The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1860-02-03
SPEECH OF STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS
IN THE SENATE,
ON HIS HARPER's FERRY RESOLUTIONS.

ON HIS HARPER's FERRY RESOLUTIONS.
From the Cincinnati Enquirer.
WASHINGTON, January %, 1860.
The Senate to-day was crowded to its
utmost capacity, to hear the speech of the
Senator from Illinois, Mr.. Douglas. Every
available space was crowded one hour and
half before the body met, nearly all the
galleries being monopolIzed by ladies.
Mr.. Douglas never opened in better voice,
and spoke to greater advantage. He was
listened to with marked attention. Upward
of one hundred members of the House of
Representatives were present on the floor
of the Senate. l send you full abstract
of the speech.
Fessenden replied with unusual want of
ability and spirit. He made the lamest
effort ever delivered by Republican Sena-
tor. He utterly repudated for the Repub-
lican party any endorsement of the extreme
views of Messrs. Seward & Co.
Judge Douglas commenced his remarks
by saying that on the 2lst of November
last the Governor of Virginia addressed an
official communication to the President of
the United States, in which he said: In
formation from various quarters, upon
which rely, state that conspiracy of for
midable extent, in means and numbers, is
formed in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
and other States to rescue John Brown and
his associates, prisoners at Charlestown, Va.
The information is specific enough to be re.
liable. And again, places in Maryland,
Ohio and Pennsylvania have been occupied
as'depots and rendezvous for these despera-
does, unobstructed by guards or otherwise,
to invade this State, and we are kept in
continual apprehension of outrage, from fire
and rapine. I apprise you of these facts in
order that you may take steps to preserve
peace between the States.
On November, 28th, the President of the
United States replied to Governor Wise as
follows :;
81 am at loss to discover any provision in
tho Constitution or laws of the United States
which would authorize me to take steps for
this purpose to preserve peace between the
States.''
This announcement leads to the inquiry,
whether there is no constitutional power
within the Union to protect each State
against invasion from other States. Secu.
rity from invasion is indispensable to the
welfare of every community. No people,
| State or nation are safe without complete
security against external violence. To in
sure such protection, all nations must sup
port armies and maintain navies. Before
the adoption of our Federal Constitution,
the several States had each its army and
navy to protect itself against foreign ma
tions. By the Constitution the power to
raise and support an army and to provide
and maintain a navy was surrendered to the
Federal Government by the several States,
10 order to show that this power is vested
exclusively in the United States, and posi-
lively forbids them to be exercised by the
State The Constitution provides that no
State shall keep troops and maintain ships
OF war in time of peace.
When the States delegated to Congress
the means which they had of self-preserva~
ton against invasion, and assented to this
prohibition, did they understand that there
was no power vested in the Federal Gov
ernment to preserve peace between the
States, by protecting each from invasion by
the others? Were the smaller otates to be
left to the mercy of the larger ones? Was
it the intention Of the trainers Of the Consti
tuition, that each State should have its hands
tied and be stripped of the means of SELF
defence, and be exposed to invasion with
impunity by organized bands of marauders
and desperadoes, to murder and rob its citi
zens, burn their dwellings,, and incite servile
insurrection? These questions naturally
arise in any mans mind, on rejecting upon
the official announcement that there is nc
provision of the Constitution and Laws OIL
the United States to preserve the peace be.
tween the States, and protect each against
invasion from the others.
They are everywhere propounded by
good men with the view of ascertainine
whether there is no constitutional remedy
in the Union for evils which are intolerable
and can never be submitted to by any free
people. Those who have been induced tc
believe that the Constitution neither pro
vides nor permits adequate protection against
the recurrence of these outrages, naturally
but reluctantly entertain the alternative o.
disunion as less evil than submission, be
cause it would restore to exposed States the
right to keep troops and ships of war ii
time of peace and means of selfdefence
This leads me to require whether we can no
and ought not to protect and maintain every
right, redress and punish every wrong com
planned Of; whether the Union in pursuance
of the Constitution, as stated in the preamble
was to insure domestic tranquility. One O
the means provided in the Constitution fol
insuring domestic tranquility is, that th,
Federal Government shall protect eacl
State and its inhabitants against externa
violence, whether such violence proceed from
foreign nations, or from the other States o
the Union, the Constitution provided il
clear and explicit terms against the invasion