Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-02-06

Mr. Newcoms (interrupting) g)-When and where
has Republican in this State proposed to pass
such laws!
Mr. Ray-l am not prepared to say that any
Republican ever proposed personal liberty bill
in the Legislature of this Stgte but am pre-
pared to say this, that the sentiment of the Re-
publican party in Indiana has not been different
in marked degree from the sentiment of the
Republican party elsewhere in the North, and in
many of the Northern States such laws do exist.
Ohio did propose such personal liberty bill, and
it became the law of the State, but was repealed
by the Democratic party the year after. Many
other Northern States have enacted nulfying
laws striking vitality and traitorously-if l may
so express it, for | have but one language to
apply to the North and South-such laws have
been, say, passed, striking directly at the Con-
stitution of the Federal Government which we
are all under the most solemn obligations to sus-
tain.
But, sir, must be allowed to say this before |
conclude: The sentiment breathed by the leaders
of the Republican party now and for the past six
years has been one of aggression and one Of hos
tilty to slavery in the South. And sir, this dec
laration rests not SO much upon their personal
liberty bills, nor upon their State and national
platforms upon the general spirit of the can
yass that has swept over the Northern States for
tile last few years.
When l wish to know the spirit of the people,
and that which actuates great political party in
a heated canvass do not look alone to its plat
FORMS nor to the editorials of its newspapers nor
even to the guarded and cautious expressions of
its public speakers but to the notices banners
and flags, which are the symbols of the unwritten
law of the heut. These are the indications of
the hostile sentiment which has pervaded the
Republican party of the North for the last six
wears against the people of the South Ii is a
eOu ht
and give them credit for all sincerity when they
say it: 1--WE are not Abolitionists, nor 10 we have
any sympathy with Abolitionists" :"
Now, sir. there have been some circumstances
in the history of Northern politics during the
last six years that have indicated spirit on the
part of the Republicans of the North quite in
consistent with Their late deIth-bel avowal. ]
take back that "delth- bed' expression and will
say this late and polite avowal. Now sir
when we have it announced by Mr. Seward, the
brilliant, learned Seward, the ornament OF the
American Senate and of the Republican party,
when we have it announced by such high oracles
that there is a higher law than the Constitution
of the land, which should control the actions and
be the touchstone of mans political conscience
when we have ii announced from such high au-
thority that there is an irrepressible conflict
between the slave labor of the South and the
free labor of the North, that house divided
against itself can not stand, that the States must
be all free or ali slave, was announced at
Springfield by the President eject of the United
States in 1858, and in October afterwards at
Rochester by Mr.. Seward; when these expires
sions come from such lights and oracles of the
Republican party, and when every Republican in
the Senate of the United States, and perhaps in
this Senate also, declare they have no modifica-
tons of this doctrine; that it would be dishonor
able for them to yield one plank in Their plat
I
concession and compromise on the part of con-
servatve States and alarm to the States Of the
South!
| 1t is an empty avowal for them to say eve are
not Abolitionists, nor sympathizers with Abo-
tonists" while the record of the Republican
party is all bl;stering with these declarations
of hostility to the institutions of the South, when
it is vet fresh in the recollection Of men and re-
mains an mperishabe record in the proceedings
of the United States Senate that Mr.. Seward
holds it to be the duty of the Republican party,
and the men of that great anti-slavery party of
the North, not only to denOunce and repudiate as
extra judicial and monstrous, the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred
Scott case but in his place in the Senate of the Uni
ted States in a speech less than four years since
delivered and after the decision of the Dred Scott
case, declared it to be the duty of the Repub-
lican party to reorganize the Federal Court and
the judicial department of the Federal Govern
ment.
Now, sir, will it be said that the South have not
just grounds of apprehension while these records
remain from such high sources of the sentiments
of the Republican party? They have come into
power, and we give them credit for honesty OF
purpose and for integrity of design, when we say,
and the South say, we are to expect fulfillment
of these pledges, and expect the government to
ha aIr IN tba liox-
claimed by its leaders. | advert to these things
in kindness of spirit and without any purpose al
all ofinviting party controversies in this hall and
/ do it for the purpose of assuring Senators that
there is some ground for alarm in the border
States. You owe it to yourselves as an honest
party, TO assume that the South is justified il
making some demands at this time. WhyI Be
cause you claim, as | am ready to concede, that
you are honest, and purpose to carry out youl
pledges If so, is there a Senator here that will
say that the South would have no reason to be-
alarmed if to-day the whole Federal power Ner,
in the hands of Republicans? Would they no
have reason to be alarmed, because it is declareJ
in the Chicago Platform that neither Congress
nor State, nora Territory, nor community
nor any association of individuals have right tC
give legal existence to slavery anywhere, anC
that it is the duty of the Federal Government t.
prohibit slavery in all the common Territories il
the land. This is declaration of exclusion o
the South from the common inheritance of th
public domain. IL our Southern brethren believ,
these things are to be carried out in the legisla
} tive department of the government you see tn,
reason they have to complain when they know
the executive department would carry out thes
avowed sentiments. will not say that the elec
ton of Mr. Lincoln furnishes any ground for rev
olution secession, but ! will say that his elec
l ton is the crowning act of the Northern anti
slavery sentiment. That it is the first triumph
of party who have thus declared these ultr
principles of hostility to the Southern States AM
will say that it may well furnish ground 70
/; alarm to the people of the slaveholding States
J Then will Republicans of the Senate not mce
this question patriots and as conservative men
!. If you have no design upon them you hav
{ nothing to sacrifice. / have no memories of tn
past that am not willing to bring up as withere
leaves and lay them upon the altar of this com
mon cause; and | know some of my party how
ever calamity they have struggled for the doc
e trines Of intervention, and for this Union
and the blessings which are to flow from it, VIII
+ are willing TO make offering upon tn
e altar of our common country. And when we
I this, will you say | am demanding too much
y behalf of this Union when demand of Repub
n cans to come and do we doI And when yo
e will do that will stand for this Union right O
= wrong Until you do it you will find us divide
n i'm sentiment. Suppose upon the other hand tn
e Southern people believe that the judiciary of tn
c United States is to be remodeed so as to reveTs
b the principles laid down in the Dred Scott de
i cision, would not that be good ground for alarm
e If the principles laid down in that decision, frs
e that a black man born OF slave parentage can nc
+ be citizen of this nation; and again, that Cor
+ gress has no power to prohibit slavery in th
e common Terrtories-if these adiucated points
d that decision are to be reversed by remode
e Judiciary, for myself sir, should enter my prC
t test against it as citizen of Northern State
G i would not have that decision rev erzcd if
d could. | would not have it held that negro
; or can be citizen ofthe Federal Union. woul
not have it reversed and determined by the FeC
eral Judiciary that Congress might interfere, vi
cause whenever they did that then the prncipl,
: that would justify them in declaring Congress ha
/ power to prohibit slavery, would justify the d,
e cision that Congress had power to establis
y slavery. Then, sir, shall not impose upon ii
If indulgence of this Senate further than simply
/ say the resolutions reported by the minority of ii
C Committee on Federal Relations, express the ser