The Burlington weekly hawk-eye. [volume] (Burlington [Iowa]) 1860-1876, 1862-04-19
The PesisIon or the Republicans I'm Con.
Qre0o.

The Pesisson or the Republicans in Con.
| gress.
The position aud policy Of the Republicans in
Congress, in relation to the important question.
growing out Of slavery, are beginning to take
definite shape. We have no doubt they will be
thorough and effective enough to answer all lust
expectations of the radical portion of the party
and yet sound and cautious enough to avoid
threatened dangers, and so accomplish the re.
suits most to be desired, without increasing the
difficulties or extending the limits of the war.
The speech Of Senator Fessenden of Maine, on
the question of the abolition of slavery in the
District of Columbia, gives the KEY note to the
policy of Republicans and Union men, as near
as it can be hit at the present moment His
discussion of the whole subject was clear and
statesmanlike, but We print only such para.
graphs as touch the subject in hand:
81 know what the argument has always been
in opposition to it: you affecting the inst;
tuition of slavery; you are weakening its power;
you are doing something that will have ten
dency to injure it; you are giving an example
that may produce evil to the institution of sla-
very in the States themselves So be it. Is
there any obligation binding on me that, in ex-
ercising constitutional power, in doing that
which have right to do under the great char.
ter which have sworn to support l should do
nothing which indirectly might affect the inst.
tuition of slavery in the States Of the Union?
| 81 have said during the last canvass repeat
edly, and aided in passing resolution through
Congress to the effect, that the object and pur.
pose of this war was not to affect slavery in the
States, but to uphold the Constitution and the
! laws OF the land. have said ut this session
that that pledge has been made by me; that the
party to which l belonged had pledged itself
that it did not come into power and would not
prosecute this WAT for the purpose of abolishing
| slavery in the States; and said that, so far as
l was concerned, meant to keep my pledge
But, sir, did not say, nor did the party to
which belong ever say, that it pledged itself
| to do nothing that indirectly might affect the
| institution OF slavery. Do gentlemen call upon
US, because we are prosecuting this war, to for
get all we have said, and all we have been strug
Cling to accomplish for years. What, sir, have
we been struggling for? 1t was to place this
government in position where it should not
lend its aid TO slavery. Since its formation, it
has been devoted to that object, and what the
| Republican party contended tor, as unde rstood
| 1t, was to free the government from the incubus
that had been laid upon it through its unnatural
connection with this peculiar institution.
NOW, sir, are gentleman. SO unreasonable as
to ask US, in this particular crisis of our affairs
i and because cf the peculiar existing state of
things, that we ahal forget ali we have hereto
fore said on this subject; that shall forego all
| We have tried to attain; that we shall at once
| ignore the question Of slavery altogether; that
| we shall do nothing directly or indirectly which
| is calculated to effect our own purpose, and
that constitutional purpose, which we declared
long ago? In my Judgment, it is asking too
| much OF US; and the process Of reasoning by
which gentlemen attempt to meet this question,
it strikes me, is hardly fair one. Let me ask
| the Senator from Virginia, Mr.. Willey) for
whom have very great respect, does it follow,
| when We act consttutionally in one direction,
| that therefore mean to act unconstitutional
ly in another direction? Does it follow be-
cause we adopt one measure, that we mean to
adopt another and different one? The honor
| able senator has connected all the measures be-
fore Congress together, and be views them as
parts OF whole. In the first place, there is
the recommendation of the Presd, mt; in the
next place. there is the bill for the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia; and in the
third place, here are the questions with regard
to the conhscatiou of property; and again. the
resolutions of the honorable Senator from Mass
achusetts (Mr Sumner) with regard to the
States themselves; and the honorable Senator
from Virginia takes it for granted that they are
parts of system. Let me tell him it is not So;
aud he acts unwisely in leading his people to
suppose, because We carry out or attempt to
carry out, what we believe to be constitution
al power and duty resting upon US with regard
to this particular measure, that therefore we
mean to exercise power which may net belong
to US under the constitution. Each measure
CHI p,,1I 1.a1 1aff hair I'm
on it's own merits and according to its issue
Why, sir, do not hesitate to say here most
distinctly for myself that dissent entirely from
the conclusions Of the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts,, as stated in his resolutions l
do not look upon the States of this Union as
gone and destroyed. The fundamental idea up.
on which we started in this contest was, that no
state could take itself out of the Union; no
State could destroy its existence as a State, or
change its relations TO the Union. We have not
recognized State action From the beginning
we have considered all action as individual &C.
ton, as having nothing whatever to do with the
States as such. But, sir do not intend to
argue that question now. 1t is enough to say,
in this connection, that upon this particular
point the opinions of the honorable Senator
from Massachusetts, his own, for which he
alone is responsible, and which he is undoubted-
ly well able to defend. What right, then, has
the honorable Senator from Virginia to say
that he considers all the propositions that have
teen made as parts of syslem, aud designed
as an attack on the institution in the States
where it exists, and breach of the obligations
under which the dominant party held itself with
reference to this particular question?
"Mr President, that the Republican party
would rejoice to see slavery abolished every
where, that they would rejoice if it no longer
existed, that they feel it to be blot upon our
fair institutions and a curse to the country,
there is no doubt. can answer, for one, that
has been my opinion always, and l have ex.
pressed it here and elsewhere; but, sir, I have
held, and hold to-day, and l say to day what
have said in my place before, that the Congress
OF the United States, OF the people of the Uni
ted States through the Cungress, under the
Constitution as it exists now, have no right what
ever to touch, by legislation, the institution of
slavery in the States where it exists by law /
have said that, and | say it again, boldly; for
my position never has been misunderstood on
this subject But, sir, ! say further, that so far
as the people of this country have the power,
under the Constitution, to weaken the institu.
tion of slavery; to deprive it Of its force; to
subject it. rs an institution, to the laws of the
land; to take away the political influence which
it has welded in this country, and to render it,
80 far as they can, nullity, they have the right
to do SO, and it is their solemn duty to exer.
else it. And say, moreover, that honorable
Senators mistake in endeavoring to excite the
sensbilities of their people by complaining of
any constitutional action OF ours upon this sub
Ject, and charging US with breach of plighted
faith.
'Why, sir, do you suppose we came into pow
er TO sit still and be silent on this subject; that
we came into power to do nothing; to think
nothing; to say nothing lest by some possibili-
ty portion Of the people OF the country might
be offended? That was the argument of the
honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. WrighD
this morning, as I understand it. Sir, it is no
more than ought reasonably to be expected-no
matter whether in the progress Of this war or
not; no matter where it touches-if the people
of this country should that the institution of
slavery has been the prolific cause of all that we
now suffer, She ground upon which this rebellion
originated, aGd has been carried on, that they
will. wherever they can constitutionally strike at
it, do so. All that anybody ought to ask is,
hands off wherever the constitution prohibits
you from touching it at ALL