TOOMBS IN THE SENATE.
When Robert Toombs entered the Senate of the United States, in 1853, the
_personnel_ of that body had changed since the great debates on the
compromise measures. Calhoun had died before the compromise was
effected, and only a short time after his last address had been read to
the Senate by Mr. Mason of Virginia. Clay survived his last greatest
work but two years, and on the 29th of June, 1852, was no more. Daniel
Webster lived only four months longer than Mr. Clay. Among the new
leaders in that body were Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, William M.
Seward of New York, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Charles Sumner of
Massachusetts. To this list may be added the familiar names of Thompson
of Mississippi, Bayard of Delaware, Toucey of Connecticut, Slidell of
Louisiana, Achison of Missouri, Bell of Tennessee, and Cass of Michigan.
The third great sectional fight on the Territories came up on the report
to organize a government for that tract of public domain lying in the
Louisiana cession, known as Kansas and Nebraska. In doing this, Mr.
Douglas, as chairman of the Committee on Territories, adopted the same
principle on the slavery question as had been settled in the Utah and
New Mexico bills of 1850.
The words of the Nebraska bill were that "said Territory, or any portion
of the same, shall be received into the Union with or without slavery as
their constitutions may prescribe at the time of their admission." Mr.
Douglas claimed that the question of congressional interference was an
"exploded doctrine"; that the Missouri Compromise bill had been ignored
by North and South; that the Wilmot Proviso had been rejected
altogether; and that the principles of 1850 had superseded the
principles of 1820. The committee sought to avoid the perils of slavery
agitation for all time, they claimed, by withdrawing the question of
slavery from the halls of Congress and from national politics. "Let the
new States and Territories," they said, "settle this matter for
themselves." Mr. Sumner of Massachusetts took the lead in opposing the
Kansas-Nebraska bill. He declared that the bill violated the principles
of the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in all that
territory ceded by France and lying north of 36 deg. 30'. He and his friends
held that this was a "sacred compact," and this territory could not be
controlled by the same principles as the land secured from Mexico.
The second bill drawn by Mr. Douglas, which provided for the
establishment of two territorial governments in Kansas and Nebraska,
instead of one, expressly repealed the Missouri Compromise as being
inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by Congress. Here,
then, the contest waged anew.
One of the first speeches made by Senator Toombs was on the 23d of
February, 1854, on the Kansas-Nebraska bill.
Douglas was in charge of the Territorial bills, and his readiness in
debate, his sinewy intellect, his tact and shrewdness, had gained for
him the name of "Little Giant." Seward, Chase, and Sumner had been
elected from their States as "independent Democrats" by the
Abolitionists, who held the balance of power in New York, Ohio, and
Massachusetts. Mr. Toombs was more than willing to measure swords with
the champions of free soil. He declared that he would address himself to
the consideration of the Kansas-Nebraska bill "with a heart filled with
gratitude to the Disposer of human events, that after the conflicts of
more than a third of a century this great question has found its
solution, not in temporary expedients for allaying sectional discord,
but in the true principles of the Constitution and upon the broad
foundation of justice and right, which forms the only true basis of
fraternity and of national concord."
Mr. Toombs repudiated the libel cast by Mr. Sumner upon Northern men who
"dared to exercise the rights of freemen" and differ from the
Abolitionists upon this question. "It appears," said he, "from the
speeches of the senator from Massachusetts, that all such are white
slaves, whose manhood has been debased and enervated by the irresistible
attractions of slave power." He declared that the men who talked about
"solemn compact" in this connection were men whom "no oaths can bind and
no covenants restrain." They called the Missouri Compromise a compact,
yet showed their willingness to violate it.
"In all governments," said Mr. Toombs, "the acquisitions of the state
belong rightfully to the people. Much more strongly does this principle
apply to a purely popular government. Therefore, any exercise of power
to injure or destroy those who have equal rights of enjoyment is
arbitrary, unauthorized by the contract, and despotic."
"You have no power to strike from the meanest Indian trapper, the basest
trader or camp-follower, as the senator from New York styled these
people, their equal privileges, this sovereignty of right, which is the
birthright of every American citizen. This sovereignty may--nay, it
must--remain in abeyance until society becomes sufficiently strong and
stable to be entitled to its full exercise, as sovereignty does not
belong to the general government, and its exercise is a marked
usurpation."
"The power and duty, then, of this government over the inchoate society
of the Territories, is simply to protect this equality of right of
persons and property of all the members of society until the period
shall arrive when this dormant sovereignty shall spring into active
existence and exercise all the powers of a free, sovereign, and
independent State. Then it can mold, according to its own sovereign will
and pleasure, its own institutions, with the single restriction that
they must be republican."
"Justice," said Mr. Toombs, "is the highest expediency, the supremest
wisdom. Applying that test to the principles of this measure, I say that
no fair man in any portion of the country can come to any other
conclusion than that it establishes between the people of this Union,
who are bound together under a common Constitution, a firm, a permanent,
a lasting bond of harmony.
"What is it that we of the South ask? Do we make any unjust or unequal
demands on the North? None. Do we ask what we are not willing on our
side to grant to them? Not at all. We say to them 'Gentlemen, here is
our common territory. Whether it be ceded by old States, whether it be
acquired by the common treasure, or was the fruits of successful war to
which we rallied, and in which we all fought, we ask you to recognize
this great principle of the revolution: let such as desire, go there,
enjoy their property, take with them their flocks and herds, their
men-servants and maid-servants, if they desire to take them there; and
when the appropriate time comes for the exercise of the dormant
sovereignty of the people, let them fix the character of their
institutions for themselves.'"
Senator Toombs ridiculed the idea of the "thunder of popular
indignation." "If even this were true, it should in no wise control the
actions of American senators. But it is not real but melodramatic
thunder--nothing but phosphorus and sheet-iron."
Senator Toombs admitted that the North had the power to reject the
principles of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. They had a majority in the House
and Senate. Aristides had said, "True, you can do it; you have got the
power; but, Athenians, it is unjust."
[Illustration: ROBERT TOOMBS, UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM GEORGIA, 1855.]
Senator Toombs was a bold man. When he adopted a line of argument, he
was willing to follow wherever its conclusions led. He did not
hesitate, in this speech, to admit that "if you yield to the people the
right to mold their institutions, the establishment of polygamy may
result legitimately therefrom." This point had been made in debate to
fight the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. Said Senator Toombs:
"It is just what they have a right to do. When the people of Utah make
their organic law for admission to the Union, they have a right to
approximate, as nearly as they please, the domestic manners of the
Patriarchs. Connecticut may establish polygamy to-morrow. The people of
Massachusetts may do the same. How did they become possessed of greater
rights, in this or any other respect, than the people of Utah? The right
in both cases has the same foundation--the sovereignty of the people."
Senator Toombs adverted to the fact that Henry Clay had denied that he
framed the Missouri Compromise; that it did not originate in the House,
of which he was a member; that he did not even know if he voted for it.
Senator Toombs held the Act of 1820 to be no compact--binding upon no
man of honor; but, on the contrary, a plain and palpable violation of
the Constitution and the common rights of the citizens, and ought to be
immediately abrogated and repealed. He declared that it had been
rejected by the North when passed, and rejected when Arkansas was
admitted, when Oregon was formed, when California was received as a
State. If the Kansas bill was settled upon sound and honest principles,
he maintained that it should be applied to territory ceded from France
just as elsewhere. He contended that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was
not a compromise in any sense of the term, but an unconstitutional
usurpation of power. "When we look into the Constitution, we find no
antislavery power planted in that instrument. On the contrary, we find
that it amply provides for the perpetuity and not for the extinction of
slavery."
Senator Toombs closed his first speech in the Senate with these words:
"The senator from New York asks where and when the application of these
principles will stop. He wishes not to be deceived in the future, and
asks us whether, when we bring the Chinese and other distant nations
under our flag, we are to apply these principles to them? For one, I
answer yes; that wherever the flag of the Union shall float, this
republican principle will follow it, even if it should gather under its
ample folds the freemen of every portion of the universe."
The Kansas-Nebraska bill reopened the whole question of slavery. In the
North, it was a firebrand. Mr. Buchanan, in his book, written after his
retirement from the presidency, said that the South was for the first
time the aggressor in this legislation. Mr. Fillmore declared that the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise was "the Pandora Box of Evil." Mr.
Douglas was reviled by his opponents and burned in effigy at the North.
His leadership in this fight was ascribed to his overweening ambition to
reach the presidency. The clergymen of New England and of Chicago
flooded the Senate with petitions crying against this "intrigue." On May
26, 1854, at one o'clock in the morning, the bill passed the Senate by a
vote of 31 to 13. The "nays" were Messrs. Allen, Bell, Chase, Clayton,
Fish, Foote, Gillet, Hamlin, James, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker.
The enactment of this measure into a law did not settle the question. It
resulted in a strife in the Territories themselves. For two years Kansas
was in a state of civil war. The Emigrant Aid Societies of New England
raised large sums of money to send to the Territories Free-Soil settlers
and other agitators. A counter-stream of agitators set in from Missouri,
in sympathy with the slavery men, and the result was a long series of
bloody disorders. In February, 1856, Mr. Toombs made a speech upon the
message of the President in regard to the lawless condition of Kansas.
The Governor informed President Pierce that the laws were obstructed
and openly resisted by bodies of armed men; that prisoners were rescued
from the sheriffs, peaceable inhabitants murdered, and houses burned.
Another authority informed the President that an overwhelming force was
crossing the border for the avowed purpose of invading Kansas and
butchering the unoffending Free-State citizens. One side claimed
protection from insurrection within, the other from invasion without.
As to the Emigrant Aid Societies, Mr. Toombs said, "Whatever be their
policy, whatever their tendency to produce strife, if they simply aid
emigrants from Massachusetts to go to Kansas to become citizens of that
Territory, I am prepared to say that they violate no law; they have a
right to do it, and every attempt to prevent their doing so violates the
law and ought not to be sustained. But if they send persons there
furnished with arms, with the intent to offer forcible resistance to the
constituted authorities, they are guilty of the highest crime known to
civil society, and are amenable to its penalties. I shall not undertake
to decide upon their conduct. The facts are not before me, and I
therefore pass it by."
Mr. Toombs thought it would be difficult to imagine a case calling more
loudly for the intervention of Federal power. Mr. Toombs favored the
supremacy of the law in the Territories at any cost. "If traitors seek
to disturb the peace of the country, I desire that it shall be no
sectional contest. I do not see the end of that. I prefer that the
conflict shall be between the Federal Government and the lawless. I can
see the end of that. The law will triumph and the evil stop."
"We who pass this Kansas-Nebraska bill, both at the North and South,
intend to maintain its principles. We do not intend to be driven from
them by clamor nor by assault. We intend that the actual _bona fide_
settlers of Kansas shall be protected in the full exercise of all the
rights of freemen; that, unawed and uncontrolled, they shall freely and
of their own will legislate for themselves, to every extent allowed by
the Constitution, while they have a territorial government; and when
they shall be in a condition to come into the Union and may desire it,
that they shall come into the Union with whatever republican
constitution they may prefer and adopt for themselves; that in the
exercise of their rights they shall be protected from insurrection from
within and invasion from without."
In answer to Senator Hale of New Hampshire, Senator Toombs agreed that
the Territory of Kansas would certainly be a free State. Such, he
thought would be its future destiny. "The senator from New Hampshire,"
he said, "was unable to comprehend the principles of the bill. The
friends of the Kansas bill, North and South, supported the bill because
it was right, and left the future to those who were affected by it. The
policy of the Kansas bill wrongs no man, no section of our common
country. We have never asked the government to carry by force, or in any
way, slavery anywhere. We only demand that the inhabitants of the
Territories shall decide the question for themselves without the
interference of the government or the intermeddling of those who have no
right to decide."
Mr. Toombs and Senator Hale of New Hampshire seem to have been pitted
squarely against each other in this great debate.
In 1854, during the progress of the Kansas debate, Mr. Toombs occupied
Mr. Hale's desk, and alluded to the taunts which Mr. Hale had heaped
upon the heads of senators who had sustained the compromise measures of
1850. He had predicted that they would be driven from their seats; that
the mighty North would drive them from their benches. The distinguished
senator from Michigan, Mr. Cass, was the especial object of these
assaults. "But the result," said Mr. Toombs, looking about him, "is that
the gentleman who made these declarations is not here."
In 1856, however, Mr. Hale was returned to the Senate and met Mr.
Toombs in the Kansas debate, and the discussion was continued with the
same acrimony.
"Let there be no legislative aggression on either side," continued Mr.
Toombs. "If the senator from New Hampshire is sincere, he will stand
there. The common property is open to the common enjoyment of all. Let
it remain so."
Mr. Toombs charged Senator Hale with saying that the North had always
been practically in a minority in the Senate, because the South bought
up as many Northern men as it wanted. "Sir, I stand here to-day in
behalf of the North to repel the accusation."
Mr. Hale: "Who made it?"
Mr. Toombs: "You said it. I have it before me in your printed speech. I
heard it delivered, and you are correctly reported."
In a letter to Mr. B. F. Hallet of Boston, in 1856, Mr. Toombs denied
saying that he would "call the roll of his slaves at the base of Bunker
Hill Monument." He charged Senator Hale with misrepresenting him to this
extent.
No man was oftener misquoted by word of mouth or in public print. As
bold as he was in speech and as free to speak out what was in his mind,
he once remarked to an intimate friend, Dr. Steiner of Augusta, that he
rarely ever saw his name in print that it was not attached to a lie.
We are not left to tradition or the dictum of political opponents to
know how seriously Mr. Toombs regarded the question of war between the
North and South. In this same debate with Senator Hale, Mr. Toombs said:
"He told us the North would fight. I believe that nobody ever doubted
that any portion of the United States would fight on a proper occasion.
Sir, if there shall ever be civil war in this country, when honest men
shall set about cutting each other's throats, those who are least to be
depended upon in a fight will be the people who set them at it. There
are courageous and honest men enough in both sections to fight.... No,
sir, there is no question of courage involved. The people of both
sections of the Union have illustrated their courage on too many
battlefields to be questioned. They have shown their fighting qualities,
shoulder to shoulder, whenever their country has called upon them; but
that they may never come in contact with each other in fratricidal war,
should be the ardent wish and earnest desire of every true man and
honest patriot."