bill of the last session--the one so much commended by the
President in his message as a model. Let us pass that as an
enabling act, and allow the people of all parties to come together
and have a fair vote, and I will go for it. Frame any other bill
that secures a fair, honest vote, to men of all parties, and
carries out the pledge that the people shall be left free to
decide on their domestic institutions, for themselves, and I will
go with you with pleasure, and with all the energy I may possess.
But if this constitution is to be forced down our throats in
violation of the fundamental principle of free government, under a
mode of submission that is a mockery and insult, I will resist it
to the last. I have no fear of any party associations being
severed. I should regret any social or political estrangement,
even temporarily; but if it must be, if I cannot act with you and
preserve my faith and my honor; I will stand on the great
principle of popular sovereignty, which declares the right of all
people to be left perfectly free to form and regulate their
domestic institutions in their own way. I will follow that
principle wherever its logical consequences may take me, and I
will endeavor to defend it against assault from any and all
quarters. No mortal man shall be responsible for my action but
myself. By my action I will compromise no man."
This speech made a deep impression upon the country, but Mr. Douglas
was unable to carry any considerable portion of his party in Congress
with him. The history of the struggle is well known. The Republicans,
a few Democrats, and a like number of Americans, united, were able to
force the administration into an abandonment of the original Lecompton
bill, and the English bill was substituted therefor. This bill was
opposed by Mr. Douglas; but inasmuch as it gave the people of Kansas
the privilege to reject the Lecompton Constitution, it passed by a
small majority.
In the summer and autumn of 1858, Mr. Douglas went through a terrible
ordeal in Illinois--a campaign, the issue of which was political life
or death to him. He triumphed by a small majority--indeed the majority
was the other way before the people--which shows that Mr. D. was wise
in opposing the Lecompton measure, for if he had supported it, and
thus trampled upon his own principle of Popular Sovereignty, he would
have lost his election by thousands of votes.
We now come to still later issues--to the discussion between Mr.
Douglas and his southern enemies, in the last session of the
thirty-fifth Congress--the present year--upon Congressional
intervention in favor of slavery. This great debate took place Feb.
23, 1859, in the Senate, and looked like a preconcerted attack upon
Mr. Douglas by some of his southern opponents. We have not the space
for the official report of the debate, and will endeavor faithfully to
abridge it. The debate opened on an amendment by Senator Hale to the
Appropriation bill before the Senate to repeal the restrictive clause
of the Kansas Admission act. This amendment was offered the day
previous, and the debate took an unexpected turn upon it.
Mr. Seward, of New York, said Congress had decided that Kansas should
come in with the Lecompton Constitution, without reference to
population; but, on the other hand, should not come in outside of the
Lecompton Constitution unless she had 92,400 population. There was,
therefore, a discrimination by the Congress of the United States, as
against freedom, in favor of slavery. Oregon, because she was a
Democratic State, was admitted without reference to population, and
Kansas, because of her different politics, was excluded. He was glad
of this occasion to renew his vote. He was glad, also, to hear that so
many gentlemen on the other side will give Kansas a fair hearing. It
indicates that the time is coming when any State applying for
admission will be heard on its merits, apart from all other
considerations. He thought it goes to show that if Texas should be
divided, or free States, as he thought they would, be formed in
Mexico, they will come in as free States.
Mr. Brown, of Mississippi, made a strong southern speech.
He held to the doctrine of State rights; denied the squatter
sovereignty of territories; and threatened secession, with banners
flying, if the South was deprived of her rights. His address was
directed to northern Democrats. He placed his views frankly on record,
and desired neither to cheat nor be cheated.
Mr. Douglas felt it incumbent on him, as a northern Democrat, to make
a reply. He admired the frankness, candor, and directness with which
Mr. Brown had approached the question. He (Douglas), too, would put
his opinions on record in such a manner as will acquit him of a desire
to cheat or be cheated. He agreed at the outset with Mr. Brown, and
with the decision of the Supreme Court, that slaves are property, and
that their owners have a right to carry them into the territories as
any other property. Having the right of transit into the territory,
the question arises, how far does the power of the territorial
legislature extend to slave property? And the reply is, to the same
extent, and no further, than to any other description of property. Mr.
Brown has said that slave property needs more protection than any
other description. If so, it is the misfortune of the owners of that
kind of property. Mr. Douglas's remarks, from the frequent
interruptions, assumed so much the form of question and reply, and
running comments on the various issues started, that we can only
notice the salient points of the main discussion, which extended
throughout many hours, he sustaining the principal part. His general
scope was, that he would leave all descriptions of property, slaves
included, to the operation of the local law, and would not have
Congress interfere in any way therewith. If the people of the
territory want slavery there, they will foster and encourage it, and
if they do not find it for their advantage, they will do otherwise. So
it becomes a question of soil, climate, production, etc. He
illustrated by saying, that if any discrimination is to be made in any
description of property, the owner of stock, or liquors, or any other,
might claim it likewise.
After some other illustrations, he went into discussion of the
Kansas-Nebraska bill, which, he said, was passed by a distinct
understanding between northern and southern Democrats, however
differing on some points, to give to the territorial legislature the
full power, with appeal to the Supreme Court, to test the
constitutionality of any law, but not to Congress to repeal it. If the
court decides such law to be constitutional, it must stand; if not, it
must fall to the ground, without action of Congress. That doctrine of
non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the States and
territories, has been a fundamental principle of the Democratic
platform, and every Democrat is pledged to it by the Cincinnati
platform. Here Mr. Douglas, in reply to a question by Mr. Clay (who
also made the remark that, according to Mr. Douglas's interpretation,
squatter sovereignty is superior to the Constitution), said that the
limit of territorial legislation is the organic act and the
Constitution. In reply to Mr. Clay's question, "Can a slaveholder take
his slave property into the territory?" he would reply, Yes; and hold
it as other property. To the question, "Will Congress pass a law to
protect other kinds of property in the territories?" he would answer,
No; for the doctrine that Congress is to legislate on property and
persons without representation, is the doctrine of the parliament of
George III., that brought on the Revolutionary war. We said then it
was a violation of the rights of power to assume to legislate for
Englishmen without their consent. Now, was he (Mr. Douglas) to be
called on to force this same odious doctrine on the people of the
territories without their consent? He answered, No; let them govern
themselves. If they make good laws, let them enjoy the blessings; if
bad, let them suffer until they are repealed. Referring to the great
battles fought and gained in 1854 and 1856, he said he would like to
know how many votes Mr. Buchanan would have got in Pennsylvania or
Ohio, if he had then understood the doctrine of popular sovereignty as
he claims to do now.
Mr. Bigler asked how many votes Mr. Buchanan would have received in
1856, had the senator from Illinois and those who acted with him told
the people that the Kansas act was not intended to extend to the
territories the sacred right of self-government, but simply to give
the people the right to petition for redress of grievances--a right
not denied to any citizen, white or black?
Mr. Douglas said that there are no colored citizens, and he trusted in
God there never would be. He did not recognize the black brothers.
Mr. Bigler knew that as well as the senator, and should have said
inhabitants.
Mr. Douglas resumed. In 1856, he took the same ground as now, and Mr.
Buchanan, when he accepted the nomination, took the same ground. His
letter of acceptance to the Cincinnati Convention shows he then
understood that the people of the territories should decide whether
slavery should or should not exist within their limits. When gentlemen
called for Congressional intervention, they step off the Democratic
platform. He (Mr. Douglas) asserted that the Democratic creed was
non-intervention by Congress, and the right of the people to govern
themselves. He would frankly tell gentlemen of the South, that no
Democratic candidate can carry one State North but on the principles
of the Cincinnati platform, as construed by Mr. Buchanan when he
accepted his nomination, and which he (Mr. Douglas) stood here to-day
to defend.
Mr. Davis replied to Mr. Douglas elaborately, denying that he
(Douglas) rightly interpreted the obligations of the Democratic party.
Mr. Pugh said, Mr. Brown had asked if northern Democrats would vote
for Congressional intervention to protect the people against local
legislation. He would answer, Never. It is monstrous. It is against
the plighted faith both of the South and North. Mr. Pugh discussed the
question at length, and said he stood on the platform of his party
with the interpretation which he explained.
Mr. Green was sorry that this subject of contention had been brought
forward. It was to try and bring discord into the Democratic party,
the only party able to override the Republican party. He hoped and
believed there was no difference between the North and the South. A
government is formed to protect persons and property; and when it
ceases to do either, it ceases to perform its one great function. Mr.
Hale's amendment had brought up the question, "What is property?" He
(Green) maintained that, under the Constitution and by the decision of
the Supreme Court, slaves are property; and he argued the subject in
many aspects, concluding by calling on the Democratic party to stand
united, and not permit a combination to make use of a mere figment to
disorganize them. In the course of his remarks, he quoted from Mr.
Douglas's Springfield speech, to show that he had therein proposed
Congressional intervention in Utah. He could not see the consistency
of the senator's course, then and now.
Mr. Douglas denied that he had proposed Congressional intervention to
regulate the internal affairs of Utah. The intervention he proposed
was alone on the ground of rebellion--not on account of their domestic
affairs, but as aliens and rebels.
Mr. Green, in speaking of how territorial legislation could destroy
the rights of slave property, said he had before him a copy of the
bill passed by the Kansas Legislature to abolish slavery.
Mr. Douglas remarked that several speeches had been made very
pointedly at him, making him out no better than an Abolitionist, for
leaving the territories to carry out their own affairs. It does well
to attack one man for his opinion; but when was the most aggravated
act ever committed, that he did not say it was committed, in
manumitting your slaves and confiscating your property? The gentleman
who spoke thus, says: "It is not yet time." There is no better time
than the present, to introduce a bill to repeal that act of the Kansas
Legislature. Senators say that he (Douglas) may go out. No; he stands
on the platform, and it is for those who jump off, to go out.
The chair called the Senate to order, threatening to clear the
galleries, unless it was maintained.
Mr. Green said he had received information of the bill by telegraph;
but could not legislate on such information.
Mr. Douglas would take it for granted that Mr. Green meant that he
received authentic information, and would introduce a bill to repeal
the act. The South, he said, had reluctantly acquiesced in the
movement with the Democrats of the North to settle the question. He
went at some length into a discussion and approval of the decision of
the Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. He did not agree with
Senator Douglas's views as to the power of the people of a territory,
and did not believe that the Nebraska-Kansas bill gave them
independent power. The senator from Virginia then gave his ideas as to
the people of the territories, and the people of the States. The right
of property is recognized in the former, but the inhabitants of a
territory are unknown to the Constitution. Congress cannot divest
itself of its power over the property of the territories, but it can
grant them nothing. South of the Potomac River, to the confines of
Mexico, there is not one dissentient voice. The South would be
recreant to itself; if it would give one vote for its rights to be
taken from the Constitution, and remitted to the pleasure of the
people temporarily in the territories.
Mr. Davis took an animated part in the debate against Mr. Douglas, who
in the Kansas-Nebraska act, had made a great error, and drawn the
Senate into a great error.
Mr. Douglas resumed, saying it won't do to read him out, because they
had fallen from the faith. There is no middle ground. It is either
intervention or non-intervention.
Mr. Gwin said, if the senator from Illinois had given the same
interpretation to the Kansas-Nebraska bill when it was before the
Senate, he (Gwin) would not have voted for it, and believed those
around him would not. When the senator proposed to speak for the
Democracy of the free States, he had no right to speak for California,
which thought otherwise.
Mr. Broderick contradicted Mr. Gwin's statement of the views of
California. He considered the views of his State were those expressed
by Mr. Douglas.
Mr. Gwin replied that he was sent here to do his duty in representing
the Democracy of California, and he knew they indorse the action of
the Administration, and do not at all indorse the interpretation given
by the senator from Illinois.
Mr. Douglas (to Mr. Gwin.) I do say the records show a very general
concurrence in the views I then expressed.
Mr. Iverson raised the question of order, that Mr. Douglas had spoken
many times. He and Mr. Davis had occupied the floor four or five
hours. The point of order was sustained.
Mr. Hunter said it was with reluctance that he occupied the time at
the late period of the evening, but the turn the debate had taken
rendered an explanation necessary, in justice to himself. He differed
with the senator from Illinois, both in the history of the
Kansas-Nebraska act, and what was intended by it. When the proposition
was made to pass that, he maintained, as he has always done since he
has had a place on that floor, that the South had a right to
protection for their slave property in the territories.
Mr. Hunter read from his speech of that date, showing the views he
then expressed. The case stood thus: southern men on one side
maintained they had right, under the Constitution, to protection to
their slave property; northern men thought the contrary, and there was
no chance of agreement between them, as the act was very carefully
framed, neither affirming nor disaffirming the power of the territory
to abolish slavery, but reserving the question of right, and agreeing
to refer to the judiciary any points arising out of it. It was in
itself a compromise, in which neither party conceded their opinions or
their rights. They were but placed in abeyance until a case affecting
them might arise. No southern man with whom he acted ever considered
he was conferring on the Territorial Legislature the absolute right to
deal with this subject. They agreed to this settlement as a
consequence, acting together upon points wherein they agreed, and
expressing no opinion upon points where the differences were
irreconcilable. By this they secured the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, upon which the Democrats were agreed, by confining the act
to the general purpose to be accomplished. Justice to himself and the
distinguished senator from South Carolina, now no more, with whom he
had acted and consulted on the matter, required the explanation. Mr.
Hunter then drew the attention of the Senate to the time consumed in
the debate, and urged a vote upon the amendment.
Mr. Stuart, after some general remarks on the subject under
discussion, asked, why should the Democratic party be racked and torn
by the thought of the contingences which may not happen? If the
Democratic party in a body, if its able and efficient members
throughout the country, stand faithfully together, their flag will
remain in the ascendant, and the party will rise out of all the
difficulties which now beset it.
Mr. Bigler was opposed to Congress extending slavery in the
territories, and against Congressional intervention with slavery, and
would stand by the Baltimore and Cincinnati platforms of the
Democratic party. He believed the best interests of the country were
in the hope of the Democracy.
Mr. Douglas is a powerful debater, quick, ready at repartee, strong in
his logic, and possessing that animal courage which is so necessary to
the successful debater. Few men equal him in senatorial debate for
rough power. There are many who surpass him in silvery eloquence, who
excel him in winning, courteous debate, but no one in the present
Senate who has quite his _force_ and overwhelming courage. In the
debate, which we have abbreviated, Mr. Douglas was for hours--from
noon till nine o'clock in the evening--obliged to defend himself
against a half-dozen able and eloquent senators. His manner, his
voice, were at times like that of a wounded lion--deep, strong and
melancholy; but he fought to the last without a moment's thought of
quailing.
Mr. Douglas has no sympathy with the anti-slavery sentiment of the
free States, but plants himself upon his principle, and puts slavery
and freedom upon the same footing. If the people want slavery, let
them have it. If they want freedom--no interference in favor of
slavery. This we understand to be his position, though some of his
southern friends claim that he admits that the Supreme Court is bound
to give slavery an existence _in all the territories_. In his New
Orleans speech of last winter, Mr. Douglas is reported to have said:
"Whenever a territory has a climate, soil and production, making
it the interest of the inhabitants to encourage slave property,
they will pass a slave code, and give it encouragement. Whenever
the climate, soil and production preclude the possibility of
slavery being profitable, they will not permit it. You come right
back to the principle of dollars and cents. I do not care where
the migration in the southern country comes from; if old Joshua R.
Giddings should raise a colony in Ohio, and settle down in
Louisiana, he would be the strongest advocate for slavery in the
whole South; he would find, when he got there, his opinion would
be very much modified; he would find on those sugar plantations
that it was not a question between the white man and the negro,
but between the negro and the crocodile.
"He would say that, between the negro and the crocodile, he took
the side of the negro. But, between the negro and the white man,
he would go for the white man. The Almighty has drawn the line on
this continent, on one side of which the soil must be cultivated
by slave labor; on the other, by white labor. That line did not
run on thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, for thirty-six
degrees and thirty minutes runs over mountains and through
valleys. But this slave line meanders in the sugar-fields and
plantations of the South--[the remainder of the sentence was lost
by the confusion around the reporter.] And the people living in
their different localities and in the territories must determine
for themselves whether their 'middle bed' is best adapted to
slavery or free labor.
"Hence, under the Constitution, there is no power to prevent a
southern man going there with his slaves, more than a northern
man."
Mr. Douglas is a man of very short stature, but of large body, and a
frame and constitution capable of great endurance. He lives in
Washington half the year, where he has a handsome residence, and the
other half in Illinois among his constituents, where he has a country
mansion. The mother of Mr. Douglas, who was so faithful to him and
whom he has never ceased to love and reverence, still lives, and has
witnessed his rise from the cabinet-maker's shop to the senatorial
chair.
SALMON P. CHASE.
Salmon Porland Chase was born in Cornish, New Hampshire, Jan. 13th,
1808. He was seven years old when his father removed to the town of
Keene, where he attended the village school. In 1817 his father died,
and two years later the boy, then only twelve years old, went to
Worthington, Ohio. His uncle, Philander Chase, was then Bishop of
Ohio, and he superintended the education of his nephew. Shortly after
this, he entered Cincinnati College, of which institution his uncle
became president. He soon was promoted to the sophomore class. After a
year's residence in Cincinnati, he returned to New Hampshire and his
mother's house; and, in 1824, entered the junior class of Dartmouth
College. He graduated in 1826. The following winter Mr. Chase went to
the city of Washington, and opened a classical school for boys. Among
his pupils were the sons of Henry Clay, William Niel, and other
distinguished men. Many of the citizens of Washington at this day well
remember Mr. Chase's efforts as a teacher among them, and at that time
learned to esteem and respect the man who has since risen to so high a
position as a politician and statesman. He closed his school in 1829,
and soon was admitted to the bar, having studied law under Mr. Niel
while teaching his school, manifesting by his industry and courage
that he was possessed of the qualities which must certainly in the end
bring him position and reputation.
In 1830, Mr. Chase left Washington for Cincinnati, where he has always
since resided, save when serving his State in an official capacity,
and pursued his profession. He was poor, unknown, and before he could
hope to attract the attention of the public, must earn his bread and
endure months, if not years, of serious toil and drudgery. During
these early years in his professional career, he prepared an edition
of Statutes of Ohio, and a preliminary sketch of the history the
State. The work made three large volumes, and at once became an
authority in the courts. The authorship of this volume was a happy
idea, for it not only brought him a moderate pecuniary reward
directly, but it also gave him the ear of the people, and practice at
once flowed in upon him.
In 1834, Mr. Chase became solicitor of the Bank of the United States
in Cincinnati, and other corporations. In 1837, he first gave public
utterance to his views upon the slavery question in its legal aspects.
The article in Appleton's Encylopaedia upon Mr. Chase, which on many
points is our authority in this sketch, gives the subjoined history of
Mr. Chase's early legal arguments in reference to slavery: