The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-12-18

! court OF the United States be any authority
Congress can exclude it from one of the Nationa
Territories, because it possesses in a TERRITORY
/ all the power which State possesses over it
inhabitants, and possesses also the power which
the Federal Government exercises over tn,
! States When it is said that Congress canno
exercise this power unless the Constitution gives
! 1t, that is begging the question. The decision Of
/ the Court, the language of the Judge, is, tina
! Congress has the power. He could not say that
If the Constitution did not give it. If the Con
| stitution denied the power, how could the Judge
! say that Congress possessed it? He had the
1 Constitution in view when writing this opinion
| Sir, the doctrine now advanced is new and
modern discovery. Congress formerly possessed
and exercised this power, and nobody doubted
| 1t. For the first fifty years of the Government
the power undisputed. 1t is new discov-
| cry that Congress does not now possess it.
But, sir, let me resume the consideration Of
| the message. The President tells us that " il
was imputed" that the measure of which he i:
| speaking, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise
originated in the conception of extending thu
limits of slave labor beyond those previously as
| signed to it, and that such was its natural a!
well as intended effect and these bdseless Gssump
tons made in the Northern States the ground
| of unceasing assault upon constitutional right
! Here the President informs us that the charge
made against those who repealed the Missouri
i Compromise, that it was intended or conceived
with the purpose of extending the limits of Sla-
very beyond those pre- iousy assigned TO it, was
| baseless assumption.
Now, what does the Senator from Virginia tell
US? lie says that under the Constitution the
| South has a right 10 a legitimate expansion OF
Slavery, and it is the right to expand the insttu-
ton upon which he insists. When we charge
that the design was TO extend Slavery into the
| free Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, the
| President says it is q baseless assumption. The
| Senator from Virginia informs US that be insists
| on the right to the expansion of Slavery. Who
is rght2 He tells us, further, that the people in
| four OF the Northern States united in keeping out
| Of power that party which would have severed
the Union into fragments How would they
have severed it into fragments, | should like to
| llGow2 Did they propose to dissolve iii Did
they propose to encrOach on the rights of the
States? They declared that the rights of the
States should be preserved. How were they
going to dissolve the Union Was it in any
other way than this: 1t has been stated here,
to-day, in the Senate, that if Colonel Fremont
were elected the Union must be and ought to be
dissolved Because particular man is elected
President of the United States, is that any reason
for dissovng the Union?
Mr. MASON viii the Senator allow me to
interrupt him for a moment?
Mr.. TRUMBULL. Certainly.
Mr. MASON What / said was this: that if
which they did avOw, it would necessarily result
in a dissolution Of the Union, whether they de-
sired il or not. II was utterly immaterial who
WAS their President he might have been a
OF straw; | alluded to the purposes of the party.
What / said in the letter to which one of the
Senators has alluded and what | said substan-
TALLY in the remarks which have made in this
debate, was merely that if the party came into
power ayowing the purposes which they avowed,
a raI no
~ result in a dissolution of the Union, and then,
so far rs the South was concerned, it should be
immediate and eternal.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. | wish to examine that posi-
ton. Ii is this will endeavor to state it in
the language of the Senator-that if the Re-
publican party came into power with the princi-
pies which they avowed, it would necessarily
result in the dissolution of the Union, and that,
50 far as he and the South were concerned, it
should be immediate and eternal. Now, what
principles did we avOw? Is there any one hos
tile to the South | say we avow no principle
upon this subject about which we are now speak
ing, except those avowed by Thomas Jefferson
himself, by Washington, aud by Monroe. Is it
any cause for dissolution of the Union, that a
particular man is elected President? Manifestly
not: and the Senator from Virginia does not con-
tend for that.
Mr.. RUSK. VIII the Senator from Illinois
allow me to ask him question?
Nr. TRUMBULL. Certainly.
Mr.. RUSH lie and others have attributed
the sentiment on which he is now commenting
so eloquently, to the Southern States. / desire
to ask him if he does not know that it had its
origin in the Northern States with of the
candidates for the Presidency? Did he not first
make the declaration that the event alluded to
would dissolve the Union?
Mr.. TRUMBULL. 1 am not the defender of 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.. BUSK. The Senator misunderstands 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 committed
the offence.
Mr.. HALE and Mr.. SEWARD. That is fair.
Mr.. TRUMBULL. ! do not care who makes
the charge that the election of Colonel Fremont
20 the Presidency would dissolve the Union. l
say it is a basecss 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 particular being
elected, but on the principles avowed. To that
will pay attention in a moment; but wish first
to dispose Of the clamOr which has been raised
in some parts of the country that the election of
a particular man is cause for a dissolution of
the Union.
Why, sir, neither Colonel Fremont nor any
other person can be elected President of the Uni
ted States except in the constitutional mode; and
if any individual is elected President in the mode
prescribed 10y the Constitution, is that cause FOR
a dissolution Of the Union? Assuredly not. If
it be, the Constitution contains within itself the
elements of IFS own destruction. The great prin-
ciplc lying the bottom of the institutions of the
country, and OF the Constitution itself, is, that
we must acquiesce in the decision of the majority,
constitutionally expressed, in the selection of
officers; and until the person elected does some
overt act violating the Constitution, until he sets
on foot some measure destructive OF the Govern
ment. the fact that he is elected President in the
constitutional mode affords reason whatever
for the dissolution of the Union Then would
there have been any reason for its dissolution, if
the Republican party had succeeded with its
ayOwcd sentiments?
Now, what were its avOwed sentiments on the
subject OF Slavery Opposition to its extension ;
opposition to the spread of Slavery into the Ter
ritores, and declaration the right of Congress
to prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the Uni
ted States. Is that cause for a dissolution of this
| Union2 know that the Senator has said that
il matters not 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
4
people of the North, to interfere with Slavery in
| the States; but think there is an intention to
prevent its extension outside of States into free
Territories and there is a very great difference
between these positions.
Well, sir, if the prevalence Of these opinions
he a cause for n dissolution of the Union, which
/ should be immediate and eternal, why, | ask
| was not this Government dissolved the year Of
its formation? How did it happen that the very
/ Como ,rlti oh -fi
tuition of the United States adopted and reafiirm.
| cd that ordinance eXcluding Slavery from tht