Daily Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1860-1862, 1861-02-15
second speech Of the Hon. Andrew
johnson, of Tennessee.
lExTRAcrS-1

Johnson, of tennessee.
g. lExTRAcTs.1
Mr.. JOHNSON commenced by saying, that
from his youth be had believed in the doc
trines of the proclamation of President JACK
son to South Carolina.
Mr.. President, on the 18th of December, 1
made a speech in the Senate, with reference
to the present crisis, which believed my duty
| to my State and to myself required In
making that speech, my intention--and
think succeeded in it -wassto place myself
upon the principles of the Constitution and
| the doctrines inculcated by Washington, JEFF
| ferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson. gHav-
| ing examined the positions of those distin-
guished fathers of the Republic, and COM
| pared them with the Constitution, came to
the conclusion that they were right; and
| upon them | planted myself, and made the
speech TO which 1 have referred, in vindica-
! ton of the Union and the Constitution, and
against the doctrine of notification or seces-
sion, which look upon as great political
heresy.
then opposed the doctrine of secession as
political heresy, which, if sanctioned and
sustained as fundamental principle OF this
Government will result in its overthrow
and distinctions; for, as We have seen al
| ready, few of the States are crumbling and
falling of. 4iztJ .f7s
Ioppose this heresy for another reason; not
only as being destructive of the existing Gov
| Ell nment. but being destructive of all future
confederacies that may be established in con-
sequence of disruption of the present one;
and L availed myself of the former occasion
on which / spoke, to enter my protest against
it, and to do something to exiinguish a
political beresy that ough never 10 be incor-
porated upon this or any other Government
which may be subsequently, established.
look upon it as the prolific mother ofpolitical
sin; as a fundamental error; as heresy that
is intolerable in contrast with the existence
of the Government itself. l look upon it as
being productive of anaI chy, and anarchy is
the next step to despOtism. The develop
ments that we have recently seen in carrying
this doctrine into practice, think, admon.sh
us that this viii be the result.
JEFFERSON DAVIS RESOLUTIONS AND BROWNS
AMENDMENT.
We find that while those resolutions were
under consideration, Mr.. Clingman offered
an amendment, to come iii after the fourth
resolution, to insert the following:
Resolued. That the existing condition of the
Territories of the United States does not re-
quire the Intervention of Congress for the
protection of property in slaves.
'On the question to agree to the amend
ment proposed by Mr.. Brown, to-wit: Strike
out of the amendment the word not"
at was determined in the negative-yeas,
5, nays, A."
Now, by striking out the word '.not," it |
makes the resolution read
Resolred, That the existing condition of the |
Territories of the United States does require |
the intervention of Congress for the prOtec- |
ton of property in slaves"
Mr.. Brown, of Mississippi, moved to strike |
out the word " not" thereby making it read |
the condition of the Territories does require |
the protection of Congress for slave property; |
that motion to strike out the word " not"
there were-yeas 5, nays 43.
son motion of Mr.. Clingman,
" The yeas and nays being desired by one
fifth of the Senators present. |
"Those who voted in the affirmative are
Messrs. Brown, Clay, Iverson, johnson, of
Arkansas, Yulee.
"Those who voted in the negative are
Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bingham, Bragg, |
Bright, Chandler, Chestnut. Clark, Clingman,
Collamer, Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doelittle,
Foote, Green, Gwin, Hale, Ham,
lin, Hammond, Hemphill, Hunter, johnson,
of Tennessee, kennedy, Lane, Latham. NAL
lory, Mason, Nicholson, Pearce, Polk, Powell,
Pugh, Rice, Sebastian. Slidell, Ten Eyck.
Toombs, Trumbull, Wade, Wigfall, Wilson,"
Thus. forty .three Senators recor ed during
the last session of Congress that it was not
necessary to pass law to protect slavery in
the Territories. The Senator from Oregon,
in connection with other Senators, under the
solemn sanction of an oath, declared that it
was not necessary to pass laws for the pro-
lection of slavery in the Territories. What
right has South Carolina lost since the last
What iohf hos CfafQ lost cinaa |
the last session of Congressf You declared
that it was not necessary to pass law to
protect them in the enjoyment of their pro-
perty in the Territories; and now, forsooth,
in the short space of two or three moons, you
turn around and tell the country that States
are justified in going out of the Union because
Congress will not pass law to protect them
in the enjoyment of their property in the
Territories, when you said it was not neces-
saryl That is what call driving the nail in.
rLaughter.1 / will remark, as / go along,
that the eloquent and distinguished Senator
who made his valedictory here yesterday, on
retiring from the Senate, voted for that iden-
Iical resolution. This protection was not
necessary then. They said it was wholly
But since that, they have
walked mp to sense of its necessity, and re-
solved to secede if it should not be granted.
To this same proposition Mr.. Albert G. Brown
offered an amendment. Mark you, this is the
18th day of May, 1860; and that is not long
ago: aJ
"On motion by Mr.. Brown, to amend the
by striking out all after the
words resolved" and in lieu thereof, insert
ing:
1 wish 1 had the whole continent here to
hear this paragraph
''That experience having already shown
hat the Constitution and the common law,
nnaided by statutory enactment, do not af-
ford adequate and sufficient protection to
slave property; some of the Territories hav-
ing failed, others having refused to pass such
ii has become the duty OF Con-
gress to interpose and pass such laws as will
afford to slave property in the Territories
that protection which is given to other kinds
Of property
That is pretty clear proposition. Upon
that, Mr.. Brown made an argument, showing
The number of slaves in the Territories, and
the action of the Legislatures, and concluded
that 1t the time ever would arrive, it was
then before Congress, and they should pass
a law on the subject. What was the vote
upon that? How doesit stand? We find that
after on argument being made by Mr.. Brown,
showing that the necessity did exist, accord
ing to his argument, the vote upon the pro-
position stood thus: The question being ia |,
ken by yeas and nays, it was determined in
the negative-yeas 8, nays AZ.
Forty-two Senators voted that you did not
need PROFESSIONALISM slavery was not in dam
ger.
The yeas and nays being desired by one
fifth of the Senators present. @
"Those who voted in the affirmative are: ,
Messrs. Brown, johnson of Arkansas, NAL
ory."
There are only three. Who said il was not :
Who declared, under the solemn
anction of an oath, that protection was not
needed? 80 I's
"Those who voted in the negative are:
hessrs. Benjamin" j
Ali Yes; Benjamin --.-a
.Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Chestnut, Clark, Clay, | /
Crittenden, Davis, Dixon, Doolit- !
lie, Fitzpatrick, Foot, Foster, Grimes, Gwin