The weekly north Iowa times. [volume] (McGregor, Iowa) 1857-1867, 1861-04-17
SPEECH OF
Stephen A. Douglas,
IN REPLY TO Howe, OF WIS, AND OTHERS
Delivered March 25th. 1861.

Del,cered March 2Mh. 1861.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, have
been forcibly struck with the peculiar rea
sons which the Senator from Wisconsin has
assigned for opposing the resolution which
offered. First, he thinks it unnecessary to
adopt it, because i seem to possess all the
information expected to be ELECTED by it.
and therefore it is unnecessary for other
Senators to possess it; secondly, he objects
to its adoption, because he does not think
the War Department possesses the infor.
nation; third, he thinks it unnecessary to
adopt it, because the late administration,
being in possession Of the information, inn
parted it to all the seces>ionists in the con-
fcdsrate States privately; and fourth, that
since the secessionists possess it, it is not
prudent for US to let our own people have
it. Those are the four reasons why the
resolution ought not to be adopted. They
are so consistent anc harmonious that I
shall not attempt to resist the force of them
Mr.. HOWE. If the Senator would pre-
fer to reply to those reasons, am quite
willing he should; but will state to him
in justice, that he is entirely mistaken in
the reasons which gave, the last two es
peeialy.
Mr.. DorGLAs. listened to the Senator
attentively, and looked over the report, as
full as could find it in the newspapers,
and found it sustained that construction.
If the War Department does not possess
the information, certainly there would be
no harm in adopting the resolution and get.
ting that answer If this information has
been impaired to the confederate States,
and the enemy are in possession of it, there
certainly can be no harm in letting our peo.
pie have it,
But, sir, Iapprehend it would tend to allay
the public excitement to have this informa-
ton attcsted SO that it would appear that
there was but one fort within the limits of
the confederate States now in possession of
the United States. OF course, I except
I Fort Sumter, inasmuch as understand the
order has been given for surrendering it up.
There is but one where a collision could
take plaes. Iapprehend that Fort Pickcns
| is the only one within the limits of the con-
federate States in the possession Of the
United States. If there is any other I
should like to know it, 1t may be sup
posed, perhaps, that Key West and Tortu-
gas, or Forts Taylor and jefferson, as they
are called in the War Department, are with.
| in the limits of the confederate States, but
that is entirely a mistake. The confederate
States, being revolutionary government,
hold whatever they actually occupy, and no
more. Revolution takes nothing by impli-
| cation; and inasmuch as the confederate
States have never be n in possession Of Key
West or Tortugas, it cannot bc said that
| those places are within the limits of the
confederate States under their revolutionary
government Besides, those two places are
national fortitications, built for general de-
tensc--fortifications in which the commerce
| of Maine has thousand fold more interest
han Florida. Those are places which we
should hold under all ci cumstances, wheth-
r. the cotton States should be restored to
US, or whether they shall be permanently
separated from us.
desired to find out whether the policy
is to be peace or war. | believe it to be
peace. Others dissent from that view of
The Inaugural. The Senator from WiScon
| sin has just called upon me to assure the
| the southern States that it was not the pur-
pose of the Republican Administration to
invade the rights or make war upon the
| people of the South That Senator forgets
that when put that construction upon the
side of the Chamber that was officiouSly
constituting the inaugural, and now he inn
plores me again to do that for which | was
| rebuked when did do it. apprehend the
Senator will find that the construction |
put upon the inaugural was the true one,
and the policy which have Indicated in the
remarks that have made is the one which
will be pursued, whether it was originally
designed or not. have had occasion to ru-
mark heretofore, that when minorties be-
come majorities they oft n find it necessary
| TO pursue a policy which they were in the
habit of condemning before they assumed
| the responsibilities Of power; and | trust
that those who arc now at the head of the
Government are going to show themselves
equal to the emergency, and do whatever
the peace and safety and unity Of this Gov
ernment require, regardless of what they
/ thought they would do when canyassing for
votes previous to the election.
| The Senator does not like the arguments
by which have enforced my views in this
discussion. He objects to my arguments
because, he says, they tend to belittle the
Government and people Of the United
States. How? Do belittle the Govern
ment by telling the people that the PrcSi
dent has no constitutional or legal authority
to do a thing which the Constitution and
laws forbid? Does he controvert the truth
or accuracy of any fact or any principle of
| law that asserted? What was it said,
and demonstrated, that this Administration
had no power to do? First, that they had
no power to collect the revenue anywhere
else than at the places designated by law;
and hence their threat that they were going
to collect revenue on shipboard, was threat
to violate the laws of the land Second,
that under the Constitution and laws, no
Administration has any power to blockade
the ports Of this country; and hence the
threat to blockade the southern ports was
threat to violate the Constitution and laws
Of the land. Third, that the President can
not righttully use the military force to exc
cute the law, except in aid Of the civil au
thorlties; and hence the threat to do it
without such legal authority was threat
| to violate the Constitution and laws DEM
onstrating these three propositions, the
Senator thinks is belittling the Government
and people of the United States Is it wise
to tell our people that the President has
lawful authority to do that which the Con-
stitution and laws forbid? Is it wise to de-
lude them into the belief that the party just
assuming power is going to do that which
the Constitution and laws do not permit I
Is it belittlng this Government to say that
the administrators Of this Government have
no right to violate the Constitution and
laws Of the country? Sir, our boast is
that we live under Government Of laws;
that the President and all in authority un-
der him are authorized to do that which the
law provides, and nothing more. When
gentlemen are holding out the idea to the
country that they are going to collect reve-
nue. and blockade ports, and use military
force without authority Of law and in vio-
latinn of Lazy they are nnlv nrnclaimin n o.