the Military Committee of the Senate, a position he has held during
his entire term of senatorial services, and which he has honored. In
the long and excited debates of 1849-50, and 1850-51, Mr. Davis took a
prominent part, and always what is termed an ultra-sectional position.
He was the champion of the extreme South, and made some of the ablest
speeches of the entire slavery debate.
In September, 1851, Mr. Davis was nominated by the Democrats of
Mississippi, as their candidate for Governor. He at once resigned his
seat in the Senate. He lost an election by a thousand votes--and
retired to his plantation.
Upon the nomination of Franklin Pierce to the Presidency, he took the
stump for him in several of the more doubtful southern States, and
with great success. His popularity before the people as a speaker was
great, and his success was in due proportion.
Mr. Pierce rewarded Mr. Davis for his eminent services in the campaign
by the offer of the Secretaryship of War--an office which he was
peculiarly qualified to fill. He was quite successful as Secretary of
War, though his unfortunate quarrel with General Scott (about the
merits of which we are incompetent to pronounce an opinion), damaged
his popularity with a portion of his friends. When the Pierce
administration went out, Mr. Davis was reelected United States
Senator, and he has latterly been looked upon as a Democratic leader
in the Senate.
In his personal appearance in the Senate-room, Mr. Davis has few
equals. Tall, upright, stern, and with the bearing of a prince, he at
once commands the admiration of the stranger so far as his personal
appearance is concerned. His military manners have followed him from
the camp into the Senate. We say this in no offensive sense, though it
is true that the senator often unintentionally offends by the
quickness, the savageness, and the irritability of his style and
speech. This is not intentional, and though it now and then gives
offence, it at the same time gives great force to the sentiment which
the senator may be uttering at the time. He has a peculiar voice,
keyed high, yet musical, and his words come flowing out like so many
cannon-balls with the force of gunpowder behind them.
The political position of Mr. Davis cannot be misunderstood. He is
ultra-southern. Not a disunionist, at all events; but a disunionist in
a certain event. He stands by the extreme southern men--occupies an
extreme southern position for a man who claims yet to stand by the
national Democratic party. His views upon the non-intervention
doctrines of Mr. Douglas, we shall quote that we may not do him
injustice. He is an enthusiastic and consistent advocate of utter free
trade. Nothing short of absolute free trade will suit him or satisfy
him. He is also opposed to the Homestead bill, and all like
appropriations of the public lands. He is in favor of the acquisition
of Cuba, but opposed the Senate resolution--proposed--giving Mr.
Buchanan power to make war upon the southern republics when he should
think the occasion demanded it.
If Mr. Davis' position be thought to be extremely southern, it must be
remembered that he is an honest, upright man--much more so than some
who clamor after office; and that such a man can be trusted generally,
in spite of his prejudices, to deal fairly even with his opponents. An
honest man, however ultra his position, if he have intellect, is safer
to be trusted with a high office, than the mere twaddling politician,
who will execute the party's bidding, however iniquitous it may be.
In the great "non-intervention debate" of the Senate, in February,
1859, Mr. Davis said:
"Now, the senator asks will you make a discrimination in the
territories? I say yes, I would discriminate in the territories
wherever it is needful to assert the right of a citizen: wherever
it is proper to carry out the principle, the obligation, the clear
intent and meaning of the Constitution of the United States. I
have heard many a siren's song on this doctrine of
non-intervention; a thing shadowy and fleeting, changing its color
as often as the chameleon, which never meant anything fairly
unless it was that Congress would not attempt to legislate on a
subject over which they had no control; that they would not
attempt to establish slavery anywhere nor to prohibit it anywhere;
and such was the language of the compromise measures of 1850 when
this doctrine was inaugurated. Since that, it has been woven into
a delusive gauze, thrown over the public mind, and presented as an
obligation of the Democratic party to stand still; withholding
from an American citizen the protection he has a right to claim;
to surrender their power; to do nothing; to prove faithless to the
trust they hold at the hands of the people of the States. If the
theory of the senator be correct, and if Congress has no power to
legislate in any regard upon the subject, how did you pass the
fugitive slave law? He repeats, again and again, that you have no
power to legislate in regard to slavery either in the States or in
the territories, and yet the fugitive slave law stands on the
statute-book; and although he did not vote for it, he explained to
the country why he did not, and expressed his regret that his
absence had prevented him from recording his vote in favor of it.
"From the plain language of the Constitution, as I have read it,
how is it possible for one still claiming to follow the path of
the Constitution, to assert that Congress has no power to
legislate in relation to the subject anywhere? He informs us,
however, that by the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the full power of the
inhabitants of a territory to legislate on all subjects not
inconsistent with the Constitution, was granted by Congress. If
Congress attempted to make such a grant; if Congress thus
attempted to rid themselves of a trust imposed upon them, they
exceeded their authority. They could delegate no such power. The
territorial legislature can be but an instrument, through which
the Congress of the United States execute their trust in relation
to the territories. Therefore it was, that notwithstanding the
exact language of that bill which the senator has read, the
Congress of the United States did assume, and did exercise, the
power to repeal a law passed in that very territory of Kansas,
which they clearly could not have done if they had surrendered all
control over its legislation. Whether the senator voted for that
report or not, I do not know; I presume he did; but whether he did
or not, does not vary the question, except so far as it affects
himself. The advocates of the Kansas-Nebraska bill were generally
the men who most promptly claimed the repeal of those laws,
because they said they were a violation of those rights which
every American citizen possessed under the Constitution.
"But the senator says territorial laws can only be set aside by an
appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. If so, then they
have a power not derived from Congress; they are not the
instruments of Congress. But in the course of the senator's
remarks, and quite inconsistent with this position, he announced
that they possessed no power save that which they derived from the
organic act and the Constitution. They can derive no power from
the Constitution save as territories of the United States, over
which the States have given the power of a trustee to the
Congress; and being the delegate of the Congress, they have such
powers as Congress has thought proper to give, provided they do
not exceed such powers as the Congress possesses. How, then, does
the Senator claim that they have a power to legislate which
Congress cannot revise; and yet no power to legislate at all save
that which they derive from their organic act?
"My friend from Alabama presented a question to the senator from
Illinois, which he did not answer. It was, whether a law
pronounced unconstitutional by the Supreme Court was still to
remain in force within the territory, Congress failing to provide
any remedy which would restore the right violated by that
unconstitutional act? The senator answers me from his seat,
'clearly not.' Then I ask him, what is the remedy? The law is
pronounced unconstitutional, and yet the right which it has
violated is not restored; the protection which is required is not
granted; the law which deprived him of the protection, though it
may be declared unconstitutional, is not replaced by any which
will give him the adequate protection to hold his property. Then
what is the benefit he derives from the decision of the Supreme
Court? The decision of the Supreme Court is binding upon the
Congress; but this squatter-sovereignty legislation, seeming to be
outside of the Constitution, outside of the legislation of the
Federal Government, erects itself into an attitude that seems to
me quite inappropriate.
"I concede to the Congress the power, through the instrumentality
of a territorial legislature, to legislate upon such subjects as
Congress itself has the right to make laws for; no more than that.
More than that the senator cannot claim, unless he can show to us
that philosophical problem of getting more out of a tub than it
contains; its contents being measured, to find something more
which can be taken out of it. If he will not--and I suppose he
will not--contend that Congress can delegate more power than it
possesses, how does he get the power in the territorial
legislature to pass laws which will interfere with the rights of a
citizen choosing to migrate to a territory? It is the common
property of the people of the States. Every citizen has a right to
go there, and to carry with him whatever property is recognized by
the Constitution; the common law of the States forming the Union.
Congress has no power to prohibit it; is bound to see that it is
fully enjoyed. Then, I ask the senator, where does he derive the
power for the territorial legislature to do it? for he has planted
himself now on the ground that they derive their authority from
the organic act."
At a subsequent stage of the debate, the subjoined colloquy occurred
between Mr. Pugh, of Ohio, who had the floor, and Mr. Davis:
"MR. DAVIS.--With the permission of the senator from Ohio, I will
ask him whether he understood the senator from Virginia to assert
that the Constitution of the United States would give the right to
carry this property into the limits of a State where it is
prohibited?
"MR. PUGH.--No, sir; but I say that this proposition is nothing,
unless it goes to that extent.
"MR. DAVIS.--In the absence of my friend from Virginia, I would
say that his theory, I believe, agrees with mine; and certainly
does not go to that extent. It is that the Constitution makes it
property throughout the United States. It can, therefore, be taken
and held wherever the sovereign power of a State has not
prohibited it. When it reaches the territory of a sovereign State
where its introduction is inhibited, it there stops; except for
the reserved right to recover a fugitive, and for the right of
transit, which belongs to every citizen of the United States. That
is the decision of the Supreme Court.
"MR. PUGH.--I repeat my assertion: if the Constitution of the
United States gives this form of property its peculiar protection,
as gentlemen assert, and the right to carry it, it is carried into
every State over the constitution and laws of the State; for the
Constitution of the United States is supreme above the
constitutions and laws of the States; and it means that, or it
means nothing. There is no distinction; there can be none made;
and my colleague put the very question which proved the fallacy of
the whole proposition. But senators say there is no sovereignty in
the territories. I agree to that; but why do we deceive ourselves
about words? There is no such language as sovereignty in the
Constitution of the United States. Senators say it requires a
power of sovereignty to exclude slavery, and the senator from
Mississippi has just now spoken of the sovereignty of the State
which excludes slavery. He says it requires sovereign power to
exclude slavery. Well, how is that sovereignty to be expressed?
"MR. DAVIS.--When a State, being a sovereign, by its organic law
excludes that species of property, the act is final. There is no
sovereignty in the Constitution, as the senator states, and why?
Because the Constitution is a compact between sovereigns creating
an agent with delegated powers; and sovereignty is an indivisible
thing. They gave functions of sovereignty from their plenary
power. Sovereignty remained with the people of the States.
"MR. PUGH.--Then I understand the senator that the sovereignty can
only speak through a constitution, and that it is in the
constitution of a State only that the power to admit or exclude
slavery is to be exercised. Why, sir, until the year 1820 not a
State of this Union, in her constitution, either admitted or
excluded slavery, and I do not believe Virginia did until 1850 or
1851. None of the States did it until Missouri when she came into
the Union, and she put it into her constitution, not upon the idea
that that was peculiarly the place, but for the express purpose of
disarming her legislature. It was an ordinary legislative power,
nothing else in the world; known and recognized as such and
admitted as such by every State in the Union. New York abolished
slavery by law, Pennsylvania abolished slavery by law, and in the
States where the institution continued, it was fostered,
protected, and recognized by ordinary acts of legislation.
"MR. DAVIS.--I am sorry to interrupt the senator again, and I
believe this will be the last time. The first instance he will
find was that of Massachusetts, who, in her bill of rights, at the
Revolutionary era, made a declaration which her supreme court held
to be the abolition of slavery; and I think he will find that it
has generally been acted on in that way; but he has not the right
to assume anything more than I stated. I stated a mode."
JAMES L. ORR.
Col. Orr is of Irish extraction, his ancestors on the paternal and
maternal side coming originally from Ireland. His grandfather, a
native of North Carolina, was a Revolutionary soldier. Christopher
Orr, his father, was a country merchant of considerable means, and who
expended them liberally upon the education of his children. James L.
Orr was born May 12, 1822, at Craytonville, Anderson District, South
Carolina. He began his education at a common school, but was soon sent
to the Anderson Academy, at the same time, however, assisting his
father in keeping his books. When he was eighteen years old, he was
sent to the University of Virginia, where his proficiency in his
studies was so great, that he attracted the attention of his tutors,
who predicted a promising career for the young student. In 1841, he
left college and spent two years in pursuing a course of general
reading, of the greatest importance to him in after life.
In 1843, he studied law, was admitted to the bar. He began the
practice of law at home, in Anderson, the same year establishing a
village newspaper and editing it. It was called the "Anderson
Gazette." In 1844, when but twenty-two years of age, his neighbors and
friends elected him to the State Legislature, where he began his
political career in a quiet, unostentatious manner. Still, he took a
very decided position--one which gave an indication of his future
policy. It was this: he delivered a speech in opposition to the
doctrine of nullification, in reference to the tariff of 1812. He also
took democratic ground in favor of the election of Presidential
electors of the people. They were then, and are now in South Carolina,
elected by the legislature.
In 1848, Mr. Orr became a candidate for Congress. His chief opponent
was a Democrat, a lawyer of wealth and talents, and of course the
contest was simply one of personal popularity, as both gentlemen held
the same political sentiments. After a very lively contest, Mr. Orr
was elected by 700 majority over his Democratic competitor. He entered
Congress at a time when the country was convulsed with the slavery
question, and though such men as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Cass, and the
like, were in Congress, he very soon attracted the attention of the
experienced legislators of that time. Not by egotistic speeches,
forcing himself, as some men do, upon the attention of Congress and
the country, but by delivering, at judicious times, speeches which
were full of solid ability. While he was a firm defender of slavery
and what are called "the constitutional rights of the South," he
condemned the agitation of the question of slavery, and arrayed
himself against the ultraists of his section of the country. Col.
Orr's constituents were so well pleased with his conduct that they
have left him in it till he was, in December, 1857, elected speaker of
the House of Representatives.
When the compromise measures were passed, South Carolina for a time
seemed to favor a secession from the Union. A Constitutional
Convention had been called and a large majority of the delegates were
pledged to favor secession. Col. Orr, however, come out very boldly
and eloquently against their policy. A General Convention of the
disaffected people was held in Charleston, in 1851, and Col. Orr
attended as a delegate from the Anderson District. In the Convention
he took strong ground against disunion, and introduced resolutions
embodying his opinions on that subject. But out of 450 members, only
30 came to his support. But Col. Orr was undaunted by the majority of
numbers against him. He appealed to the people by voice and pen, and
as the result he and a companion in his disunion views were elected to
the proposed Southern Congress over two secession candidates. An
apparent admirer of Col. Orr, speaking of this contest, says:
"That the crisis was one full of alarm and danger must be admitted
even by those furthest from the scene, and most disposed to deny
both the right and power of a State to secede; and that Mr. Orr,
in the very opening of a brilliant political career, hazarded his
future hopes and prospects to a sense of right and duty, entitles
him to the regard of every true lover of the Union. His triumph
was highly honorable to himself, and fixed him more firmly than
ever in the esteem and affections of his constituents."
The same writer remarks:
"The Congressional career of Mr. Orr, which a want of space prevents
us from noticing more in detail, has been both a brilliant and a
useful one. Always sustaining his positions with eloquence and force
of argument, and exhibiting great fairness in debate, he has commanded
attention, and exercised a powerful influence over the questions of
the day. His habits of thorough investigation and analysis, and his
tenacious adherence to his convictions of right, have frequently
placed him at the head of important committees; and his reports are
among the ablest in our legislative records. As chairman of the
Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, during the
discussion of the most important and exciting measures, he displayed
so much promptness, firmness, and intelligence in his decisions that
he won the confidence and respect of men of all parties; and at the
commencement of last Congress he was almost unanimously selected by
the Democrats as their candidate for Speaker. His party was, however,
in the minority, and his election failed. When the present session of
Congress opened, Mr. Orr was nominated, without opposition, and
elected its presiding officer. So far he has justified the
expectations of his friends and of the party which placed him in the
chair. In the fulfillment of the duties of his present position Mr.
Orr will doubtless add honorably to the reputation he now enjoys. He
is too wise a man not to perceive that while fidelity to party was the
best ladder for him to rise to his present height, impartial
neutrality will now serve his fame and ambition better."
Upon the whole, Mr. Orr made an admirable Speaker to the Thirty-fifth
Congress. If he was not always rigidly impartial, the exceptional
cases were rare, and when he was swerved from the straight line of
duty by his sectional prejudices.
In November, 1855, to go back a little--Col. Orr published a letter in
reference to the duty of South Carolina toward the Democratic party of
the North. The people of that State were then, as they seem almost
always to be, in a state of high excitement on the slavery question.
Many leading politicians counselled secession and non-action in
reference to the Presidential canvass. But Col. Orr took different
ground. In his letter to Hon. C. W. Dudley, dated Anderson, Nov. 23,
1855, he said:
"A convention is merely a method of finding out what the popular
opinion is, and giving to it a more conspicuous and imposing
expression. It has been steadily and uniformly pursued by the
Democracy of all the States (except our own) for fifteen years or
more, and the selection of delegates, manner of voting and
nominating, has been defined by a usage well understood and
acquiesced in, as if regulated by law. Hence, we know that such a
convention will assemble in Cincinnati in May next, and that it
will nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice
Presidency--adopt a platform of principles--and it is nearly
certain that the nominees will receive the votes of the Democratic
party of every State in the Union. Shall the Democracy of this
State send delegates? It is our privilege to be represented there,
and at the present time I believe it to be a high and solemn duty
to meet our political allies, and to aid, by our presence and
councils, in selecting suitable nominees and constructing a
platform, which will secure our rights and uphold the
Constitution.
"There has never been a time since the convention policy was
adopted--if, indeed, there has been such a time since the
government was inaugurated--when the success of the Democratic
party in the electoral college was so vitally important as now. If
that party should be defeated in the election before the people,
every patriot's mind must be filled with gloomy forebodings of the
future. The indications now are, that the opposition to the
Democratic party, made up of Know Nothings, Abolitionists, and
Fusionist, will run two or more candidates: if the Democracy fail
to secure a majority in the electoral college over all elements of
opposition, then the election must be made, according to the
Constitution, by the House of Representatives. Can we safely trust
the election of our rights to that body? The House is now elected,
and we _know_ that a decided majority of the House are members of
the Know Nothing, Fusion and Whig parties; and if the election be
devolved on them, the Democratic party will be certainly defeated,
and perhaps a Fusionist promoted to the Presidency. Are the people
of South Carolina so indifferent to their relations to the Federal
Government, that they will quietly look on and see such an
administration as we have had since the 4th of March, '53--an
administration that has faithfully and fearlessly maintained the
Constitution in its purity--supplanted by Know Nothingism or Black
Republicanism? That is the issue to be decided in the next
presidential election, and that, too, in the electoral college;
for if we fail there, then we know now with absolute certainty
that we must be defeated before the House. Was it, then, ever so
important before that the Convention should be filled with
discreet, patriotic men; that there should be the fullest
representation of every man devoted to the Democratic faith, and
opposed to Fusion and Know Nothingism; that they should commune
freely together, and nominate a candidate who will command the
confidence of the entire party.
* * * * *
"We have heard much of southern union being necessary to our
safety. We now have it in our power, by cordial cooperation with
our southern sisters, to secure it--to secure it on such a basis
as will permanently preserve our institutions. We can here make
our demand, and with a united South, we can offer it to the true
men of the North. If we act wisely and present such an ultimatum,
I doubt not that thousands, perhaps millions, at the North, will
espouse and maintain it; for it is a platform of the Constitution,
and there are hosts of conservative men who I know are prepared to
maintain the Constitution of our fathers.