7
. . - , . .
1 :i
- t
pei aiirLiim
IN ADVANCE.
OX THE
CHARACTER IS AS IMPORTANT TO STATES AS IT IS TO INDIVIDUALS, AND. THE GLORY OP THE ONE IS THE COMMON PROPERTY OF THE OTHER-
WEST SIDE OF TRADE STREET
CHARLOTTE, N. C, TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1860.
EIGOTD Y0LU5IE NUMBER 403.
w.
.... - - .
SPEECH OF
SEXATOK S. A. DOUGLAS.
4XIJ HIS
ox the ixvaswx
' OF STATES;
JtEPL r TO
MR. FESSEXD EX.
DELIVERED IX THE C. B
SENATE, JANTART 13, 1BOU
The hour bavins arrived for the consideration of
the special order, the Senate proceeded to consider
the following resolution, submitted by Mr Douglas
.1 -i.t -i-
on the lGth inst:
.
Resolved. That the Committee on the Judiciary
in'tructe1 to report a hill for the protection or eacn
State and Territory of the Union against invasion by
the authorities or inhabitants of any other State or Ter
ritory; anil for the suppression ami punishment of eon
spiraeie or combinations in any State or Territory with
intent to invade, assail, or molest the Government, in
habitant, property, or institutions of any other State
or Territory of this Union.
Mr Douirlas. Mr President, on the 25th of No
vember Inst, the Coventor of Virginia addressed
nn official communication to the President of the
1 "nited States, in which he said:
f have information from various quarters, upon
viliii li I ri-Iv, that a conspiracy of formidable extent, in
m-:n ami number', is formed in Ohio. Pennsylvania,
N w York and other State, to rescue John Blown and
his associates, prisoners at Charlestown. Va. The in
formation is specific enough to be reliable.
Places in Maryland. Ohio and Pennsylvania have been
occupied as depots and rendezvous by these despera
does, and obstructed bv guards or otherwise, to invade
this State, and we are kept in continual apprehension
from fire and rapine. I apprize yon of these facts in or
der that von may take steps to preserve peace between
the States."
To this communication, the President of the
United States, en the t?Sth of Nov.. returned a re
ply, from which T read tie following sentence:
'I am at a biss to li -cover anv provision in the Con
stitntiofi or laws ,,f Hie United States which would au
tli .rie me to take steps" for this purpose' That is,
to prevrvc peace between ihe States.
This ainiouncament. produced a profound impres
sion upon tie public mind and especially in the
slavt lioldinir States. It was generally received
and regarded as an authoritative announcement
tint the Constitution of the United States confers
no power upon the Federal (lovornmont to protect
each of the States of this Union against invasion
from the other States. I shall not stop to enquire
whether the President meant to declare that the
existing laws confer no authority upon him. or that
the Constitution empowers Congress to enact no
laws which would authorize the Federal interpo
sition to protect the States from invasion; my ob
ject is to raise the itiipiiry. and ask the judgment
of the Senate and House of Representatives on the
question, whether it is not within the power of
Coimros. ami tlie duty of Congress, tinder the
Contitution, to enact all laws which may be neces
sary and proper for the protection of each and
every State against invasion, either from foreign
Powers or from any portion of the United S ates.
'1 lie denial of the existence of such a power in
the Federal (lovernineut lias induced an inqury
ani-ng conservative men men loyal to the Con
stitution and devoted to the Union as to what
means they have of protection, if the Federal (Jov
ermiicnt is not authorized to protect them against
external violence. It must be conceded that no
community is safe, no State can enjoy peace or
prosperity, or domestic tranquility, with security
ngain.t external violence. Every State and nation
of the world, outside of this Republic, is supposed
to maintain armies and navies for this precise pur
ple. It is the only legitimate purpose for which
armies ami navies are maintained in time of peace.
They may be kept up for atubia -us purposes, for
the purposes of aggression and foreign war; but
the legitimate purpose of a military force in time ;
ot peace is to insure domestic tranquility against
violence or aggression from without. The States
of this I nioti would possess that pvwer, were it
not lor tlie restraints imposed upon them by the
Federal Constitution. When that Cot stitution was
made, the States surrendered to the Federal (Jov
crnmcut the owcr to raise and support armies,
and the power to provide and maintain navies, and
thus not only surrendered the means of protection
from invasion, but consented to a prohibition upon
themselves which declares that no State shall keep
troops or vessels of war in time of peace.
Tlie question now recurs, whether the States of
this Union are in hat helpless condition, with
their hands tied by the Constitution, stripped of all
means of repelling a.-saults and maintaining their
existence, without a guarantee l'rotn the Federal
Covernuient to protect them against violence. If
the peoj le- of this country shall settle dowi4 int-
the conviction that there is no power in the Fed
eral Covernmei't under the Constitution to protect
each and every State from violence, from aggres
sion, from invasion, they will demand that the
cord be severed, and that the weat ons be restored
to their hands with which thev may defend them
........ loin it kh iiiuj uiaiiu iiivtii-
This inquiry involves the question of the
lity of the Union. The means of defence,
selves
perpetuity
the means of repelling assaults, the means of pro- I
viding against invasion, must exist as a condition :
of the safetv of the States and the existence of the I
l liloli
Now, sir, I hope to be able to demonstrate that !
inere is no wrong in this I nicii lor which the
Constitution of the United States has not provided
a remedy. I brieve, and I hope I shall be able
to maintain, tllat a rollulv Js f,,,,,!, fr cvery
wrong whu-U can 1... perpetrated within the Union,
it the federal C.overnnient performs its whole
duty. I think it elear. on a careful evamination
ol tlie l uiistitut'.ou
lie Constitution, th.-.t tl.., i
upon Congress, first, to provide for rerellin- invi- i bc Vt'r "tt,e diffprcnce of Pinion that ll W,U be
sion from foreign countries; and secondly "to rro- nccC8sarJ t0 P,aec t,,e whole military power of the
tect each State of this Union auainst invasion from ,overnu,ent at tne disposal of the President, under
any other State, Teriitory,4or place, within the ' T1"0!1 guards and restrictions against abue, to re
jurisdiction of the United States. 1 w,ll f.r t tPn ' re' anu suppress invasion when the hostile force
your attention, sir, to the power conferred upon
. ongress to protect the I nited States ineludino
States, Territories, and the District of Columbia
including every inch of ground within our limits
and jurisdiction against foreign invasion. In
the eighth section of the first article of the Con
stitution, you find that Congress lias power
'To raise aud support armies: to provide and main
tain a Navy; to make rules for the government and retr
ulation of tbe land a.i naval forces: to provide for call
ing forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union,
-- - - - . . . .
suppress insurreetpuii, aud repel invasions.
1 hese vanou
claues confer nnon Cono-ress rwrir.
jr to use the whole military force of the cou.itry
tor the purpose specified iu the Constitution. They
" riuuuc ior tue execution ot the laws of the
Union: and secondly, suppress insurrections". The
insurrections there referred to are insurrections
against the authority of the United States insur
; rcctions against a State authority being provided
for in a subsequent section, in which the United
States cannot interfere, except upon the applica
tion of the State authorities. The invasion which
j is to be repelled by this clause of the Constitution
is an invasion of the United States. The
J he language
; is, Congress shall have power to "repel invasions.
i Tli-if rivre tht nuthnrir.v to rnnrd the invasion, no
I matter whether the enemy shall land within the
within the Territory of New Mexico, or anywhere
else within the jurisdiction of the United States
The power to protect every portion of the country
against invasion from foreign nations having thus j
been specially conferred, the framers of the Con
stitution then proceeded to make guarantees for
the protection of each of the States by Federal au
thority. I will read the fourth section of the 4th
article of the Constitution:
"The United States shall guaranty to cvery State in
this Union a republican form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against invasion; and, on appli
cation of the Legislature, or of the Executive, (when
the Legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic
violence.''
This clause contains three distinct guarantees:
first, the United States shall guaranty to every
State in this Union a republican form of Govern
ment; second, the United States shall protect each
of them against invasion; third, the United States
shall, on application of the Legislature, or of the
Executive when the Legislature cannot be conven
ed, protect them against domestic violence. Now,
sir, 1 submit to you whether it is not clear from
the very language of the Constitution, that this
clause was inserted for she purpose of making it
the duty of the Federal Government to protect
each of the States against invasion from any other
State, Territory, or place within the jurisdiction of
the United States? For what other purpose was
the clause inserted ? The power and duty of pro
tection against foreign nations had already been
provided for. This clause occurs among the guar
antees from the United States to each State, for
the benefit of - each State, for the protection of
each State, and necessarily from other States, in
asmuch as the guarantee had been given previous
ly as against foreign nations.
If any further authority is necessary to show
that such is the true construction of the Constitu
tion, it may be found in the forty-third number of
the Federalist, written by James Madison. Mr
Madison quotes the clause of the Constitution
which I have read, giving these three guarantees;
and, after discussing the one guarantying to each
State a repuldican form of government, proceeds
to consider the second, which makes it the duty of
the L nited States to protect each of the States
against invasion. Here is what Mr Madison says
upon that subject:
'A protection against invasion is due rem every so
ciety to the jHirts composing it. The latitude of the ex
pression here used seems to secure each State, not only
against foreign hostility, hut against ambitious or vin
dictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The
history both of ancient and modern confederacies proves
that the weaker members of the Union ought not to be
insensible to the policy of this article."
This number of the Federalist, like all the others
of that celebrated work, was written after the Con
stitution was made, and before it was ratified by
the States, and with a view to securing its ratifica
tion; hence the peor.l : of the several States, when
they ratified this instrument knew that this clause
was intended to bear the construction which I now
place upon it. It was intended to make it the
duty of every society to protect each of its parts,
the duty of the Federal Government to protect
each of the States; and. he says, the smaller States
ought not to be insensible to the policy of this ar
ticle of the Constitution.
Then, sir, if it be made the imperative duty of
the Federal Government, by the express provision
of the Constitution, to protect each of the States
against invasion or violence from the other States,
or from combinations of desperadoes within their
limits, it necessarily follows that it is the duty of
Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper to
render that guarantee effectual. W'hile Congress
iu the early history of the Government, did pro
vide legislation, which is supposed to be ample to
to protect the United States against invasion from
foreigh countries and the Indian tribes, they have
failed, up to this time, to make any law for the
protection of each of the States against invasion
from within the limits of the Union. I am una
ble to account for this omission; but I presume the
reason is to be found in the fact that no Congress
ever dreamed that such legislation would ever be
come necessary for the protection of one State of
this Union against invasion and violence from her
sister States. Who until the Harper's Ferry out
rage, ever conccivedthat American citizens could
be so forgetful of their duties to themselves, to
their country, to the Constitution, as to plan an in
vasion of another State, with the view of inciting
servile insurrection, murder, treason, and every
other crime that disgraces humanity? While,"
tnorJcf,re no blame can justly be attached to our
predecessors in failing to provide the legislation
! necessary to render this guarantee of the Constitu-
tion effectual; still, since the experience of last
,' year, we cannot stand justified in omitting longer
to perform this imperative duty.
The question then remaining is, what legislation
is necessary and proper to render this guarantee of
: the Constitution effectual? I presume there will
snail te actually in tne neia. aui, ssir, uuii rs hui
sufficient. Such legislation would not be a full
compliance with this guarantee of the Constitution
The framers of that instrument meant more when
they gave the guarantee- Mark the difference in
language between the provision for protecting the
United States against invasion and that for protect
ing the States. " When it provided for protecting
the United States, it said Congress shall have pow
er to 11 n pit invasion." When it came to make
this guarantee to the States it changed the lan
gnaire and said tin United States shall "wotixt'
v., ii . . i- i i ii . i. . i .
pacb oPl. c :t Jm-ocinn Tn th nnp
instance, the duty of the Government is to repel;
in the other, the "uarantee is that they will pro-
tect. In other words, the United States are not i
I permitted to wait until the enemy shall be upon
j your borders; until the invading army shall have
been organized and drilled and placed in march
with a view to the invasion; but they must pass all
laws necessary and proper to insure protection and
domestic tranquility to each State and Territory of
this Union against invasion or hostilites from other
States and Territories.
Then, sir, 1 hold that it is not only necessary to
use the military power when the actual case of in
vasion shall occur, but to authorize the judicial
department of the Government to suppress all con
spiracies and combinations in the several States
with intent to invade a State, or molest or disturb
its covernment. its oeace. citizens its uronertv. or
its institutions. You must punish the conspiracy,
the combination with intent to do the act, and then
you will suppress it in advance. There is no prin
ciple more familiar to the legal profession than
that wherever it is proper to declare an act to be a
crime, it is proper to punish a conspiracy or com
bination with intent to perpetrate the act. Look
upon your statute-books, and I presume you will
find an enactment to punish the counterfeiting of
the coin of the United States; and then another
section to punish a man for having counterfeit coin
ia his possession with intent to pass it; and another
section to punish hiai for having the molds, or dies
or instrument for counterfeiting, with intent to use
them. This is a familiar principle in legislative
and judicial proceedings. If the act of invasion
is criminal, the conspiracy to invade should also
be made criminal. If it bo unlawful and illegal to
invade a State, and run off fugitive slaves, why
not make it unlawful to form conspiracies and
combinations in the several States with intent to
do the act? We have been told that a notorious
man who has recently suffered death for his crimes
upon the gallows, boasted in Cleaveland, Ohio, in
a public lecture, a year ago, that he had then a
body of men employed in running away horses
from the slaveholders of Missouri, and pointed to a
livery stable in Cleaveland which was full of the
stolen horses at that time.
I think it is within out competency, and con
sequently our duty, to pass a law making every
conspiracy or combination in any State or Territory
of this Union to invade another with intent to run
away propeity of any kind, whether it be negroes,
or horses, or property of any other description, in
to another State, a crime, and punish the con
spirators by indictment in the United States courts
and confinement in the prisons or penitentiaries of
the State or Territory where the conspiracy may
be formed and quelled. Sir, I would carry these
provisions of law as far as our constitutional power
will reach. 1 would make it a crime to form con
spiracies with a view of -invadini; States or Ter
ritories to control elections, whether they be un
der the garb of Emigrant Aid Societies of New
England or Blue Lodges of Missouri. (Applause
in the galleries.) In other words, this provision
of the Constitution means more than the mere re
pelling of an invasion when the invading army
shall reach the border of a State. The language
is, it shall protect the State against invasion;, the
meaning of which is, to use the language of the
preamble to the Constitution, to insure to each
State domestic tranquility against external violence.
There can be no peace, there can be no prosperity,
there can be no safety in any community, unless it
is secured against violence from abroad. Why,
sir, it has been a question seriously mooted in
Europe, whether it was not the duty of England,
a Power foreign to France, to pass laws to punish
conspiracies in England against the lives of the
princes of France. I shall not argue the question
of comity between foreign States. I predicate my
argument upon the Constitution by which we are
governed, and which we have sworn to obey, and
demand that the Constitution be executed in good
faith so as to punish and suppress every combina
tion, every conspiracy, either to invade a State or
to molest its inhabitants, or to disturb its property,
or to subvert its government. 1 believe this can
be effectually done by authorizing the United
States court in the several States to take jurisdic
tion of the offence, and punish the violation of the
law with appropriate punishments.
It cannot be said that the time has not yet arriv
ad for such legislation. It cannot be said with
truth that the Harper's Ferry case will not be
repeated, or is not in danger of repetition. It is
only necessary to enquire into the causes which
produced the Harper's Ferry outrage, and ascer
tain whether those causes are yet in active ope
ration, and then you can determine whether there
is any ground for apprehension that that invasion
will be repeated. Sir, what were the causes which
produced the Harper's Ferry outrage? Without
stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no
hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate
conviction that the Harper's Ferry crime was the
natural, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines
and teachings of the Republican party, as explain
ed and enforced in their platform, their partisan
presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially
in the speeches of their leaders in and out of Con
gress. (Applause in the galleries.)
Mr Mason. I trust that the order of the Senate
will be preserved. 1 am sure it is only necessary
to suggest to the Presiding Officer the indispens
able necessity of preserving the order of the Senate;
and I give notice that, if it is dist urbed again, I
shall insist upon the galleries being cleared entire-
Mr Douglas. Mr President
The Vice President The Senator will pause
for a single
moment. It is impossible for the
Chair to preserve order without the concurrence of j
the vast assembly in the galleries. He trusts that !
there will be no occasion to make a reference to !
; cmr,;nft o.iin !
uns suojixt uaui. j
Mr Douglas. I was remarking that I consider- 1
ed this outrage at the Harper's Ferry as the logi-
cal, natural consequence of the teachings and j
, ' . , t ui- t ii
doctrines of the Republican party. I am not mak- ;
ing this statement for the purpose of crimination
or partisan effect. I desire to call the attention
of members of that party to a reconsideration of
the doctrines which they are in the habit of en
forcing, with a view to a fair judgment whether
1' . 1 1
they do not leaa airectiy 10 1 nose consequences, :
on the part of those deluded persons who think j
that all that they say is meant, in real earnest, j
and ouht to be carried out. The great principle
. , 1. .1 t n- . : 1
that underlies , the Republican party is violent ;
irreconcileable, eternal warfare upon the institu- j
tion of American slavery, with a view to its ulti- !
mate extinction throughout the land; sectional war
is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South
fhall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields
of New York and Massachusetts shall be cultivat
ed by slave labor. In furtherance of this article
of their creed, you find their political organization
not only sectional in its location, but one whose
vitality consists in appeals to northern passion,
northern prejudice, northern ambition against
southern States, southern institutions, and southern
people. I have had some experience in fighting
this element within the last few years, and I find
! that the source of their power consists in' exciting
the prejudices and the passions of the northern
! section against those of the southern section.
J They not only attempt to excite the North against
the South, but they invite the South to assail and
abuse and traduce the North. Southern abuse,
by violent men, of northern statesmen and north
ern people, is essential to the triumph of the He
publican cause. Hence the course of argument
which we have to meet is not only repelling the
appeals to northern passion and prejudice, but we
have to encounter their appeals to southern men
to assail us, in order that they may justify, their
assults upon the plea of self-defence.
Sir, when I re'urned home in 1858, for the
rpurpose of canvasing Illinois, with a view to i
re-election, I had to meet this issue of the '-irre
preesible conflict." It is true that the Senator
from New York had not then made his Rochester
speech, and did not for four months afterwards
It is true that he had not given the doctrine that
precise name and form; but the principle was in
existence, and bad been proclaimed by the most
clear-headed men ot the party. I call your atten
tion, sir, to a single passage from a speech, to show
the language in which this doctrine was stated in
Illinois before it received the name of the "irre
pressible conflict." The Republican party assem
bled in btate convention in June, 18o8, in Illinois,
and unanimously adopted Abraham Lincoln as
their candidate for United States Senator. Mr
Lincoln appeared before the convention, accepted
the nomination, and made a speech which had
been previously written aud agreed to in caucus by
most of the leaders of the party. I will read
single extract from that speech:
"In my opinion, it the slavery agitation will not
cease until a crisis shall have been reached aud passed
'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe
this Government cannot endure pei maneiitlv, half
slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall,
but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will
become all one thing or all the other. Either the
opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of
it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or
its ad-vocates will push forward till it shall beeome
alike lawful in all the States old as well as new. North
as well as South."
The moment I landed upon the soil of Illinois, at
a vast gathering of thousands of my constituents
to welcome me home, I read that passage, and took
direct issue with the doctrine contained in it-as being
revolutionary and treasonable, and inconsistent with
the petpetuitj- of this Republic. That is not merely
the individual opinion of Sir Lincoln; nor is it the
individual opinion merely of the Senator from New
York, w ho four months afterwards asserted the same
doctrine in different language; but, so far as I know,
it is the general opinion of the members of the Abolition
or Republican party. They tell the people of the North
that unless they rally as one man, under a sectional
banner, and make war upon the South with a view to
the ultimate extinction of slavery, slavery will overrun
the whole North and fasten itself upon all the free States.
They then tell the South, unless you rally as ODe man,
binding the whole southern people into a sectional
party, and establish slavery all over the free States, the
inevitable consequence will be that we shall abolish it
in the slaveholding States. The same doctrine is held
by the Senator from New York in his Rochester speech.
He tells us that the States must all become free, or all
become slave; that the South, in other words, must
conquer and subdue the North, or the North must
triumph over the South, and drive slavery from within
its limits.
Mr President, in order to show that I have not
misinterpreted tbe position of the Senator from New
York, in notifying the South that, if they wish to
maintain slavery within their limits, tliey must also
fasten it upon the northern States, I will read an extract
from his Rochester speech :
"It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and
enduring forces; and it means that the United States
must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely
slaveholding nation, or entirely a free-labor nation.
Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and
the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be
tilled by free labor, aud Charleston and New Orleans
become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else
the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and
New York must again be surrendered by their farmers
to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and
Boston and New York become once more markets for
trade iu the bodies and souls of men." .
Thus, sir, you perceive that the theory of the Repub
lican party, is, that there is a conflict between two
different systems of institutions in the respective classes
of States not a conflict in the same States, bntan
irrepressible conflict between the free States and the
slave States; and they argue that these two systems of
States cannot permanently exist in the same Union;
that the sectional warfare must continue to rage and
increase with increasing fury until the free States shall
surrender, or tbe slave States shall be subdued. Ilerce,
while they appeal to the passions of our own section,
their object is to alarnvthe people of the other section,
and drive them to madness, with the hope that they
will iuvade our u htsas an excuse for some of our
people to carry on aggression upon their rights. I
appeal to the candor of Senators, whether this is not a
fair exposition of the tendency of the doctrines pro
claimed by the Republican party. The creed of that
party is founded npon the theory that, because slavery
is not desirable'in onr States, it is not desirable any
where; because free labor is a good thing with ns, it
must be the best thing everywhere. In other words,
the creed of their party rests upon the theory that there
must be uniformity in the domestic institutions and
internal polity of the several States of this Union
There, in my opinion, is the fundamental error opon
which their w hole system rests. In the Illinois canvass,
1 asserted, and now repeat, that uniformity iu the
domestic institutions of the different States is neither
possible nor desirable. That is the very issue upon
which I conducted the canvass at home, and it is the
question which I desire to present to the Senate. 1
repeat, that uniformity in domestic institutions of tbs
different States is neither possible nor desirable,
Wag ph tfae framerg of the Consti,u
lioil ? j wish the countrj to bear in mind that when
the Constitution was adopted the Union consisted of
thirteen States, twelve of which were slaveholding
States, and one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of in any State or Territory against the property, mstitu
uniformity on tbe slavery question had prevailed in the j tions or people of any other State or Territory, Si there
Federal convention, do the gentlemen on that side of
the House think that freedom would have triumphed
over slavery? Do they imagine that the one free State
wonld have out voted the twelve slaveholding States,
an thn3 haT abolished slavery throughout the land
bv a constitutional provision? On the contrarr, if the
gt had then beeQ Pade .f th-g doctrine uniformUy
on the siaverv. question had then been proclaimed and
believed in, with the twelve slaveholding States against
one free State, would it not have resulted in a con
stitutional provision fastening slavery irrevocably upon
every inch of American soil, North as well-as South?
Was it quite fair in those days for t he friends of free
institutions to claim that the Federal Government most
not touch theN question, but must leave the people of
each State to do as they pleased, until under the opera
tion of that principle they secured the majority, and
then wield that majority to abolish slavery in the other
States of the Union?
Sir, if uniformity in respect to domestic Institutions
had been deemed desirable when the Constitution was
adopted, there was another mode by which it could
have been obtained. The natural mode of obtaining
uniformity wa to have blotted out the State g5ver'n raenta,
to have . abolished the State Legislatures, to have
conferred upon Congress legislative power over the
municipal and domestic concerns of the people of all
the States, as well as upon Federal questions affecting
the whole Union; and if this doctrine of uniformity had
been entertained and favored by the framers of the Con
stitution, such would have been the result. But, sir,
the framers of that instrument knew at that day, as
well as we now know, that in a country as broad as
this, with so great a variety of climate, of soil, and of
production, there must necessarily be a corresponding
diversity of institutions and domestic regulations,
adapted to the wants and necessities of each locality.
The framers of the Constitution knew that the laws and
institutions which were well adapted to the mountains
and valleys of New England were ill-suited to the rice
plantations and the cotton fields of the Carolines. Tbey
knew that our liberties depended upon reserving the
right to the people of each State to make their own
laws and establish their own institutions, and control
them at pleasure, without interference from the Federal
Government, or from any other State or Territory ,.or
any foreign country. The Constitution, therefore, was
based, and the Union was founded, on t he principle
of dissimilarity in the domestic institntionsand internal
polity of the several States. The Union was founded on
the theory that each State had peculiar interests, re
quiring peculiar legislation, and peculiar institutions,
different and distinct from every other State. The j
Union rests on the thcorv that no two States would
be precisely alike iu their domestic polity and institu
tions
Heuce, I assert that this doctrine of uniformity in the
domestic institutions of the dinerent States is repug
nant to the constitution, subversive of the principles up
on which the Union was based, revolutionary in its
character, and leading directly to despotism if it is ever
established. Uniformity in local and domestic affairs
in a country of great extent is despotism alwaj-s Show
me centralism prescribing uniformity from the capital
to all its provinces in their local and domestic concerns,
and 1 will show you a despotism as odious and as in
sufferable as that of Austria or of Naples. Dissimilarity-
is the principle upon which the Union rests. It is
founded upou the idea that each State must necessarily
require different regulations; that no two States have
precisely the same interests, and hence do not need pre
cisely the same laws; and you cannot account for this
confederation of States upon any other principle.
Then, sir, what becomes of this doctrine that slavery
must be established in all the States or prohibited in
all the States? If we only conform to the principles up
on which the federal Union was formed there can bc uo
conflict. It is only necessary to recognize the right of
the people of every State to have just such such institu
tions as the-please, without consulting your wishes,
your views, or your prejudices, and there can be no
conflict. Aud, sir, inasmuch as the constitution of Ihe
U. S. confers upon Congress the power coupled with the
duty of protecting each State against external aggres
sion, and inasmuch as that includes the power of sup
pressing aud punishing conspiracies in one State against
the institutions, property, people, or government of ev
ery other State, I desire to carry out that power vigor
ously. Sir, give us such a law as the constitution con
templates and authorizes, and I will shew the Senator
from New York that there is a constitutional mode of
repressing the "irrepressible conflict." I will open the
prison door to allow conspirators against the peace of
the Republic and the domestic tranquility of our States
to select their cells wherein to drag out a miserable life
as a punishment for their crimes against the peace of
society.
Can any man say to ns that although this outrage
has beeu perpetrated at Harper's Ferry, there is no dan
ger of its recurrence? Sir, is not the Republican party
still embodied, organized, confident of success, and de
fiant in its pretensions? Does it not now hold and pro
claim the same creed that it did before this invasion?
It is true that most of its representatives here disavow
the acts of John Brown at Harper's Ferry. I am glad
that they do so; I am rejoiced that they have gone thus
far; but I must be permitted to say to them that it is
not sufficient that they disavow the act, unless they also
repudiate and denounce the doctrines and teachings
which produced the act. Those doctrines remain the
same: ttiose tent-mugs are being poured into the minds
of men throughout the country bv means of speeches
and pamphlets and books and through partisan presses.
The causes that produced the Harper's Ferry invasion
are now in active operation. 13 it true that the people
of all the border Slates are required b- the constitution
to have their hands tied, without the power of self-defence,
and remain patient under a threatened invasion
in the day or in the night? Can 3-011 expect people to
be patient, when they dare not lie down to tleep at uight
without first stationing sentinels around their houses to
see if a band of marauders and murderers are not ap
proaching with torch and pistol? Sir, it requires more
patience than freemen ever should cultivate, to submit
to constant annoyance, irritation and apprehension. If
we expect to preserve this U nion, we must remedy,
within the Union and in obedience to the constitution,
every evil for w hich disunion would furnish a remedy.
If the rederal Government fails to act, either from
choice or from an apprehension of the want of power,
it cannot bc expected that the States will be content
to remain unprotected.
Then, sir, I see no hope of peace, of fraternity, of
good feeling between the different portions of the U. S.
except by bringing to bear the power of the Federal
Government to the extent authorized by the constitu
tion to protect the people of all the States against any
external violence or aggression. I repeat, that if the
theory of the constitution shall be carried out by con
ceding the right of the people of every State to have
just such institutions as they choose, there cannot be a
conflict, much less an "irrepressible conflict,'- between
the free and the slaveholding States.
Mr President, the mode of preserving peace is plain.
This system of sectional warfare must cease. The con
stitution has given the power, and all we ask of Con
gress is to give the means, and we, by indictments and
convictions in the Federal Courts of our several States,
will make such examples of the lenders of these con
spiracies as will strike terror into the hearts of others,
and there will be an end of this crusade. Sir, yon must
check it by crushing out the conspiracy, the combina
tion, and then there can be safetv. Then we shall be
able to restore that spirit of fraternity which inspired
our revolutionary fathers upon every battle field; which
presided over the deliberations of the Convetitiou which
framed the constitution, and filled the hearts of the
people who ratified it. Then we shall be able to de
monstrate to yon that there is no evil unredressed in
the Union for which disunion would furnish a remedy.
Then, sir, let us execute the Constitution in the spirit
in which it was made. Let Congress pass all the laws
necessary and proper to give full and complete effect to
every guarantee of the constitution. Let them anthor-
ize the punishment of conspiracies and combinations in
will be no excuse, do desire, for disunion. men, sir,
let ns leave the people of every State perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic institutions in their
own way. Let each of them retain slavery just as long
as it pleases, and abolish it when it chooses. Let us
act upon that good old golden principle which teaches
all men to mind their own business and let their neigh
bors alone. Let this be done and : this Union can en
dure forever as our fathers made it, composed of free
and slave States, just as the people of each State may
determine for themselves.
Mr Feseenden, of Maine, having replied at length to
Mr Douglas, he made the following rejoinder: ; ;
Mr Douglass. Mr President, I shall not follow the
Senator from Maine through his entire speech, but aim
pry notice such points as demand of me some reply. He
does not know why I introduced my resolution; he can
not conceive any good motive for it ; he thinks there
must be some other motive besides the one that hai
been avowed. There are some men, I know, who caa
not conceive that a man can be governed by a patriotic
or proper motive; but it is not among that class of men
that I look for those who are-gevetwed bymotlvea of
propriety. I have no Impeachment to make of his mo
tives. I brought in this resolution because I thought
tbe time had arrived when we should have a measure
of practical legislation. I had seeu expressions of opin
ion against the power from authorities so high that I
felt it my duty to bring it to the attention of the Senate.
I had heard that the Senator from Virginia had intima
ted eome doubt on the question of power, as well at of
policy. Other Senators d'scussed the question here for
weeks when I was confined to my sick bed. Was there
anything unreasonable in my coming before the Senate
at this time, expressing my own opinion and confining
myself to the practical legislation indicated in the reso
lution? Nor, sir, have I in my remarks gone outside of
the legitimate argument pertaining to the necessity for
this legislation. I first showed that there had been a
great outrage; I showed what I believed to be the cau
ses that had prodeced the outrage, and that the causes
which prodnged it were still in operation; and argued
that, so long as the party to which the gentleman be
longs remains embodied in full force, those causes will
still threaten the country. That was all.
The Senator from Maine thiuks lie will vote, for the
bill that v. ill be proposed to carry out the objects re
ferred to in my resolution. Sir, whenever tbat Senator
and his associates on tiie other side of the chamber will
record their votes for n bill of the character described
in my resolution and speech, I thnll congratulate the
country upon the progress they are making towards
sound principles. Whenever he and his associates will
make it a felony for two or more men to conspire to run
oft fugitive slaves, and punish the conspirators by con
finement in the penitentiary, I shall ronsider-that won
derful changes have taken place in this country. I tell
the Senator that it is the general tone of sentiment in
all those sections of the country where the Republican
party predominates, so fur as I know, not only not to
deem it a crime to rescue a fugitive slave, but to raise
mobs to aid in the rescue. He talks about slandering
the Republican party when we intimate that they are
making a warfare upon the rights guarantied by the
constitution. Sir, where, in the towns and cities with
Republican majorities, can you execute the fugitive
slave law? Is it in the town where the Senator from
New York risides? Do you remember the Jerry rescu
ers? Is it at Oberlin, where the mob was raised that
made the rescue last year and produced the riot?
MrFcssenden. I stated, and I believe it wes all I
said on that matter, that I was disposed to agree with
the Senator iu his views ns to the question of power; &
that, with iny views, I should go very far far enough
to accomplish the purpose to preveut the forming of
conspiracies in one State to attack another. I did not,
understand the Senator to say anything about conspira
cies to run away with slaves; nor did I understand him
to say anything about the fugitive slave law. How I
should act in reference to that matter I do not know; I
will meet it when it comes; but I ask the Senator whe
ther that was a part of his first-speech, or whether it is
a part of his reply? , ' '
Mr Douglass. The Senator will find it several times
repeated in my first speech, and the question asked :
Why not make it a crime to form conspiracies and com
binations to run off fugitive slaves, as well as to run oft
horses or any other property? I am talking about con
spiracies which arc so common iu all our Northern
States, to invade and enter, through their agents, the
slave States, and seduce away slaves and run them off
by the underground railroad in order to send them to
Canada. It is these conspiracies to perpetrate crime
with impunity, that keep up the irritation. John Brown
could boast, in a public lecture in Cleveland, that he
and his band had been engaged all winter in stealing
horses and running them off from the slaveholders in
Missouri, and that the livery stables were then filled
with stolen horses, aud yet the conspiracy to do it
could not be punished.
Sir, I desire a law that will make it a crime, punish
able by imprisonment in the penitentiary, after convic
tion in the United States court, to make a conspiracy
in one State, against the people, property, government,
or institutions, of another. Then we sIikII get at the
root of the evil. I have no doubt that gentlemen on
the other side will vote for a law which pretends to
comply with the guarantees of the Constitution, without
carrying any force or efficiency in its provision. I
have heard men ubuse the fugitive slave law, and ex
press their willingness to vote for amendments; but
when vou came to the amendments they desired to
adopt, you found they were such ns would never re
turn a fugitive to his master. They would go for fugi
tive slave law that had a hole in it Licr enough to let
the negro drop through and escape; but none that would
comply with the obligations of the Constitution. So
we shall find that side of the Chamber voting for a law
that will, in terms, disapprove of unlawful expeditions
against neighboring Stales, without being eflicicnt ia
affording protection. v
But the Senator says it is a port of the policy of the
northern Democracy to represent the Republicans as
being hostile to southern institutions. Sir. it is a part
of the policy of the northern Democracy, as well as
their duty, to speak the truth on that subject. 1 did
not suppose that any man would have the audacity to
arraign a brother feenator here tor reeenling the
Republican party as dealing in denunciation and insult
of the institutions of the South. Look to your Phila
delphia platform, where you assert the sovereign power
of Congress over the Territories for their government,
and demand that it shall be exerted against those twin,
relics of barbarism polyiraniy and slavery.
Mr Fessendcn. Let me suggest to the Senator tbat
he is entirely changing the isue between him and me.
I did not desire to say, and I did not say, that the Re
publicans cf the North were not unfriendly to the insti
tution of slarery. I admitted myself that I was; I trust
they all arc. It if not in that respect that I accuse tbe
Democracy of the North of nusreprc seating the Repub
lican party. It was in representing that they desired
to interfere with the institution in the southern States.
That is the ground that they were opposed to south-
crn rights. That they do not think well of shivery as
it exists in this country. I do not undertake to deny. I
do not know tbat southern gentle cien expect us to be
friendly to it. I apprehend that they would not think
very well of a if we pretended to be friendly to it. If we
were friendly to the institution, we should try to adopt,
we certainly should not oppose it; but what I charged
upon the northern Democracy wns, that they misrepre
sented our position. That we were opposed to the ex
tension of slavery over free territory, tbat we called it
a relic of barbarism, I admit; but I do deny that tne
Republican party, or the Republicans generally, bare
ever exhibited a desire or made a movement towards -interfering
with the rights of southern men, the States,
or any constitutional rights that tbey have anywhere.
Tbat is the charge I made. '
Mr Douglas. Mr President,' ft' what purpose does
the Republican party appeal to northern passions end
northern prejudices against southern institutions and
southern people, unless it is to operate upon those in
stituti. ns ? They represent southern institutions as no
better than polygamy; tbe slaveholder as no better thaw
the poiygamist; and complain that we should intimate.
that tbey did not like to associate with tbe slaveholder
anv better thaa witn tne poiygarnist. J can see a mont
1
strous lowering of the flag in tbe Senator's speech SJid .
explanation. I would respect the concession, if the
fact were acknowledged. This thing of shrinking frons
position that every northern man knows to be truer
Continued on the 4th page. J
3rf.. -mt.ZKJrlk mS-Jk&Jm