Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1860-05-23
,.E.zTdso:8fa,uqaato.@
SPEECH oF
HON. THOMAS L. CLINGMAN,
= OF NoRrH-CAROLiNA.

On tho subjsctof Congressional Liquidation as to
the right Of property in the 7srrito'iss re
aipered in the Senate Of the United 'States MAY
7& g., 1860.
The Senate having under consideration the reso-
buttons offered by Mr.. Davis of Mississlppl-Mr.
CHngman said:
MI. President: Most Of the speech Of the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. Davis) cordially approve
There are one or two points, however, IN which l
differ with him; and Notwithstanding the laeness
of the hour, If Senators will indulge me, shall en-
doayor to state them If understand his resolutions
Alright they contemplate intervention by Congress
for the protection in the Territories, OF property IN
slaves For some years past We have stood on the
doctrine of nonintervention, and there IS no miooe
ground which we can take
The Senator from Mississippi says that he does
not approve of slave code. Well sir, what are we
to understand by slave code? take it to be egs-
laton to protect or to regulate property in slaves
IF you depart from the principle of intervention,
and legisate to protect property in slaves you ne
ccssarly make some sort of slave code and 1t may
be either . short one or long one
am opposed to departing at this time. from the
policy of non-intervention | was not one OF the
original advocates Of that measure On the contrary,
twelve or fifteen years ago, in common with the
great BODY of the South maintained the opinion
that the Federal Government had complete jursdlc-
ton over the Territories and voted for the ex-
tension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pa
cRc. That necessarily implied two things: first,
that Congress had power to prohibit slavery in the
Territories; second, that it had power to establish
or protect it; because the original Missouri COM
promise line declared in the exact terms of the
Wimot proviso, that north of the line of 36 deg.
80 min slavery or involuntary servtude never
should exist, while it was allowed to remain south
of it. Every one of us who voted for the extension
of that line thereby necessarily admitted that this
Id AUTH ;fv IN ecfohlich nrotpct
slavery in Territory, and also to prohibit it. We
were all sworn to support the Constitution; and if
we had denied the power, we could not have given
the vote I am free to say that | subsequently
changed my opinion and prior to the decision in
the bred Scott case published my viewsin accord
ance with the doctrine laid down in that decision,
as understand it. That, however, is merely per-
sonal to myself and cannot affect the Senate.
But sir, in 1917, General Cass brought forward
the non-intervention doctrine. He sustained by
Daniel s. Dickinson and by John c. Calhoun and
other distinguished statesmen; and though was
then an opponent of it, am free to say that be-
lieve its advocates were perhaps nearer right than
was So remarkable was the statement of Mr.. Cal
houn at that time that shall ask the indulgence Of
the Senate for single moment while read few
extracts from his speech Some of his remarks
were almost prophetic, and anything from him has
great weight with gentlemen of the school to which
the Senator from Mississippi and myself belong. In
his opening remarks in his speech Of June 9th,
1S48 he said:
"There is very striking difference between the
position in which the slavchOding and non-save
holding States stand in reference tn the subject
der consideration. The former desire no action of
the Government; demand no law to give them any
advantage in the Territory about to be established;
are willing to leave it. and other Territories belong
ing to the United States open to all their citizens
so long they continue to he Territories and when
they to be So to leave it tn their inhabitants
to form such governments as may suit them. with
out restriction condition, except that imposed by
the Constitution prerequisite for admission in
to the Union In Short they are willing to leave
the whole subject where the Constitution and the
great and fundamental principles Of seif-government
place it."
What further did he say?
"Nor should the North fear that, by leaving it
where justice and the Constitution leave it she
would be excluded from her full share of the Terri
tories. In my opinion il it be left there climate,
tween the slavehoding and non-slaveholding States
in about SO deg. 80 min. Itmay zig-zag little, to
accommodate itself to circumstances; sometimes
passing to the north and at others to the south of
it; hut that would matter little and would be more
satisfactory to ALL and tend less to alienation be-
tween the two great sections than rigid, straight
artificial line prescribed by an act Of Congress"
"But 20 further, and hold that Justice and the
Constitution are the easiest and safest guide on
which the question can be settled regarded in refer
ence to party. 1t may be settled on that ground
simply by non-action-by leaving the Territories
free and open to the emigration of all the world so
long as they continue so; and when they become
States to adopt whatever constitution they please,
with the single restriction to be republican in order
to their admission into the Union If party can
mot In foko hsc hroo md solid
successfully maintain it, what other it take and
maintain ?"
" Remember this was an earnest exhortation to the
Democratic party, prior to the assemblage of its ma
tional convention in that year.
IF it cannot maintain itself by an appeal to the
great principles of justice the Constitution, and
selfgovernment, to what other, sufficiently strong
to uphold them in public opinion can they appeal
greatly mistake the character of the people of the
Union if such an appeal would not prove success
full. if either party should have the magnanimity to
step forward and boldly make it. 1t would in my
opinion, be received with shouts of appreciation by
the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter There
il . deep feeling pervading the country that the
Union and our political institutions are in danger
which such course would dispel"-Appendir t.
Congressional Globe, first session Thirtieth Con
gfess, p. 872.
That position was taken by him and others, and
maintained, and gradually obtained strength until
in 1850, it received majority of the votes of thu
southern members and of the Democratic party ani
became part of the public law of the country
hold, sir, that this was emphaticaly q compromise
between the sections and propose now to Civ,
several reasons why am for maintaining it. although
at the time it was adopted was opposed to it.
place this view in the foreground; northern gentle
men, be it recollected, insisted on the Wilmo
provso, to prohibit slavery in the Territories, ant
we Of the South claimed protection. When tn,
Wilmot proviso was brought up there were onl,
seven or eight Democrats in the House of RepreseiI
.tatives who resisted it Among them recolIect tn
senator from Illinois mr. Dohglas) and his colleague
at that time, who is now a member of the ot6e
House. and who was voted for at an early day of tn
session for Speaker (Mr. McClernand.) Excepting
those gentlemen, believe, there is no one else nov
an the public councils from the North who oppose,
It. Many men Of the North said "If we are t
legslate to fix the status of the Territories as "
represent free communities. we will carry out thei
Views but if you think proper to turn over tn
l-l-