Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-05-19
IhsI sfalaata.
SPEECH OF
EroN. THOMAS L. CLINGMAN,
or NoRTH-cARoLIsA.


irered in the Senate Of the United States, Aay
d 8, 1860,
The Senate having under consideration the reso-
buttons offered by Mr. Davis of Misslss'ppi-Mr'
Clingman 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
differ with him; and Notwithstanding the a'eness
of the hour If Senators will indulge me, shall en-
deavor To state them If understand his resolutions
Alright, they contemplate Intervention oy Congress
for the protection in the Territories OF property IN
slaves For some years past we have STOOD ON the
doctrine of nonntervention, and there is no middle
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 iegis
lation to protect or to regulate property in slaves
IF YOU depart from the principle of non-ntervention,
and egslate to protect property in slaves, you ne
cessariy make some sort of slave code, and it 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 Jurlsdc-
ton over the Territories; and voted for the eX-
tension of the Missouri compromise line to the Pa
cific That necessarily implied two things: hrst,
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 provso that north of the line Of So deg.
80 min. slavery or involuntary servitude 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
Government had authority to establish or protect
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 l am free to say that subsequently
changed my opinion; and prior to the decision in
the bred Scott case published my views in accord
ance with the doctrine laid down in that decision,
a. understand it. That however, is merely per-
sonal to myself, and cannot affect the Senate.
But sir in 1S47 General Cass brought forward
the non-intervention doctrine. He was sustained by
Daniel S. Dickinson and by John c. Calhoun, and
other distinguished statesmen and though was
then an opponent of it, I am free to say that be-
lieve its advocates 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,
1S4S he said:
"There is very striking difference between the
position in which the slaveholding and non-Slave-
holding States stand in reference tn the subject
der consideration. The former desire 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 as they continue to be Territories and when
they cease to be So to leave it to their inhabitants
to form such governments as may suit them, with
out restriction condition. except that imposed by
the Constitution as 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 seifgovernment
place it."
What further did he saw?
"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, if it be left there, climate
SOIL and other circumstances would fix the line be-
tween the slaveholdng and non-slaveholding States
in about SO deg. 80 min. 1t may zig-zag little, to
accommodate itself to circumstances; sometimes
passing to the north and at others to the south of
it. but 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 go further, and hold that justice and the
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 emf grafton 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 cam
not safely take this broad and solid position and
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
tioIal convention in that year.
" If it cannot maintain itself by appeal to the
great principles Of justice, the Constitution and
to what other sufficiently strong
to uphold them in public opinion. can they appeals
greatly mistake the character of the people of the
Union, if such an appeal would not prove success
ful if either party should have the magnanimity TO
step forward and boldly make it. 1t would, in nv
opinion, be received with shouts of appreciation by
the patriotic and intelligent in every quarter There
is deep feeling pervading the country that the
Union and our political institutions are in DANCER
which such a course would dispel"- AppendiT to
Congressional Globe first session Thirtieth Con.
gress, p. 672.
That position was taken by him and Others. and
maintained, and gradually obtained strength until
IN 1880 1t received majority of the votes of the
southern members and of the Democratic Marty and
became part of the public law of the country
hold, sir, that this was emphatically compromise
between the sections; and propose now to Give
several reasons why am for maintaining it abonob
at the time 1t was adopted was opposed to II. Il
place this view in the foreground; northern gentle.
men, be it recollected, insisted on the Wimot
preyso to prohibit slavery in the Territories and
we of the South claimed protection. When the
Wilmot proyiso was brought up there were only
seven or eight Democrats in the House of Represen-
tatives who resisted it Among them recoIlec, tho
Senator from Illinois (Mr Douglass and his colleaene
at that time, who is now a member of tSo a,Sae
House .nd who was voted for at an early dav of ths
session Tor Speaker, lMr. MeClernand) Excepting
in the public councils from the North who onnosad
it Many men Of the North said, IF we are to
legslate to FIX the status of the Territories as We
represent free Communities. we will carry out Their
views; butsif you think proper to turn over the
whole Question to the people, under the Constitn.
ton, wezwill Join you in that ann vote a., az