Bradford reporter. [volume] (Towanda, Pa.) 1844-1884, 1856-12-18

| the party What said in the letter TO which
one Of the Senators has alluded, aud what
said substantially in the remarks which have
made i'll this debate, was merely, that if the
party came into power avowing the purposes
which they avowed, and prepared to execute
them, it would necessarily result in dissolu.
ton of the Union, and then, so far as the South
was concerned, it should be immediate and
| eternal
| Mr. TRUMBTLL wish TO examine that
position. 1t is this-l will endeavor to state
it in the language of the Senator-that If the
Republican party came into power With tho
! principles which they avowed, it would reces-
sarily result in the dissolution Of the Union.
and that, as far as be and the Sonth were con-
cerned, it should bFimmediate aud eternal
| Now what principles did We ayow Is there
| any one hostile to the South ? say we arrow
no principle upon this subject about which We
are now speaking, except those avowed by
Thomas Jefferson himself, by Washington, and
by Monroe. Is it any cause for dissolution
OF the Union that particular man is elected
President Manifestly not and the Senator
from Virginia does not contend for that
Mr.. RUSk. Will the Senator from Hi.
noiS allow me TO ask him question
Mr.. TRUMBUIL. Certainly.
Mr.. RUSk He and others have attribu..
ed the sentiment on which he is now comment
ing SO eloquentiy to the southern States
desire to ask him If be does not know that &c
had its origin in the northern States with one
of the candidates for the Presidency 2 Did he
| not first make the declaration that the even.
alluded to would dissolve the Union +?
Mr.. TRUMBULL. i am not the defender
any third party. whose candidate may have
made declarations as to the dissolution of the
Union. | say that the great Fremont party
entertain and avow no such sentiment
Mr.. RCSk The Senator msunderstsnds
me- | do not ask him to defend Mr. Fillmore;
but ask him to make the charge not against
the South, but against the individual who com.
mitted the offense
Mr. HALE and Mr.. SEWARD. That is
fair
Mr.. TRUMBULL do not care who
makes the charge that the election Of Colonel
Fremont to the Presidency would dissolve the
Union. / say it is baseess charge and
manifestly it could not prevail, come from what
party it may. The Senator from Virginia does
not put himself now on the fact Of any partic-
ular man being elected. but Oh the principles
avowed. To that | will pay attention in
moment !; but | wish first 10 dispose Of the cla-
NOR which has been raised in some parts Of the
country, that the election of particular man
is cause for dissolution Of the Union.
Why, sir, neither Col. Fremont nor any
other person can be elected President Of the
United States except ia the constitutional
mode ; and if any individual is elected Pres-
dent in the mode prescribed by the Constitu-
! ton, is that cause for a dissolution OF the I'm
! ion ? AsSuredly not If it be, the Constitu-
, ton contains within itself the elements OF It's
own destruction. The great principle lying at
! the bottom Of the institutions Of the country.
and Of the Constitution itself Is, that we must
acquicsce ia the decisions Of the majority. con-
stitutionally expressed, in the selection Of Off
GERS ; and until the person elected does some
overt act violating the Constitution, latl ne
sets on foot some measure destructive Of the
! Government, the fact that he is elected Prcs-
dent in the constitutional mode affords no rea-
son whatever for the dissolution Of the Union
Then wculd there have been any reason for its
dissolution if the Republican party had sue
ceeded with its avowed sentiments .-
Now, what were its avowcd sentiments on
| the subject of slavery Opposition to lis ex
tension opposition to the spread of slavery
/ into the Territories, and declaration Of the
right of Congress to prohibit slavery i'll the
/ Territories Of the United States. Is that Il
cause for dissolution Of this Union? l know
that the Senator has said that it matters no;
! to him whether The Interference IS With slavery
outside Of the States or within the States
but think the cases are very different.
think we have no right and that there is no
intention on the part of the great body G: the
people of the North, to interfere with slavery
in the States but think there Is al utcn-
! ton to prevent It's extension outside Of States
into free Territories ; ana there is a very great
/ difference between these positions
Well sir, if the prevalence OF these opin.
! ions be a cause for d dissolution of the Cn,on.
which should be immedae ana eteraal, why,
! | ask, wGs not this Government dissolved Il q
| year Of its formation How did il happen
| that the very first Congress which ever met un-
der the Constitution &C thc United States
adopted and reafirncd that ordinance eSclud-
( ing slavery from the whole Northwest Why
was not the Union ticn dissolved If Il is a
cause in 1856 for dissolution OF the Union
! tc exclude slavery from Kansas and Nebraska.
was it not a cause in l1S9 whc, slavery was
. eXclndcd from the territory now covered br
the States Of Ohio Indiana, Illinois, Wiscon
sin, and Michigan Why, | ask again, in
/ 1920, when Mr. Monroe was President Of the
United States. was not the Union dissolved
/ Immediately and cternailE : Slavery was then
/ hv act of Congress cxcmied from the free ter
ritorv from which We now wish to exclude it.
II this he reason for diSsoving the Union
now, was it not reason for dissolution then
How did Mr., Monroe, from the State of Fir
ginia himself approve hiII excluding it from
that territory? Why sir. it is manifest that
the public sentiment Of this country has very
much changed if this is a cause for dissolution
of the Union now. In former times these acts
of Congress cxcIuding slavery from the North
west and from, the Territories Of Kansas and