Mr. Mason. I know he does not intend to misrepresent me or other

gentlemen. What I said was, that the repeal of those laws would furnish

no cause of satisfaction to the Southern States. Our opinions of those

laws we gave freely. We said the repeal of those laws would give no

satisfaction.

Mr. Wade. Mr. President, I do not intend to misrepresent anything. I

understood those gentlemen to suppose that they had not been injured by

them. I understood the Senator from Virginia to believe that they were

enacted in a spirit of hostility to the institutions of the South, and

to object to them not because the acts themselves had done them any

hurt, but because they were really a stamp of degradation upon Southern

men, or something like that--I do not quote his words. The other

Senators that referred to it probably intended to be understood in the

same way; but they did acquit these laws of having done them injury to

their knowledge or belief.

I do not believe that these laws were, as the Senator supposed, enacted

with a view to exasperate the South, or to put them in a position of

degradation. Why, sir, these laws against kidnapping are as old as the

common law itself, as that Senator well knows. To take a freeman and

forcibly carry him out of the jurisdiction of the State, has ever been,

by all civilized countries, adjudged to be a great crime; and in most of

them, wherever I have understood anything about it, they have penal

laws to punish such an offence. I believe the State of Virginia has one

to-day as stringent in all its provisions as almost any other of which

you complain. I have not looked over the statute-books of the South; but

I do not doubt that there will be found this species of legislation upon

all your statute-books.

Here let me say, because the subject occurs to me right here, the

Senator from Virginia seemed not so much to point out any specific acts

that Northern people had done injurious to your property as, what he

took to be a dishonor and a degradation. I think I feel as sensitive

upon that subject as any other man. If I know myself, I am the last man

that would be the advocate of any law or any act that would humiliate or

dishonor any section of this country, or any individual in it; and, on

the other hand, let me tell these gentlemen I am exceedingly sensitive

upon that same point, whatever they may think about it. I would

rather sustain an injury than an insult or dishonor; and I would be

as unwilling to inflict it upon others as I would be to submit to it

myself. I never will do either the one or the other if I know it.

* * * * *

I know that charges have been made and rung in our ears, and reiterated

over and over again, that we have been unfaithful in the execution of

your fugitive bill. Sir, that law is exceedingly odious to any free

people. It deprives us of all the old guarantees of liberty that the

Anglo-Saxon race everywhere have considered sacred--more sacred than

anything else.

* * * * *

Mr. President, the gentleman says, if I understood him, that these

fugitives might be turned over to the authorities of the State from

whence they came. That would be a very poor remedy for a free man in

humble circumstances who was taken under the provisions of this bill in

a summary way, to be carried--where? Where he came from? There is no law

that requires that he should be carried there. Sir, if he is a free man

he may be carried into the market-place anywhere in a slave State; and

what chance has he, a poor, ignorant individual, and a stranger,

of asserting any rights there, even if there were no prejudices or

partialities against him? That would be mere mockery of justice and

nothing else, and the Senator well knows it. Sir, I know that from the

stringent, summary provisions of this bill, free men have been kidnapped

and carried into captivity and sold into everlasting slavery. Will any

man who has a regard to the sovereign rights of the State rise here and

complain that a State shall not make a law to protect her own people

against kidnapping and violent seizures from abroad? Of all men, I

believe those who have made most of these complaints should be the

last to rise and deny the power of a sovereign State to protect her own

citizens against any Federal legislation whatever. These liberty bills,

in my judgment, have been passed, not with a view of degrading the

South, but with an honest purpose of guarding the rights of their own

citizens from unlawful seizures and abductions. I was exceedingly glad

to hear that the Senators on the other side had arisen in their places

and had said that the repeal of those laws would not relieve the case

from the difficulties under which they now labor.

* * * * *

Gentlemen, it will be very well for us all to take a view of all the

phases of this controversy before we come to such conclusions as seem to

have been arrived at in some quarters. I make the assertion here that I

do not believe, in the history of the world, there ever was a nation or

a people where a law repugnant to the general feeling was ever executed

with the same faithfulness as has been your most savage and atrocious

fugitive bill in the North. You yourselves can scarcely point out any

case that has come before any northern tribunal in which the law has not

been enforced to the very letter. You ought to know these facts, and you

do know them. You all know that when a law is passed anywhere to bind

any people, who feel, in conscience, or for any other reason, opposed

to its execution, it is not in human nature to enforce it with the same

certainty as a law that meets with the approbation of the great mass of

the citizens. Every rational man understands this, and every candid man

will admit it. Therefore it is that I do not violently impeach you for

your unfaithfulness in the execution of many of your laws. You have in

South Carolina a law by which you take free citizens of Massachusetts

or any other maritime State, who visit the city of Charleston, and lock

them up in jail under the penalty, if they cannot pay the jail-fees, of

eternal slavery staring them in the face--a monstrous law, revolting

to the best feelings of humanity and violently in conflict with

the Constitution of the United States. I do not say this by way of

recrimination; for the excitement pervading the country is now so great

that I do not wish to add a single coal to the flame; but nevertheless I

wish the whole truth to appear.

* * * * *

Now, Mr. President, I have shown, I think, that the dominant majority

here have nothing to complain of in the legislation of Congress, or in

the legislation of any of the States, or in the practice of the people

of the North, under the fugitive slave bill, except so far as they say

certain State legislation furnishes some evidence of hostility to their

institutions. And here, sir, I beg to make an observation. I tell the

Senator, and I tell all the Senators, that the Republican party of the

Northern States, so far as I know, and of my own State in particular,

hold the same opinions with regard to this peculiar institution of

yours that are held by all the civilized nations of the world. We do not

differ from the public sentiment of England, of France, of Germany, of

Italy, and every other civilized nation on God's earth; and I tell you

frankly that you never found, and you never will find, a free community

that are in love with your peculiar institution. The Senator from Texas

(Mr. Wigfall) told us the other day that cotton was king, and that by

its influence it would govern all creation. He did not say so in words,

but that was the substance of his remark: that cotton was king, and that

it had its subjects in Europe who dared not rebel against it. Here let

me say to that Senator, in passing, that it turns out that they are

very rebellious subjects, and they are talking very disrespectfully at

present of that king that he spoke of. They defy you to exercise your

power over them. They tell you that they sympathize in this controversy

with what you call the black Republicans. Therefore, I hope that, so

far as Europe is concerned at least, we shall hear no more of this boast

that cotton is king; and that he is going to rule all the civilized

nations of the world, and bring them to his footstool. Sir, it will

never be done.

But, sir, I wish to inquire whether the Southern people are injured by,

or have any just right to complain of that platform of principles that

we put out, and on which we have elected a President and Vice-President.

I have no concealments to make, and I shall talk to you, my Southern

friends, precisely as I would talk upon the stump on the subject. I tell

you that in that platform we did lay it down that we would, if we had

the power, prohibit slavery from another inch of free territory under

this Government. I stand on that position to-day. I have argued

it probably to half a million people. They stand there, and have

commissioned and enjoined me to stand there forever; and, so help me

God, I will. I say to you frankly, gentlemen, that while we hold this

doctrine, there is no Republican, there is no convention of Republicans,

there is no paper that speaks for them, there is no orator that sets

forth their doctrines, who ever pretends that they have any right in

your States to interfere with your peculiar institution; but, on the

other hand, our authoritative platform repudiates the idea that we have

any right or any intention ever to invade your peculiar institution in

your own States.

Now, what do you complain of? You are going to break up this Government;

you are going to involve us in war and blood, from a mere suspicion that

we shall justify that which we stand everywhere pledged not to do.

Would you be justified in the eyes of the civilized world in taking

so monstrous a position, and predicating it on a bare, groundless

suspicion? We do not love slavery. Did you not know that before to-day,

before this session commenced? Have you not a perfect confidence that

the civilized world is against you on this subject of loving slavery

or believing that it is the best institution in the world? Why, sir,

everything remains precisely as it was a year ago. No great catastrophe

has occurred. There is no recent occasion to accuse us of anything.

But all at once, when we meet here, a kind of gloom pervades the whole

community and the Senate Chamber. Gentlemen rise and tell us that they

are on the eve of breaking up this Government, that seven or eight

States are going to break off their connection with the Government,

retire from the Union, and set up a hostile government of their own, and

they look imploringly over to us, and say to us: "You can prevent it; we

can do nothing to prevent it; but it all lies with you." Well, sir, what

can we do to prevent it? You have not even condescended to tell us what

you want; but I think I see through the speeches that I have heard from

gentlemen on the other side. If we would give up the verdict of the

people, and take your platform, I do not know but you would be satisfied

with it. I think the Senator from Texas rather intimated, and I think

the Senator from Georgia more than intimated, that if we would take what

is exactly the Charleston platform on which Mr. Breckenridge was placed,

and give up that on which we won our victory, you would grumblingly and

hesitatingly be satisfied.

Mr. Iverson. I would prefer that the Senator would look over my remarks

before quoting them so confidently. I made no such statement as that. I

did not say that I would be satisfied with any such thing. I would not

be satisfied with it.

Mr. Wade. I did not say that the Senator said so; but by construction I

gathered that from his speech. I do not know that I was right in it.

Mr. Iverson. The Senator is altogether wrong in his construction.

Mr. Wade. Well, sir, I have now found what the Senator said on the other

point to which he called my attention a little while ago. Here it is:

"Nor do we suppose that there will be any overt acts upon the part of

Mr. Lincoln. For one, I do not dread these overt acts. I do not propose

to wait for them. Why, sir, the power of this Federal Government could

be so exercised against the institution of slavery in the Southern

States, as that, without an overt act, the institution would not last

ten years. We know that, sir; and seeing the storm which is approaching,

although it may be seemingly in the distance, we are determined to seek

our own safety and security before it shall burst upon us and overwhelm

us with its fury, when we are not in a situation to defend ourselves."

That is what the Senator said.

Mr. Iverson. Yes; that is what I said.

Mr. Wade. Well, then, you did not expect that Mr. Lincoln would commit

any overt act against the Constitution--that was not it--you were not

going to wait for that, but were going to proceed on your supposition

that probably he might; and that is the sense of what I said before.

Well, Mr. President, I have disavowed all intention on the part of the

Republican party to harm a hair of your heads anywhere. We hold to

no doctrine that can possibly work you an inconvenience. We have

been faithful to the execution of all the laws in which you have any

interest, as stands confessed on this floor by your own party, and as is

known to me without their confessions. It is not, then, that Mr. Lincoln

is expected to do any overt act by which you may be injured; you will

not wait for any; but anticipating that the Government may work an

injury, you say you will put an end to it, which means simply, that

you intend either to rule or ruin this Government. That is what your

complaint comes to; nothing else. We do not like your institution, you

say. Well, we never liked it any better than we do now. You might

as well have dissolved the Union at any other period as now, on that

account, for we stand in relation to it precisely as we have ever

stood; that is, repudiating it among ourselves as a matter of policy

and morals, but nevertheless admitting that where it is out of our

jurisdiction, we have no hold upon it, and no designs upon it.

Then, sir, as there is nothing in the platform on which Mr. Lincoln was

elected of which you complain, I ask, is there anything in the character

of the President-elect of which you ought to complain? Has he not lived

a blameless life? Did he ever transgress any law? Has he ever committed

any violation of duty of which the most scrupulous can complain? Why,

then, your suspicions that he will? I have shown that you have had the

government all the time until, by some misfortune or maladministration,

you brought it to the very verge of destruction, and the wisdom of the

people had discovered that it was high time that the scepter should

depart from you, and be placed in more competent hands; I say that this

being so, you have no constitutional right to complain; especially when

we disavow any intention so to make use of the victory we have won as to

injure you at all.

This brings me, sir, to the question of compromises. On the first day of

this session, a Senator rose in his place and offered a resolution for

the appointment of a committee to inquire into the evils that exist

between the different sections, and to ascertain what can be done to

settle this great difficulty. That is the proposition substantially. I

tell the Senator that I know of no difficulty; and as to compromises, I

had supposed that we were all agreed that the day of compromises was at

an end. The most solemn compromises we have ever made have been

violated without a whereas. Since I have had a seat in this body, one of

considerable antiquity, that had stood for more than thirty years, was

swept away from your statute-books. When I stood here in the minority

arguing against it; when I asked you to withhold your hand; when I told

you it was a sacred compromise between the sections, and that when it

was removed we should be brought face to face with all that sectional

bitterness that has intervened; when I told you that it was a sacred

compromise which no man should touch with his finger, what was your

reply? That it was a mere act of Congress--nothing more, nothing

less--and that it could be swept away by the same majority that passed

it. That was true in point of fact, and true in point of law; but it

showed the weakness of compromises. Now, sir, I only speak for myself;

and I say that, in view of the manner in which other compromises have

been heretofore treated, I should hardly think any two of the Democratic

party would look each other in the face and say "compromise" without a

smile. (Laughter.) A compromise to be brought about by act of Congress,

after the experience we have had, is absolutely ridiculous.

* * * * *

I say, then, that so far as I am concerned, I will yield to no

compromise. I do not come here begging, either. It would be an indignity

to the people that I represent if I were to stand here parleying as to

the rights of the party to which I belong. We have won our right to the

Chief Magistracy of this nation in the way that you have always won your

predominance; and if you are as willing to do justice to others as to

exact it from them, you would never raise an inquiry as to a committee

for compromises. Here I beg, barely for myself, to say one thing more.

Many of you stand in an attitude hostile to this Government; that is to

say, you occupy an attitude where you threaten that, unless we do so and

so, you will go out of this Union and destroy the Government. I say

to you for myself, that, in my private capacity, I never yielded to

anything by way of threat, and in my public capacity I have no right

to yield to any such thing; and therefore I would not entertain a

proposition for any compromise, for, in my judgment, this long, chronic

controversy that has existed between us must be met, and met upon the

principles of the Constitution and laws, and met now. I hope it may be

adjusted to the satisfaction of all; and I know no other way to adjust

it, except that way which is laid down by the Constitution of the United

States. Whenever we go astray from that, we are sure to plunge ourselves

into difficulties. The old Constitution of the United States, although

commonly and frequently in direct opposition to what I could wish,

nevertheless, in my judgment, is the wisest and best constitution

that ever yet organized a free Government; and by its provisions I

am willing, and intend, to stand or fall. Like the Senator from

Mississippi, I ask nothing more. I ask no ingrafting upon it. I ask

nothing to be taken away from it. Under its provisions a nation has

grown faster than any other in the history of the world ever did before

in prosperity, in power, and in all that makes a nation great and

glorious. It has ministered to the advantages of this people; and now

I am unwilling to add or take away anything till I can see much clearer

than I can now that it wants either any addition or lopping off.

* * * * *

The Senator from Texas says--it is not exactly his language--we will

force you to an ignominious treaty up in Faneuil Hall. Well, sir, you

may. We know you are brave; we understand your prowess; we want no fight

with you; but, nevertheless, if you drive us to that necessity, we

must use all the powers of this Government to maintain it intact in its

integrity. If we are overthrown, we but share the fate of a thousand

other Governments that have been subverted. If you are the weakest then

you must go to the wall; and that is all there is about it. That is

the condition in which we stand, provided a State sets herself up in

opposition to the General Government.

I say that is the way it seems to me, as a lawyer. I see no power in the

Constitution to release a Senator from this position. Sir, if there

was any other, if there was an absolute right of secession in the

Constitution of the United States when we stepped up there to take our

oath of office, why was there not an exception in that oath? Why did

it not run "that we would support the Constitution of the United States

unless our State shall secede before our term was out?" Sir, there is

no such immunity. There is no way by which this can be done that I can

conceive of, except it is standing upon the Constitution of the United

States, demanding equal justice for all, and vindicating the old flag

of the Union. We must maintain it, unless we are cloven down by superior

force.

Well, sir, it may happen that you can make your way out of the Union,

and that, by levying war upon the Government, you may vindicate your

right to independence. If you should do so, I have a policy in my mind.

No man would regret more than myself that any portion of the people of

these United States should think themselves impelled, by grievances or

anything else, to depart out of this Union, and raise a foreign flag and

a hand against the General Government. If there was any just cause

on God's earth that I could see that was within my reach of honorable

release from any such pretended grievance, they should have it; but

they set forth none; I can see none. It is all a matter of prejudice,

superinduced unfortunately, I believe, as I intimated before, more

because you have listened to the enemies of the Republican party and

what they said of us, while, from your intolerance, you have shut out

all light as to what our real principles are. We have been called and

branded in the North and in the South and everywhere else, as John Brown

men, as men hostile to your institutions, as meditating an attack upon

your institutions in your own States--a thing that no Republican ever

dreamed of or ever thought of, but has protested against as often as the

question has been up; but your people believe it. No doubt they believe

it because of the terrible excitement and reign of terror that prevails

there. No doubt they think so, but it arises from false information,

or the want of information--that is all. Their prejudices have been

appealed to until they have become uncontrolled and uncontrollable.

Well, sir, if it shall be so; if that "glorious Union," as we call it,

under which the Government has so long lived and prospered, is now about

to come to a final end, as perhaps it may, I have been looking around to

see what policy we should adopt; and through that gloom which has been

mentioned on the other side, if you will have it so, I still see a

glorious future for those who stand by the old flag of the nation.

But, sir, I am for maintaining the Union of these States. I will

sacrifice everything but honor to maintain it. That glorious old flag of

ours, by any act of mine, shall never cease to wave over the integrity

of this Union as it is. But if they will not have it so, in this new,

renovated Government of which I have spoken, the 4th of July, with all

its glorious memories, will never be repealed. The old flag of 1776

will be in our hands, and shall float over this nation forever; and this

capital, that some gentlemen said would be reserved for the Southern

republic, shall still be the capital. It was laid out by Washington;

it was consecrated by him; and the old flag that he vindicated in the

Revolution shall still float from the Capitol.

I say, sir, I stand by the Union of these States. Washington and his

compatriots fought for that good old flag. It shall never be hauled

down, but shall be the glory of the Government to which I belong, as

long as my life shall continue. To maintain it, Washington and his

compatriots fought for liberty and the rights of man. And here I will

add that my own father, although but a humble soldier, fought in the

same great cause, and went through hardships and privations sevenfold

worse than death, in order to bequeath it to his children. It is my

inheritance. It was my protector in infancy, and the pride and glory

of my riper years; and, Mr. President, although it may be assailed by

traitors on every side, by the grace of God, under its shadow I will

die.

JOHN JORDON CRITTENDEN,

OF KENTUCKY. (BORN 1787, DIED 1863.)

ON THE CRITTENDEN COMPROMISE;

UNITED STATES SENATE, DECEMBER 18, 1860.

American Eloquence, Volume 3 Studies In American Political History (1897) · 第 12 / 15 段