always held that the

territory is common property; that it belongs to all the States; that

every citizen of every State has an equal right to emigrate to, and

settle in, the common Territories; and that any species of property,

recognized as such in any State of the Confederacy, should have a like

recognition in the Territories, and be guaranteed, protected, and

secured in its full integrity, to the owner thereof. That this should

be so, was the intent of the revolutionary fathers who shaped and

framed the Constitution; and it was this principle, more, perhaps,

than any other, which called into being that noble compact, which has

so long been a bond of Union and goodness between all the States. It

is the very life-blood and vitality of the Constitution. It is the

ligament that has held us together heretofore, and which, if cut now,

will result only in hopeless and immutable disruption. I have never

deviated a single iota from this correct doctrine. Had we lived up to

this equitable principle--the foundation upon which the Constitution

rests, upon which only this Union can be maintained--we should have

had no trouble in this country to-day. It is not my fault that trouble

and dissatisfaction prevail; it is not my fault that secession has

taken place, and that further secession will take place, unless

Congress shall recognize this great principle of justice, of right,

and of equality. That is the doctrine upon which this Union rests; and

it must be maintained, or the connection will be severed.

While upon this question, Mr. President, I may be permitted to allude

to my course in the Senate last session, and I shall do so very

briefly, upon a series of resolutions introduced by the Senator from

Mississippi [Mr. DAVIS]--a series of resolutions that were considered

in this body, after having been previously maturely and deliberately

adopted by a caucus composed of the Democratic Senators, and agreed

upon by them, as setting forth the principles necessary to be

maintained in order to secure the existence and perpetuity of this

Confederacy. It has been charged upon this floor that, on the 25th day

of May last, I voted against the right of protection to slave property

in the Territories. In order that the Senate may know how I voted, and

that I may show you and every other man that I stood then as I stand

to-day, and as I have always stood upon this question, I will read

some short extracts from the discussion upon this series of

resolutions. The fourth resolution was in these words:

"_Resolved_, That neither Congress nor a Territorial

Legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of

an indirect and unfriendly nature, possesses the power to

annul or impair the constitutional right of any citizen of

the United States to take his slave property into the common

Territories, but it is the duty of the Federal Government

there to afford for that, as for other species of property,

the needful protection; and if experience should at any time

prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure

adequate protection, it will then become the duty of

Congress to supply such deficiency."

Now mark! this resolution states that all the property of all the

people of any State, whether slave or otherwise, has an equal right to

protection; and if experience should at any time prove that the

courts had not the power to afford that protection, then it was the

duty of Congress to enact such laws as were necessary to protect every

man in his legal and rightful property, no matter of what description

or characteristic. Sir, not long since, upon this floor, a Senator was

hardy enough to say that I voted against protecting property in

Territories; and he desired to know what had happened that States

should be concerned; what had occurred to alarm the States that were

seceding from the Union? I will show you, sir, very briefly, what I

said upon that question then; and I will repeat it now, for I have

never changed my sentiments on this subject. No living man can assert,

and in so doing tell the truth, that I ever uttered a word against the

equality of the States, and their equal right in the common territory

of our common country; and any charge that I voted then to refuse

protection to property in the territory _is false_. I have always held

that the territory belonged to all; that it was acquired, as I knew,

at the expense of the Southern States as well as of the Northern; and

upon the battle-fields where I had witnessed the good conduct of

Northern and Southern troops, I found the soldier from the Southern

States pouring out his blood as freely, and certainly in very much

larger quantity--for there were very many more from the Southern

States who participated in the battles of our country in the war which

resulted in the acquisition of territory, than there were from the

Northern States. Then, so far as the acquisition is concerned, it is

joint, and it was for the joint benefit of all portions of the

country. Consequently, I have held, and I hold now, that the

Territories should be so appropriated. And when those resolutions were

up last winter, I said what I will now read:

"I only desire to say, in relation to the series of

resolutions, a portion of which I have already voted in

favor of, that I shall vote in favor of the rest; for the

whole of them together meet with my hearty approbation. They

assert the truth; they assert the great principle that the

constitutional rights of the States are equal; that the

States have equal rights in this country under the

Constitution; and, as I understand it, they must be

maintained in that equality. These resolutions only assert

that principle; and I say that it is a misfortune to the

country, in my opinion, that the principles laid down in

these resolutions had not been asserted sooner. They ought

to have been asserted by the Democratic party in plain

English ten years ago. If they had been, you would have had

no trouble in this country to-day; the Democratic party

would have been united and strong, and the equality and

constitutional rights of the States would have been

maintained in the territory, and in all other things;

squatter-sovereignty would not have been heard of, and

to-day we should be united. It is the fault of the

Democratic party in dodging truth, in dodging principle, in

dodging the Constitution itself, that has brought the

trouble upon the country and the party that is experienced

to-day."

I believe, if we had asserted and maintained these great truths ten

years ago, and placed ourselves upon them boldly, as it was our duty

to have done, we would have no trouble in this country to-day; but

instead of declaring the great truths enunciated in these resolutions,

we went off upon issues unbecoming the Democratic party. A portion of

our leaders wandered and went astray, and asserted that the people of

a Territory had the right to prohibit slavery whenever, in their

judgment, it ought to be prohibited; a power which Congress even does

not possess, and consequently cannot confer upon a Territorial

Legislature, unless the creature becomes greater than the creator. It

was this kind of trouble, and this sort of heresy introduced into the

Democratic party, that has broken it up, and brought the disasters

upon our country which we experience to-day. I say, then, let the

blame fall upon the guilty; I am innocent of it; for I have held but

one doctrine upon this question from the beginning to the present

hour, and I shall hold that doctrine to the end. In the speech from

which I have already read, I also used the following language:

"Sir, it appears to me to be very singular indeed, that any

man can hold that the territory of this country belongs to a

portion of the people, and that the people of one portion of

the Union can go there and enjoy their property, when the

people of another portion cannot enjoy the right of property

in that territory--territory common to the whole country;

territory that was earned or acquired by the common blood

and common treasure of all; territory that is sustained by

the common treasure of all; and to say that all shall not

have an equal right there, is to deny a fact so plain, a

principle so just, a right so manifest, that I can hardly

see how any man who professes to be a Democrat can deny it,

or how he can attempt to embarrass the adoption of the

correct principles announced in these resolutions. I shall

therefore vote against all the amendments, and every thing

that is offered to obstruct their passage, upon the ground

that they assert justice, that they assert truth, that they

assert the equality and constitutional rights of all the

States, which principle must be maintained, or this Union

cannot be preserved."

That was my doctrine then, it is the doctrine which I have held and

advocated for twenty years. It is the doctrine I hold now; and I so

notified the Senator from Tennessee, who arraigned me here as voting

against protecting property, and who did me willful and gross

injustice in it--for I voted for it and he voted against it. That is

to say, I voted against the resolution introduced by Mr. CLINGMAN,

declaring "that slave property did not need protection in the

Territories," while the Senator from Tennessee voted for it; and when

the motion was made to reconsider the vote adopting it in lieu of the

fourth resolution of the DAVIS series, I voted to reconsider, and the

Senator from Tennessee voted against it, showing clearly that he was

against affording that protection to slave property which the fourth

resolution provided for. Did I not maintain the truth? Was I not

prophetic in the announcement that I made in this Senate Chamber then?

I said, that unless this great principle of justice, of equality, of

the right of every man to the common territory should be maintained,

this Union would be broken up. This great principle has not been

maintained, but the Union has been destroyed.

But, sir, to go to the votes. It will be borne in mind, and every

Senator on this floor will bear me out in my statement, that while the

DAVIS resolutions--the series of which I speak--were up, various

propositions were made to amend them, and I voted against all

amendments. There are Senators here at this moment who will sustain me

when I say that, when in caucus and we had under consideration this

series of resolutions, I said, and said it boldly and in plain terms,

that if every man from every Southern State of this Union would come

here and say, for the sake of peace, if you please, or any other

reason, he was willing to abandon his equality, his right in the

common territory, then, if alone, I would stand and protest against

it; protest that he had no right to surrender a constitutional right;

that none but a coward would do it; that every man had a right in the

common territory; that it was his privilege, and he should never

surrender it with my permission. On the other hand, I said that if

every Northern man in the Senate Chamber--nay, but even every Northern

citizen--expressed a desire to surrender his right, his equality, his

privilege, to go to the common Territories with his property, I should

enter my solemn protest against it, and insist that he had a

constitutional right to go there, which he should never surrender with

my consent. Then, how any man could assert that I ever entertained the

opinion that slavery did not need protection from aggression, is to me

the strangest, falsest thing in nature. I said, as I have shown you,

that I had voted against all amendments, and would continue to vote

against all amendments, or any attempt whatsoever calculated to

obstruct the passage of the resolutions; for they asserted the right

of the people to go to the Territories, asserted the power of the

court to protect them in the possession of their property, and that if

the court failed to protect them, Congress should afford the necessary

authority to do so.

But, sir, allow me to observe, there was a resolution that I never

voted for, and that no man can charge me with ever having voted for.

Senators will recollect--and whoever has read the proceedings of the

Senate will recollect--that an amendment was offered as a substitute

to the fourth resolution, in these words:

"That the existing condition of the Territories does not

require the intervention of Congress for the protection of

property in slaves."

I did not vote for that resolution; but the Senator from Tennessee

did. That amendment was adopted in lieu of the fourth resolution of

the series that I have read, which insured protection to slave

property in the Territories. It was adopted not entirely by Democratic

votes; and that there may be no mistake, I will read what the Senator

from Massachusetts said when he moved a reconsideration:

"I wish simply to say that I voted for that resolution

because I believed the condition of the Territories requires

no such law now or ever, and I do not believe in the

enactment of any such law; but my friends on this side of

the Chamber have put that resolution in the series; and for

myself, I do not wish to be responsible for any portion of

these resolutions, and I therefore wish the vote to be

reconsidered."

This was the language of the Senator from Massachusetts, when he found

that the Republicans, united with some Democrats, had stricken out the

fourth resolution of the series, and inserted this as a substitute. I

said to Mr. WILSON on that occasion:

"I desire merely to tender my thanks to the honorable

Senator from Massachusetts. The series of resolutions, as

introduced by the honorable Senator from Mississippi, are

germane one to the other. They are a declaration of

principles by the Democratic party. This amendment, as the

Senator has said correctly, has been fastened on the

Democratic resolutions by the votes of the Republican

Senators. I feel grateful, indeed, to the Senator for making

the motion to reconsider. I hope the vote will be

reconsidered, and the resolution voted down."

The motion was put, and on the yeas and nays the vote was

reconsidered. I voted for the reconsideration, and I voted against the

amendment when it was adopted as a substitute for the fourth

resolution. Among those who voted in the affirmative for

reconsideration were Messrs. BENJAMIN, BROWN, CHESNUT, CLAY, DAVIS,

FITZPATRICK, GREEN, GWIN, HAMMOND, HARLAN, HUNTER, IVERSON, JOHNSON of

Arkansas, and LANE. Among those who voted against it, I find JOHNSON

of Tennessee. I did not vote to continue in the series a resolution

that refused protection to all the people in the common Territories.

Portions of the Journal have been paraded to show the vote on Mr.

BROWN'S amendment to Mr. CLINGMAN'S amendment. I said, in several

speeches, that I should vote against all amendments, because the

series had been considered not only here, but in a caucus composed of

the Democratic Senators of this body, and we had agreed to take them

as a whole, and to vote them through altogether if we had the strength

to do so. I voted against every proposition to amend. I voted against

Mr. BROWN'S, and I voted against Mr. CLINGMAN'S, and I voted against

every other amendment that was calculated to weaken or embarrass the

passage of the resolutions. Yet I am represented here as having voted

against affording protection to slave property in the Territories! I

ask again, if any Senator, if any man who can read, can say that the

fourth resolution, for which I did vote and for which I struggled and

contended, does not declare that slave property shall be protected in

the common Territories of our country.

Could any thing be stronger than the fourth resolution? Could any man

desire a more direct declaration of principles than that? Upon the

yeas and nays I voted for it. I voted against the amendment that was

adopted, and afterwards reconsidered. How, then, can a man arraign me

before the country as having said upon oath, on the 25th of May last,

that slave property should not be protected in the common Territories

with other property? I have always held that all property should be

protected, slave as well as other property; that it should have the

same protection as, and no more protection than any other property.

That they do not secure all this, is the objection I have to the

amendments to the Constitution proposed by the Peace Conference. They

are ambiguous, loose, and deceptive. I do not know that the people can

comprehend them. There will be no certainty under them; and they

would, if adopted, result in endless trouble and litigation. I trust

no amendments will ever be made to the Constitution, unless they are

made upon principles of right, justice, and equality, so that there

can be no mistake in construing them hereafter. If we amend the

Constitution, let us do it with a view to the peace of the country,

with a view to the harmony of the country, with a view to the security

of every interest, and of every State in the Union. If we could do

that, and this day amend the Constitution so as to provide expressly

that every State should have equal rights in the Territories and

elsewhere within the Union, this Confederacy would last forever, the

States that have left us would come back, and we should have then a

great and a lasting Union indeed. Without it, we never can have a

permanent Union. We must do something that is clearly right, or the

States that have left us will never return. They never ought to

return, unless they can have the right of equality secured to them by

the Constitution. I claim for my State just that which she is entitled

to, and not a particle more. I would concede to the Southern States,

that to which they are entitled, and not a particle more. That, they

must have, or there can be no peace, no union, no harmony, no

security, and no perpetuity of this Confederacy. Such amendments to

the Constitution, securing these objects and principles, are

indispensable to the maintenance of the Government as it was formed.

Then why not do right? Why not every southern man ask just that which

he is entitled to, and no more? He ought to be content with nothing

short of what he is entitled to; and if he be, he is untrue to his

section and his constituents; untrue to the people whose servant he

is; and untrue to the institutions of the country; for the country can

exist only upon the triumph of such principles. He who is unwilling to

deal fairly by the North and the South, is a man who is guilty of

shattering and ruining the Confederacy; destroying the peace and

harmony and success of this great experiment of ours.

Mr. President, in the State of Connecticut the Democracy assert the

correct principle, and they charge the trouble in the country to the

right quarter. I stated, on a former occasion, that the Democracy of

old Connecticut would never join the Republican party in any attempt

to coerce the Southern States; and I am now authorized by their own

declaration to say again, what I said before, that they, like the

Democracy of Oregon and of every other Northern State, will never join

a party that has refused justice; that has refused equality and right;

that has refused to protect property in the Territories, or wherever

the jurisdiction of the United States extends, in putting down those

who contended for their rights and for the equality to which they were

entitled. Sir, the loyal Democracy of this country fully understand

the question, and they assert the right.

Now, sir, these great principles were not carried out. The platform on

which the Democracy presented their candidates for President and

Vice-President was not heeded, though based upon the Constitution. I

will say to the Senator who has boasted of his efforts in Tennessee in

behalf of the BRECKINRIDGE ticket, that I shall notice that hereafter;

but I have only to say now, that, for the sake of the country, I would

to God the ticket had succeeded. We should then have had those

principles endorsed upon which the Government is established, and the

country would have been at peace. For that alone I wished it to

succeed.

I will say only a word, now, as to the amendments proposed to the

Constitution. I had the pleasure of listening, yesterday, to the

distinguished Senator from Kentucky. I know his patriotism and his

devotion to the Union. I know his willingness to take any thing,

however small, however trifling, however little it might be, that

would, in his opinion, give peace to the country. Sir, I am actuated

by no such feeling. We should never compromise principle nor sacrifice

the eternal foundations of justice. Whenever the Democratic party

compromised principle it laid the foundation of future troubles for

itself and for the country. When we do, then, amend the Constitution,

it ought to be in the spirit of right and justice to all men and to

all sections. I voted for the Senator's propositions, and I will do so

again, if we can get a vote, because there is something in them;

something that I could stand by; but there is nothing in the

amendments proposed by the Peace Conference. He proposed to establish

the line of 36° 30´, and to prohibit slavery north of it and protect

it south of it, in all the present territory, or of the territory to

be hereafter acquired. In that proposition there was something like

justice and right; but there is nothing in the amendments proposed by

the Peace Conference that any man, North or South, ought to take. They

are a cheat; they are a deception; they are a fraud; they hold out a

false idea; and I think, with all due respect to the Senator--for I

have the highest regard for him personally--that he is too anxious to

heal the trouble that exists in the country. He had better place

himself upon the right and stand by it. Let him contend, with me, for

the inalienable and constitutional rights of every American citizen.

Let him beware of "compromising" away the vital rights, privileges,

and immunities of one portion of the country to appease the graceless,

unrelenting, and hostile fanaticism of another portion. Let him labor

with me, to influence every State to mind its own affairs, and to keep

the Territories entirely _free_ to the enterprise of all, with equal

security and protection--without invidious distinctions--to the

property of every citizen. Thus, and only thus, can we have peace,

happiness, and eternal Union.

I could not avoid noticing the anxiety of the Senator from Kentucky to

accept any thing, and the readiness of the Senator from Oregon to

pledge his people--"my people"--to any thing that he chooses. Now, I

know there are many free people in the State of Oregon. They generally

do as they please. They have no master. No man owns them; and no man

can claim to control them. But this I am warranted in asserting--for I

know long, well, and intimately, the gallant men of Oregon--that they

will not be found ready or inclined, at the Senator's and his masters

beck, to imbrue their hands, in a godless cause, in fraternal gore.

Mr. President, the principles asserted in the resolutions adopted by

the Senate, last winter, have not been carried out. We see the

consequences. We see a dissevered country and a divided Union. A

number of the States have gone off, have formed an independent

Government; it is in existence, and the States composing it will never

come back to you, unless you say in plain English, in your amendments

to the Constitution, that every State in the future Union has an equal

right to the Territories and all the protection and blessings of this

Government--never! I tell you, sir, although some foolish men and some

wicked ones may say I am a disunionist, I am for the Union upon the

principles of the Constitution, and not a traitor. None but a coward

will even think me a traitor; and if anybody thinks I am, let him test

me. This Union could exist upon the principles that I have held and

that are set forth in the DAVIS resolutions; but upon no other

condition can it exist. Then, sir, disunion is inevitable. It is not

going to stop with the seven States that are out. No, sir; my word for

it, unless you do something more than is proposed in this proposition,

old Virginia will go out too--slothful as she has been, and tardy as

she seems in appreciating her own interests and her rights, and kind

and generous as she has been in inviting a Peace Congress to agree

upon measures of safety for the Union. The time will come, however,

when old Virginia will stand trifling and chicanery no longer. Neither

will North Carolina suffer it. None of the slave States will endure

it; for they cannot separate one from the other, and they will not.

They will go out of this Union and into one of their own; forming a

great, homogeneous, and glorious Southern Confederacy. It is and it

has been, Senators, in your power to prevent this; it is and it has

been for you to say (you might to-day, as it is the last day, say so),

whether the Union shall be saved or not. I know, that gallant Old

Dominion will never put up with less than her rights; and if she

would, I should entertain for her contempt. I should feel contempt for

her if she were to ask for any thing more than her rights; and so I

would if she were to put up with any thing less than her

constitutional rights. Then, sir, secession has taken place, and it

will go on unless we do right.

Mr. President, in the remarks which I made on the 19th of December

last, in reply to the Senator from Tennessee, I took the ground that a

State might rightfully secede from the Union when she could no longer

remain in it on an equal footing with the other States; in other

words, when her continuance as a member of the Confederacy involved

the sacrifice of her constitutional rights, safety, and honor. This

right I deduced from the theory of equality of the States, upon which

rests the whole fabric of our unrivalled system of government--unrivalled,

as it came from the hands of its illustrious framers--a model as

perfect, perhaps, as human wisdom could devise, securing to all the

blessings of civil and religious liberty, when rightly understood and

properly administered; but like all other Governments, and even

Christianity itself, a most dangerous engine of oppression when,

having fallen into the hands of persons strangers to its spirit, and

unmindful of the beneficent objects for which it was framed, it is

perverted from its high and noble mission to the base uses of a

selfish or sectional ambition, or a blind and bigoted fanaticism. I

said, on that occasion--referring to this fundamental principle of our

Government, the equality of the States--that "as long as this equality

be maintained the Union will endure, and no longer." I might here

undertake to enforce, by argument and the authority of writers on the

nature and purposes of our Government, this, to me, self-evident

proposition. But I deem it unnecessary to consume the time of the

Senate in discussing that branch of the subject.

I propose, Mr. President, to confine what I have to say in regard to

the right of secession to the question, Who must judge whether such

right exists, and when it should be exercised? According to the theory

of every despotic Government, of ancient or modern times, there is no

such right. A province of an empire, how much soever oppressed, is

held by the oppressor as an integral part of his dominions. The yoke,

once fastened on the neck of the subject, is expected, however

galling, to be worn with patience and entire submission to the

tyrant's will. This is the theory of despotism. What are its fruits?

We have seen, in modern times, some of the bloodiest struggles

recorded in history growing out of the assertion by one party, and the

denial by the other, of this very right. Hungary undertook to "secede"

from the Austrian empire. Her right to do so was denied. She

constituted an integral part of the empire--a great "consolidated"

nation, as some consider the United States to be. Being an integral

part of the empire, according to the theory of the Austrian

Government, she must so remain forever. Austria not having the power

to enforce an acquiescence in this doctrine, Russian legions were

called to her aid; and Hungary, on whose gallant struggle for

independence the liberty-loving people of this country looked with so

much admiration and sympathy, soon lay prostrate and bleeding at the

tyrant's feet. You may call this attempt of Hungary to regain her

independence revolution. That is precisely what Austria called it. I

call it an effort on her part to peaceably secede--to peaceably

dissolve her connection with a Government which, in her judgment, had

become intolerably unjust and oppressive. Her oppressors told her it

was not her province but theirs, to judge of her alleged grievances;

that to acknowledge the right of secession would strike a fatal blow

at the integrity of the empire, which could be maintained only by

enforcing the perfect obedience of each and every part.

We have, in the recent struggle of the Italian States, an instructive

commentary on the now mooted questions of secession and coercion.

Indeed, history, through all past ages, is but a record of the efforts

of tyrants to prevent the recognition of the doctrine, that a people

deeming themselves oppressed might peaceably absolve themselves from

allegiance to their oppressors. When our Government was formed, our

fathers fondly thought that they had made a great improvement on the

despotic systems of modern Europe. They saw the infinite evil

resulting from coercing the unwilling obedience of a subject to a

Government which he abhorred and detested. They accordingly declared

the great truth, never enunciated until then, that "Governments derive

all their just power from the consent of the governed." A Government

without such consent they held to be a tyranny.

Now, Mr. President, this brings us to the very point in issue. Who is

to determine whether this consent is given or withheld? Must it be

determined by the ruler? If so, the proposition just stated is an

absurdity. Clearly it was the meaning of those who enunciated this

great truth, that the subjects of a Government have the right to

declare or withhold their consent; otherwise no such right exists.

They, and they only, must judge whether their rights are protected or

violated. If protected, every consideration of interest and safety

impels them to consent to live under a Government which secures the

blessings they desire. If, on the other hand, in their judgment, their

most sacred rights are violated, interest and honor, and the instinct

of self-preservation, all conspire to impel them to withhold their

consent; which being withheld, the Government, as far as they are

concerned, ceases.

Here I would call the attention of the Senate to the first of the

Kentucky resolutions of 1798-'99, written by Mr. JEFFERSON, in which

he says distinctly, that the parties to a political compact must judge

for themselves of the mode and measure of redress, when they consider

the compact violated and their rights invaded:

"_Resolved_, That the several States composing the United

States of America, are not united on the principle of

unlimited submission to their General Government; but that

by compact, under the style and title of a Constitution for

the United States, and of amendments thereto, they

constituted a General Government for special purposes,

delegated to that Government certain definite powers,

reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right

to their own self-government; and that whensoever the

General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are

unauthoritative, void, and of no force; that to this compact

each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party;

that this Government, created by this compact, was not made

the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers

delegated to itself, since that would have made its

discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its

power; but that, as in all other cases of compact among

parties having no common judge, each party has an equal

right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the

mode and measure of redress."

Here Mr. JEFFERSON asserts that a State aggrieved shall judge not only

of the mode, but the measure of redress. Is this treason? If the

measure of redress extends to secession, how can the Senator from

Tennessee [Mr. JOHNSON] do less than denounce the great apostle of

liberty--as Mr. JEFFERSON has been called--a traitor?

No less clear and explicit on this point, is the language of Mr.

MADISON. Being chairman of a committee to whom the subject was

referred--the resolutions having been returned by several of the

States--he says in his report:

"It appears to your committee to be a plain principle,

founded in common sense, illustrated by common practice, and

essential to the nature of compacts, that where resort can

be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of the

parties, the parties themselves must be the rightful judges

in the last resort, whether the bargain made has been

pursued or violated. The Constitution of the United States

was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in

its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and

dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution,

that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The

States, then, being the parties to the Constitutional

compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of

necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their

authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the

compact made by them be violated, and consequently that, as

the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last

resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to

require their interposition."

In the remarks which I made on the 19th of December last, I referred

to the fact that Virginia, in accepting the Constitution, declared

that the powers granted under that instrument "being derived from the

people of the United States, may be resumed by them whenever the same

shall be perverted to their injury or oppression." I referred, also,

to the fact that New York had adopted the Constitution upon the same

condition and with the same reservation. I may here quote the language

of Mr. WEBSTER, distinctly recognizing the right of the people to

change their Government whenever their interest or safety require it.

He says:

"We see, therefore, from the commencement of the Government

under which we live, down to this late act of the State of

New York"--

To which he had just referred--

"one uniform current of law, of precedent, and of practice,

all going to establish the point that changes in Government

are to be brought about by the will of the people, assembled

under such legislative provisions as may be necessary to

ascertain that will truly and authentically."

If the people of a State, believing themselves oppressed, undertake to

establish a Government, independent of that to which they formerly

owed allegiance, and the latter interferes with the movement, and

employs force to prevent such a consummation, no one who acknowledges

the great truth that the basis of all free government is the "consent

of the governed," will deny that such interference is an act of

usurpation and tyranny. Those only who borrow their ideas of political

justice from the despotic codes of Europe, and are more imbued with

the spirit of METTERNICH and BOMBA than of JEFFERSON and MADISON, will

attempt to justify, palliate, or excuse such violation of the sacred

rights of the people. I have observed that often the noisiest

champions of popular rights are the first to trample those rights

under foot. The word "freedom" is continually on the tongues of

gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber; and I believe the Senator

from Tennessee has been suspected of a decided leaning to agrarianism,

so zealous has he been in advocating the rights, so entirely devoted

is he to the interests of the "dear people." But now, when the

_people_ of the seceding States have pronounced, in tones of thunder,

the fiat which absolves them from allegiance to a Government which

they no longer respect or love, these same gentlemen all lift their

hands in horror, roll up the whites of their eyes, as did old Lord

NORTH many years ago, and exclaim "Treason!" "Treason!" Then, boiling

with patriotic rage, they rise up and declare that "this treason must

be punished; the laws must be enforced." History tells us that this

was the language of King GEORGE and Lord NORTH when the colonies

renounced their allegiance to the mother country. The former of these

worthies, we are told, spent much of his life in a state of mental

darkness--in other words, he was a lunatic. The other received from

nature a narrow intellect, and inherited prejudices common to the

aristocracy of that period and of all other periods of the world's

history. Their errors were the natural offspring of incapacity and the

false teaching received in their youth. While, therefore, we cannot

admire or approve their conduct, these circumstances incline us more

to sorrow than to anger, disarm our resentment, and dispose us to

forgive what, under other circumstances, would deserve the severest

censure.

But what excuse can we find for the peculiar champions of popular

rights in this Chamber; these zealous servants of the people, forever

ringing in our ears, "Let the voice of the people be heard; respect

the will of the people; _vox populi vox Dei_!" Sir, I say too, let the

voice of the people be heard and respected. And I think, for the sake

of consistency with all my past professions as a Democrat, I am bound

to respect the declared will of the sovereign States which, for

reasons satisfactory to themselves, have seceded from the Union and

established a separate and independent Government. Whatever the causes

may have been which impelled them to a separation from the other

States, I am bound to respect the expression of their sovereign will;

and I heartily reprobate the policy of attempting to thwart that will

under the pretence of "punishing treason" and "enforcing the laws." We

are told that the design is to attempt nothing more than to collect

the revenue in the ports of the seceded States. To say nothing of the

justice or injustice of the attempt so to do, I ask Senators from the

North, and the Senator from Tennessee, _will it pay_? Will it not be a

declaration of war against the seceding States, involving the people

of all the States in a long and bloody conflict, ruinous to both

sections? Are their ethics not the ethics of the school-boy pugilist,

"Knock the chip off my shoulder"?

One of the framers of the Constitution [Mr. MADISON], whose

expositions of that instrument all classes, all parties, have

heretofore received, and still receive, or pretend to receive, with

profound deference and respect, has left on record his views of the

injustice, impracticability, and inefficacy of force as a means of

coercing States into obedience to Federal authority.

Among the statesmen of the Revolution--those who participated in the

formation of our Government--there was no one who had such exalted

notions of the power and dignity of the Federal Government, as the

great HAMILTON. He was a consolidationist. The advocates of coercion

might naturally expect to obtain "aid and comfort" from the recorded

declarations of one of his peculiar political faith. But an

examination of his writings will show, that instead of favoring

coercion, instead of being the advocate of force, he was the advocate

of leniency and conciliation towards refractory States, and deprecated

a resort to force as madness and folly.

If the great names of MADISON and HAMILTON have not sufficient weight

to restrain the madness of those who urge a coercive policy against

the seceding States, then, indeed, I see no escape from that most

dreadful of all calamities which can befall a nation--civil war. If

those in this Chamber who talk so flippantly of war, had seen, as it

has been my lot to see, some of its actual horrors, they might,

perhaps, heed the warnings and respect the counsels of the sages and

patriots whose language I have quoted. They would at least refrain

from ungenerous insinuations against the patriotism of those northern

Democrats, who, like myself, reprobate the policy of coercion as

destructive of the peace, the prosperity, and happiness of every part

of the country, north as well as south.

But to return to the remarks of the Senator from Tennessee. In the

pamphlet report of his speech, page 7, JEFFERSON is quoted; but the

concluding part of the quotation is repeated in the _Globe_ report and

not in that of the pamphlet. That part is:

"When two parties make a compact, there results to each a

power of compelling the other to execute it."

JEFFERSON is here quoted to show that the Confederation has a power to

enforce its articles on delinquent States. But the citation is

unfortunate for the Senator from Tennessee. He had just previously

asserted that Vermont and other States had, by personal liberty bills,

violated the Constitution. Well; can he tell us how Virginia and South

Carolina could enforce the Constitution on Vermont in that respect? It

cannot be done. What follows? Why, as Mr. WEBSTER said at Capon

Springs, "a compact broken by one party is broken as to all." Hence,

according to the doctrines of JEFFERSON and WEBSTER as to the actual

case which, according to the Senator, has occurred, the compact having

been broken, the Southern States have a right to retire--are absolved

from further obligations under the constitutional compact.

The Senator complains that I replied at all, as I was a northern

Senator, and a Democrat whom he had supported at the last election for

a high office. Now, I was, as I stated at the time, surprised at the

Senator's speech--because I understood it to be for coercion, as I

think it was by almost everybody else, except, as we are now told, by

the Senator himself; and I still think it amounted to a coercion

speech, notwithstanding the soft and plausible phrases by which he

describes it--a speech for the execution of the laws and the

protection of the Federal property. Sir, if there is, as I contend,

the right of secession, then, whenever a State exercises that right,

this Government has no laws in that State to execute, nor has it any

property in any such State that can be protected by the power of this

Government. In attempting, however, to substitute the smooth phrases

of "executing the laws" and "protecting public property" for coercion,

for civil war, we have an important concession, _i.e._, that this

Government dare not go before the people with a plain avowal of its

real purposes, and of their consequences. No, sir; the policy is to

inveigle the people of the North into civil war, by masking the design

in smooth and ambiguous terms.

Now, sir, I want it distinctly understood, as I have already shown,

that during the last session I stood firmly by the DAVIS resolutions.

I voted against every amendment. I voted against an amendment that he

voted for, because I believed it was partial, and did not do justice.

But the Senator from Tennessee proceeded with an air and tone of great

triumph to bring forward my vote on the amendments proposed to the

DAVIS resolutions. I think I have said all that it is necessary for me

to say upon that subject. I have shown that I have voted for them

under all circumstances, and against every amendment. Those

resolutions assert the right of property in the Territories, and that

when the courts fail to afford protection, then it is the duty of

Congress to come forward and provide that protection. I wished to put

slave property upon the same footing as other property. That is where

I then stood, where I now stand, and where I intend to stand. The

Senator asks, with a kind of triumphant air, what has happened since

that day? Mr. President, I have said that I have done all in my power,

by standing firm to the resolutions agreed to by the Democratic party,

to afford protection. The Senator misrepresented my vote on those

resolutions. I never voted against the DAVIS resolutions, nor did

their substitute ever come up as a separate proposition. It was an

amendment to one of that series of resolutions I voted against; and I

would vote against any thing and every thing that would embarrass

their passage, for they contained just what I thought was right.

What has happened since? Why, a thing has happened that never happened

before. The denial of any and all protection to slave property in any

and in all the territory; the denial of the right to take slave

property to any of them has been proclaimed and affirmed at the

ballot-box by a majority of the States, and a majority of the

electoral votes of this Union. What has happened? Why, the thing has

happened that has been three times before attempted, and three times

before failed; the first attempt having endangered the formation of

the Union, and the second and third its continuance. The first attempt

was made in 1784, to exclude slavery from all the Territories. It was

abandoned in 1787 by excluding it only from the territory northwest of

the Ohio, leaving it to colonize that portion southwest of that river.

The same thing was again attempted in 1820, as to the territory

acquired from Louisiana; and after a terrible agitation, was abandoned

by adopting the Missouri line. The third attempt was made in 1850, as

to the territory acquired from Mexico; and then also the Union

narrowly escaped destruction; but the compromise measures were

adopted. And now it comes again, but in a more formidable way than

ever. A President has been elected on that issue; for the first time

the people of the North, after all previous compromises and warnings,

have voted on the question, and every Northern State has pronounced

for the spoliation.

Mr. President, perhaps the most signal instance of the evils of

compulsory union between dissimilar people, is that of Ireland and

England. The people of Ireland--the home and heritage of my

ancestors--have, as the South has, a representation in the national

Legislature; but being also, as the South is, in a minority in that

body, have no power to protect themselves from the aggressions of

England. The consequence is, that they have been excluded from the

common benefits of British legislation, commercially, and even

religiously, to say nothing of their exclusion from official station

in the empire. And, accordingly, Ireland has been impoverished,

degraded, and discontented. She has been trampled upon, outraged,

insulted, treated like Cinderella. The people of this country have

always sympathized with the wrongs of Ireland, and her struggles for

independence. Yet there is now a greater difference between the people

of the South and of the North than between those of England and

Ireland, and greater antagonism of opinion and feeling. Nevertheless,

it is proposed to hold the South in political subjection to the North,

and for that purpose to employ naval and military force.

Sir, I might mention many other cases: the subjection of Greece to

Turkey; of Poland to Russia; of the Netherlands to Spain; Italy to

Austria. In all these cases we have sympathized with, and, in many of

them aided, the secession from the common government, by contributions

and individual service. Yet those Governments were not founded on

consent, and there was no compact conceding the right of secession.

Sir, in conclusion, whether the course the seceding States have seen

fit to take be right or not, is a question which we must leave to

posterity, and the verdict of impartial history. Our time will

probably be more profitably employed in considering how we shall deal

with secession than in discussing the causes which have produced it.

Secession, right or wrong, justifiable or unjustifiable, is an

accomplished fact; and it presents to us no less an alternative than

that of peace or war. Sir, I believe that, in the general ruin which

would follow coercive measures against the seceding states, all

sections, all classes, all the great interests of the country,

without any exception, would be involved. How much better, Mr.

President, that, in so fearful a crisis as the present, instead of

passing "force bills," and preparing for war, instead of "breathing

threatenings and slaughter," and preparing implements of destruction

to be used against our brethren of the South, how much better, I say,

for ourselves, for posterity, for the cause of civil liberty

throughout the world, that our thoughts should be turned on peace?

Peace, not war, has brought our country to the high degree of

prosperity it now enjoys. The energies of the people up to this time

have been directed to the development of our boundless resources, to

the mechanic arts, to agriculture, mining, trade, and commerce with

foreign nations. Banish peace, turn these mighty energies of the

people to the prosecution of the dreadful work of mutual destruction,

and soon cities in ruins, fields desolate, the deserted marts of

trade, the silent workshops, gaunt famine stalking through the land,

the earth cumbered with the bodies of the dying and the dead, will

bear awful testimony to the madness and wickedness which, from the

very summit of prosperity and happiness, are plunging us headlong into

an abyss of woe.

Sir, in God's name, let us have peace! If we cannot have it in the

Union, as it existed prior to November last, let us have it by

cultivating friendly relations with those States which have dissolved

their connection with that Union, and established a separate

government. Though we and they may not, and, perhaps, in the nature of

things, cannot live harmoniously under the same Government, it is our

interest, no less than theirs, that we should at once endeavor to

establish between our Government and theirs those amicable relations

which should ever exist between two neighboring Republics. War, with

its attendant horrors, being thus happily averted, the people of each

Republic will be left at liberty to pursue, undisturbed, their several

vocations. A mutually advantageous commerce will grow up between the

two nations; treaties, such as regulate our intercourse with the

Canadas, will be formed; confidence in all branches of business will

be restored; a new impetus given to every variety of industry; the

march of improvement accelerated, and the cause of humanity, of

civilization, and of Christianity, advanced throughout the world. The

people of Europe, accustomed to refer the settlement of their

slightest differences to the bloody arbitrament of the sword, will

behold with silent wonder and amazement the spectacle of a great

people unable to agree in reference to one of their peculiar domestic

institutions, peacefully separating, as did the patriarchs of old;

resolving themselves into two distinct political communities, not

hostile, discordant, belligerent; but each, animated with a spirit of

generous rivalry toward the other, pursuing a more successful and

prosperous career in its own chosen path, than when, united under the

same Federal head, they painfully sought together the same common

destiny.

Mr. President, we are living at a day and at a time when a Northern

sectional party have obtained possession of the power of this great

Government, who have declared in their platform, in their speeches

everywhere, and in their press, that slavery shall never go into

another foot of territory; that no other slave State shall ever be

admitted into this Union; that slavery shall be put in the course of

ultimate extinction. We have the announcement of the party that the

foot of a slave shall never press the soil of one of the Territories;

that no new slave State shall be admitted; and, in addition to that,

that no slave State shall go out of the Union. Who ever saw such a

party as that? Who ever knew any thing like it in the world before?

They will not let slavery go into the Territories; they will not let a

slave State come in; and they will not let one go out! They will not

let them go out because they could not carry out their programme of

placing slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. They want to

keep the slave States in for their benefit--to foot the bills, to pay

the taxes--that they may govern them as they see fit, and rule them

against their will. Well, sir, I wish to say one word to that party,

in all kindness; for I shall not trouble them again on this subject. I

shall be a private, independent citizen before long. But I will say to

that party, they had better change their tactics; they had better

change front, and do it speedily. Let them place themselves upon the

high ground of right and justice, and adopt such amendments to the

Constitution as will not only hold old Kentucky, which has produced

the greatest "compromiser" of us all--that good old State where I was

raised, and that I am proud of--but the other Southern States also. I

am afraid Republicanism will not do this. I know those old Kentucky

people from terrace to foundation. They will endure much--very

much--peaceably and quietly; but if they are goaded too far; if, by

repeated wrongs, they are compelled to fight, then I would say to

their enemy "beware!" There are chivalry and patriotism in Kentucky

which is neither in the power of accident nor nature to subdue. You

had better not press them too far. Do not drive them to the goal of

last resort. Give them justice while you have it in your power to do

so. Satisfy them that ultimately they shall have equality in this

broken Government, or Union, if you will. But, sir, I leave the

patching up of the Constitution to the distinguished Senator from

Kentucky and other gentlemen, especially my friend from Pennsylvania

[Mr. BIGLER], who has labored harder to patch up the Constitution

than any man I ever knew, except my friend from Kentucky, and I wish

him God speed in the work. Let it be upon just principles; let it be

right; let us have justice; and I shall be content.

Now, Mr. President, I have paid all the attention to the attempt that

was made to place me in the wrong that I deem necessary. I can only

now repeat, in the conclusion of my speech, that neither the Senator

from Tennessee, nor any other Senator, nor can any man, tell the truth

and say that I have, by any vote, word, or act of mine, at any time or

on any occasion, refused protection to all property alike in the

Territories. I have made it a point always. Indeed, the doctrine of

the equal right of property, whether slave or any other, in the

Territories, and its equal right to protection, is as strong in me as

life itself. I have never uttered a word against that principle; but I

have said, upon all occasions, that that doctrine must be maintained,

or this Union could not stand. I have fought for it; but as I said in

the outset, while I deeply deplore the condition of the country, it

has been caused by no act of mine. And with this remark, I part with

him, who, in imitation of Esau, seeks to sell his birthright. I would,

if there was time, give a little advice to all sides, to every Senator

on this floor. I would say: Senators come up to the great importance

of this question; meet it; adopt, by a two-thirds vote--as we could do

if Senators would deal rightly--amendments to the Constitution,

placing all the States upon an equality in the Territories, and on

every other question; submit them to the people; and by such

amendments I believe we could prevent, or stop, a further rupture of

this Union.

In a reply to the speech of Senator LANE of Oregon, the following

remarks on secession, coercion, the Territorial question, and the

Peace Conference propositions, are furnished by

Senator JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--Mr. President, it is painful for me to

be compelled, at this late hour of the session, to occupy any of the

time of the Senate upon the subject that has just been discussed by

the Senator from _Oregon_. Had it not been for the extraordinary

speech he has made, and the singular course he has taken, I should

forbear from saying one word at this late hour of the day and of the

session. But, sir, it must be apparent, not only to the Senate but to

the whole country, that, either by accident or by design, there has

been an arrangement that any one who appeared in this Senate to

vindicate the Union of these States should be attacked. Why is it that

no one, in the Senate or out of it, who is in favor of the Union of

these States, has made an attack upon me? Why has it been left to

those who have taken both open and secret ground in violation of the

Constitution, for the disruption of the Government? Why has there been

a concerted attack upon me from the beginning of this discussion to

the present moment, not even confined to the ordinary courtesies of

debate and of senatorial decorum? It is a question which lifts itself

above personalities. I care not from what direction the Senator comes

who indulges in personalities toward me; in that, I feel that I am

above him, and that he is my inferior. [Applause in the galleries.]

Mr. President, they are not arguments; they are the resort of men

whose minds are low and coarse. Cowper has well said:

"A truly sensible, well-bred man

Will not insult me; no other can."

Sir, have we reached a point at which we cannot talk about treason?

Our forefathers talked about it; they spoke of it in the Constitution

of the country; they have defined what treason was; is it an offence,

is it a crime, is it an insult to recite the Constitution that was

made by WASHINGTON and his compatriots? What does the Constitution

say:

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in

levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies,

giving them aid and comfort."

There it is defined clearly that treason shall consist only in levying

war against the United States, and adhering to and giving aid and

comfort to their enemies. Who is it that has been engaged in

conspiracies? Who is it that has been engaged in making war upon the

United States? Who is it that has fired upon our flag? Who is it that

has given instructions to take our arsenals, to take our forts, to

take our dock-yards, to take the public property? In the language of

the Constitution of the United States, have not those who have been

engaged in it been guilty of treason? We make a fair issue. Show me

who has been engaged in these conspiracies, who has fired upon our

flag, has given instructions to take our forts and our custom-houses,

our arsenals and our dock-yards, and I will show you a traitor.

[Applause in the galleries.]

Mr. President, if individuals were pointed out to me who were engaged

in nightly conspiracies, in secret conclaves, and issuing orders

directing the capture of our forts and the taking of our

custom-houses, I would show who were the traitors; and that being

done, the persons pointed out coming within the purview and scope of

the provision of the Constitution which I have read, were I the

President of the United States, I would do as THOMAS JEFFERSON did, in

1806, with AARON BURR; I would have them arrested, and, if convicted,

within the meaning and scope of the Constitution, by the Eternal GOD I

would execute them. Sir, treason must be punished. Its enormity and

the extent and depth of the offence must be made known. The time is

not distant, if this Government is preserved, its Constitution obeyed,

and its laws executed in every department, when something of this kind

must be done.

The Senator from Oregon, in his remarks, said that a mind that it

required six weeks to stuff could not know much of any thing. He

intimated that I had been stuffed. I made my speech on the 19th of

December. The gentleman replied. I made another speech, and now he has

replied again; and how long has he been "stuffing"? How often has he

been "stuffed"? [Laughter.] He has been stuffed twice; and if the

stuffing operation was as severe and laborious as the delivery has

been, he has had a troublesome time of it, for his travail has been

great and the delivery remarkable. [Laughter.]

We know how the Senator stands upon popular or squatter sovereignty.

On that subject he spoke at Concord, New Hampshire, where he

maintained that the inhabitants of the Territories were the best

judges; that they were the very people to settle all these questions;

but when he came here, at the last Congress, he could make a speech in

which he repeated, I cannot tell how many times, "the equality of the

States, the rights of the States in the Union, and their rights out of

the Union;" and he thus shifted his course. If the conflict between

his speech made in Concord in 1856, and his speech made here on the

25th day of May last, can be reconciled, according to all rules of

construction, it is fair to reconcile the conflict. If the discrepancy

is so great between his speech made then and his speech on the 25th of

May last, of course the discrepancy is against him; but I am willing

to let one speech set off the other, and to make honors easy, so far

as speech-making is concerned.

Then, how does the matter stand? There is one speech one way, and

there is another speech the other way. Now, we will come to the

sticking point. You have seen the equivocation to-day. You have seen

the cuttle fish attempt to becloud the water and elude the grasp of

his pursuer. I intend to stick to you here to-day, as close and as

tight as what I think I have heard called somewhere "Jew David's

Adhesive Plaster." How does your vote stand as compared with your

speeches? Your speeches being easy, I shall throw in the scale against

you the weight of what you swore. How does that matter stand? I intend

to refer to the record. By referring to the record, it will be found

that Mr. CLINGMAN offered the following as an amendment to the fourth

resolution of the series introduced by Mr. DAVIS:

"_Resolved_, That the existing condition of the Territories

of the United States does not require the intervention of

Congress for the protection of property in slaves."

What was the vote on the amendment proposed to that resolution by Mr.

BROWN, to strike out the word "not." I want the Senator's attention,

for I am going to stick to him, and if he can get away from me he has

got to obliterate the records of his country. How would it read, to

strike out the word "not."

"That the existing condition of the Territories of the

United States does require the intervention of Congress for

the protection of property in slaves."

Among those who voted against striking out the word "not," who

declared that protection of slavery in the Territories by legislation

of Congress was unnecessary, was the Senator from Oregon. When was

that? On the 25th day of May last. The Senator, under the oath of his

office, declared that legislation was not necessary. Now where do we

find him? Here is a proposition to amend the Constitution, to protect

the institution of slavery in the States, and here is the proposition

brought forward by the Peace Conference, and we find the Senator

standing against the one, and I believe he recorded his vote against

the other.

But, let us travel along. We have only applied one side of this

plaster. The Senator voted that it was not necessary to legislate by

Congress for the protection of slave property. Mr. BROWN then offered

the amendment to the resolution submitted by Mr. DAVIS, to strike out

all after the word "resolved," and to insert in lieu thereof:

"That experience having already shown that the Constitution

and the common law, unaided by statutory enactment, do not

afford adequate and sufficient protection to slave

property--some of the Territories having failed, others

having refused, to pass such enactments--it has become the

duty of Congress to interpose, and pass such laws as will

afford to slave property in the Territories that protection

which is given to other kinds of property."

We have heard a great deal said here to-day of "other kinds," and

every description of property. There is a naked, clear proposition.

Mr. BROWN says it is needed; that the court and the common law do not

give ample protection; and then the Senator from Oregon is called

upon; but what is his vote? We find, in the vote upon this amendment,

that but three Senators voted for it; and the Senator from Oregon

records his vote, and says "no," it shall not be established; and

every Southern man, save three, voted against it also. When was that?

On the 25th day of May last. Here is an amendment, now, to protect

and secure the States against any encroachment upon the institution

within the States; and there the Senator from Oregon swore that no

further legislation was necessary to protect it in the Territories.

Well, his speeches in honors being easy, and he having sworn to it in

the last Congress, I am inclined to take his oath in preference to his

speeches, and one is a fair set-off against the other. Then, all the

amendments being voted down, the Senate came to the vote upon this

resolution:

"That if experience should at any time prove that the

judicial and executive authority do not possess means to

insure adequate protection to constitutional rights in a

Territory, and if the territorial government should fail or

refuse to provide the necessary remedies for that purpose,

it will be the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency,

within the limits of its constitutional powers."

Does not the resolution proceed upon the idea that it was not

necessary then; but if, hereafter, the Territories should refuse, and

the courts and the common law could not give ample protection, then it

would be the duty of Congress to do this thing? What has transpired

since the 25th day of May last? Is not the decision of the court with

us? Is there not the Constitution carrying it there? Why was not this

resolution, declaring protection necessary, passed during the last

Congress? The Presidential election was on hand.

I have been held up and indirectly censured, because I have stood by

the people; because I have advocated those measures that are sometimes

called demagogical. I would to GOD that we had a few more men here who

were for the people in fact, and who would legislate in conformity

with their will and wishes. If we had, the difficulties and dangers

that surround us now, would be postponed and set aside; they would not

be upon us. But in May last, we could not vote that it was necessary

to pass a slave code for the Territories. Oh, no; the Presidential

election was on hand. We were very willing then to try to get northern

votes; to secure their influence in the passage of resolutions; and to

crowd some men down, and let others up. It was all very well then; but

since the people have determined that somebody else should be

President of the United States, all at once the grape has got to be

very sour, and gentlemen do not have as good an opinion of the people

as they had before; we have changed our views about it. They have not

thought quite as well of us as we desired they should; and if I could

not get to be President or Vice-President of all these United States,

rather than miss it altogether, I would be perfectly willing to be

President of a part; and therefore we will divide--yes, we will

divide. I am in favor of secession; of breaking up the Union; of

having the rights of the States out of the Union; and as I signally

failed in being President of all, as the people have decided against

me, we have reached that precise point of time at which the Government

ought to be broken up. It looks a little that way.

I have no disposition now, in concluding what little I am going to

say, to mutilate the dead, or add one single additional pang to the

tortures of the already politically damned. I am a humane man; I will

not add one pang to the intolerable sufferings of the distinguished

Senator from Oregon. [Laughter.] I sought no controversy with him; I

have made no issue with him; it has been forced upon me. How many have

attacked me; and is there a single man, North or South, who is in

favor of this glorious Union, who has dared to make an assault on me?

Is there one? No; not one. But it is all from secession; it is all

from that usurpation where a reign of terror has been going on.

I repeat, again, the Senator has made a set-to on me. I am satisfied

if he is. I am willing that his speech and mine shall go to the

country, and let an intelligent people read and understand, and see

who is right and who is wrong on this great issue.

But, sir, I alluded to the fact that secession has been brought about

by usurpation. During the last forty days, six States of this

Confederacy have been taken out of the Union; how? By the voice of the

people? No; it is demagogism to talk of the people. By the voice of

the freemen of the country? No. By whom has it been done? Have the

people of South Carolina passed upon the ordinance adopted by their

Convention? No; but a system of usurpation was instituted, and a reign

of terror inaugurated. How was it in Georgia? Have the people there

passed upon the ordinance of secession? No. We know that there was a

powerful party there, of passive, conservative men, who have been

overslaughed, borne down; and tyranny and usurpation have triumphed. A

convention passed an ordinance to take the State out of the

Confederacy; and the very same convention appointed delegates to go to

a congress to make a constitution, without consulting the people. So

with Louisiana; so with Mississippi; so with all the six States which

have undertaken to form a new Confederacy. Have the people been

consulted? Not in a single instance. We are in the habit of saying

that man is capable of self-government; that he has the right, the

unquestioned right, to govern himself; but here, a government has been

assumed over him; it has been taken out of his hands, and at

Montgomery a set of usurpers are enthroned, legislating, and making

constitutions and adopting them, without consulting the freemen of the

country. Do we not know it to be so? Have the people of Alabama, of

Georgia, of any of those States, passed upon it? No; but a

Constitution is adopted by those men, with a provision that it may be

changed by a vote of two-thirds. Four votes in a convention of six,

can change the whole organic law of a people constituting six States.

Is not this a _coup d'état_ equal to any of Napoleon? Is it not a

usurpation of the people's rights? In some of those States, even our

Stars and our Stripes have been changed. One State has a palmetto,

another has a pelican, and the last that I can enumerate on this

occasion, is one State that has the rattlesnake run up as an emblem.

On a former occasion I spoke of the origin of secession; and I traced

its early history to the garden of Eden, when the serpent's wile and

the serpent's wickedness beguiled and betrayed our first mother. After

that occurred, and they knew light and knowledge, when their Lord and

Master turned to them, they seceded, and hid themselves from his

presence. The serpent's wile, and the serpent's wickedness, first

started secession; and now, secession brings about a return of the

serpent. Yes, sir; the wily serpent, the rattlesnake, has been

substituted as the emblem on the flag of one of the seceding States;

and that old flag, the Stars and the Stripes, under which our fathers

fought and bled and conquered, and achieved our rights and our

liberties, is pulled down and trailed in the dust, and the rattlesnake

substituted. Will the American people tolerate it? They will be

indulgent; time, I think, is wanted, but they will not submit to it.

A word more in conclusion. Give the Border States that security which

they desire, and the time will come when the other States will come

back; when they will be brought back--how? Not by the coercion of the

Border States, but by the coercion of the people; and those leaders

who have taken them out will fall beneath the indignation and the

accumulating force of that public opinion which will ultimately crush

them. The gentlemen who have taken those States out are not the men to

bring them back.

I have already suggested that the idea may have entered into some

minds, "if we cannot get to be President and Vice-President of the

whole United States, we may divide the Government, set up a new

establishment, have new offices, and monopolize them ourselves when we

take our States out." Here we see a President made, a Vice-President

made, cabinet officers appointed, and yet the great mass of the people

not consulted, nor their assent obtained in any manner whatever. The

people of the country ought to be aroused to this condition of

things; they ought to buckle on their armor; and, as Tennessee has

done (GOD bless her!), by the exercise of the elective franchise, by

going to the ballot-box under a new set of leaders, they will

repudiate and put down those men who have carried these States out and

usurped a Government over their heads. I trust in GOD that the old

flag of the Union will never be struck. I hope it may long wave, and

that we may long hear the national air sung:

"The star-spangled banner, long may it wave,

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"

Long may we hear old Hail Columbia, that good old national air, played

on all our martial instruments! long may we hear, and never repudiate,

the old tune of Yankee Doodle! Long may wave that gallant old flag

which went through the Revolution, and which was borne by Tennessee

and Kentucky at the battle of New Orleans, upon that soil the right to

navigate the Mississippi near which they are now denied. Upon that

bloody field the Stars and Stripes waved in triumph; and, in the

language of another, the Goddess of Liberty hovered around when "the

rocket's red glare" went forth, indicating that the battle was raging,

and watched the issue; and the conflict grew fierce, and the issue was

doubtful; but when, at length, victory perched upon your Stars and

your Stripes, it was then, on the plains of New Orleans, that the

Goddess of Liberty made her loftiest flight, and proclaimed victory in

strains of exultation. Will Tennessee ever desert the grave of him who

bore it in triumph, or desert the flag that he waved with success? No;

we were in the Union before some of these States were spoken into

existence; and we intend to remain in, and insist upon--as we have the

confident belief we shall get--all our constitutional rights and

protection in the Union, and under the Constitution of the country.

[Applause in the galleries.]

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FITCH in the chair):--It will become the

unpleasant but imperative duty of the Chair to clear the galleries.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee:--I have done.

[The applause was renewed, and was louder and more general than

before. Hisses were succeeded by applause, and cheers were given and

reiterated, with "three cheers more for JOHNSON."]

The PRESIDING OFFICER:--The Sergeant-at-Arms will immediately clear

the galleries, and the order will not be rescinded.

The order having been executed by clearing the galleries and locking

the doors leading to them, the Presiding Officer announced that the

business of the Senate would be proceeded with.

The Senate, having disposed of several bills, was about to take action

on a proposed amendment to the House resolutions, when the Peace

Conference amendments were adverted to as follows:

Mr. MASON:--Now, I desire to say a word. There was a commission from

twenty or twenty-one States summoned here by the State of Virginia to

take into consideration the state of the country, and they have

proposed an elaborate amendment to the Constitution, which they ask

this body, in connection with the other House, to refer to the States.

That has been under consideration for two days; no vote has been taken

upon it; and the Senator from Illinois now proposes to postpone that

in order to give precedence to a resolution from the House of

Representatives proposing to amend the Constitution by prohibiting

Congress from interfering with slavery in the States. His motion is,

at this stage of the session, to put aside any further consideration

of this amendment to the Constitution proposed by that Peace

Conference, presented in the impressive manner in which it was done by

the honorable Senator from Kentucky, in order to give precedence to

this joint resolution of the House on this the last day of the

session. Sir, I shall vote against giving it that precedence. I think

it is due not only to those honorable gentlemen who came here and have

submitted to us the result of their labors that we should give it that

precedence, but I feel that it is due to the State of Virginia, who

invited the Conference, that no precedence should be given over it.

For that reason, I shall vote against it.

Mr. DOUGLAS:--I am glad to find that the Senator from Virginia has

become such a warm advocate of the report of the Peace Conference. How

many hours is it since we heard him denounce it as unworthy the

consideration of Southern men or of this country? How long is it since

these denunciations were ringing in our ears? We do not hear the

praises of the Peace Conference sounded until we are about to get a

vote on another proposition to pacify the country; and for fear we may

have a vote that will quiet the apprehensions of the Southern States

in respect to the designs of the North to change the Constitution, so

as to interfere with slavery in the States, we find now that the Peace

Conference is to be pushed forward, to defeat this. Sir, if he is a

friend of the proposition of the Peace Conference, let him act with me

and sit as long as I will in urging it upon the Senate. I am for both;

but this one is within our reach. We can close this much in five

minutes. We should have had it passed before this time, if the Senator

from Virginia had not interposed objections. If the amendment to the

Constitution which furnishes guarantees to the border slave States

fail, it will be the result of the efforts of the Senator from

Virginia. My object is to take that up; we can dispose of it in a very

few minutes; and then, when we have secured thus much, we will proceed

immediately to take up the report of the Peace Conference; and I tell

the Senator from Virginia he will find me standing here adhering to it

as long as he will; and when the vote comes, I think I shall show that

I am as friendly to it as he; and that I have as much respect for and

appreciation of the services of the great men who reported it.

Mr. MASON:--The Senator from Illinois and I construe our duties in a

very different way. I have no parliamentary ends to obtain here by

dexterous motions to give preference. The Senator has never heard me

express the slightest approbation of these resolutions from the Peace

Conference. On the contrary, he has heard me point out, with whatever

ability I might, the objections that would compel me to vote against

them. I intend to vote against them; but I deem it due to the

character of these resolutions, and the way in which they were brought

before the Senate, that their precedence should not be taken from

them, and that we should have the first vote upon them. The Senator

from Illinois will not find me taking back one word that I have said

of objection to the resolutions that came from the Peace Conference;

but I protest against their precedence being taken from them--a matter

which has engaged the attention of the Senate for the last two hours

to effect it. Now that it is done, I shall vote against the motion to

give precedence. The resolutions of the Peace Conference should not be

thrust aside by this resolution of the House; but that is the motion

now before us, to thrust aside these resolutions in order to give

place to the resolution of the House, and I shall vote against it.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--I shall pursue, on this occasion, the course I have

pursued throughout. My object is to attain a great end, and, if

possible, to give entire satisfaction to the country, and restore it

to peace and quiet, or to go as far in that direction as it is in my

power to go. I shall vote to take up the resolution of the House,

because we can act upon it immediately. I am an advocate of the

resolutions from the Peace Conference. I have shown it; I have

expressed it, and my determination to vote for them, and so I will;

but I confess that I feel somewhat as the gentleman from Illinois

does--surprised at the great zeal with which gentlemen want to keep up

these propositions merely to strike a blow at others, claiming a

precedence for a thing they mean to trample and spit upon.

Mr. MASON:--It has precedence, if the Senator will allow me, and he

took it from it.

Mr. CRITTENDEN:--And he wants to continue that precedence. Sir, the

way to manifest respect for their proposition is to vote for it. I do

not understand this sort of proceeding on the part of gentlemen who

desire to afford any means of pacification to the country. I am for

this resolution of the House of Representatives; and I hope the Senate

will vote to take it up. We can act upon it, and we can vote upon it,

and we know well that we cannot pass these propositions of the Peace

Conference. There are but two hours more of session in the other

House--from ten to twelve o'clock on Monday morning. I cannot indulge

in a hope, sanguine as I have been throughout, of the passage of those

resolutions; and, indeed, the opposition here, and the opposition on

this [the Democratic] side of the Chamber to those resolutions, are

confirmation strong as Holy Writ that they cannot pass. Do gentlemen

want to press them forward in order to prevent a vote on this

resolution of the House? I hope not. I hope the motion of the

gentleman from Illinois will prevail, and that we shall take up the

House resolution.