Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-07-12

Southern secession SITS. that If Cuba was neces-
sary to our safety. and II il would contribute 70
our defense ia the future. We ought 70 seize il.
right or wrong.
Ar. Wilmot-Wili my colleague answer this
question: have we right 70 preserve the ntegri
o. OF the republic against all enemissz
Mr. Cowan-My whole speech has been 70 an.
swer that very question. We have right 70
maintain the integrity Of the Republic of course.
under certain conditions; but nobody supposes
the Republic will be eternal, that il will last
always, and that il can last against the will of
the people who created il, my colleague will have
10 consider the question answered.
Mr.. Wllknson-IfI have understood the Sen
ator from Pennsylvania correctly, his argument Is
this: that ii all the people of South Carolina
choOse TO go out of this Union, and to set up
separate and independent Government, the Gov
eminent OF the United States has no right to pre-
vent them. Nv question was, whether the Gov
eminent of the United States justified in per
hitting separate and independent Government
to be established with its borders, although the
entire people OF a certain area determined 10 do
sol and that leads directly TO the argument in the
case. Ii every man, woman, and child, within
the borders of the State Of South Carolina,
should determine to set up separate and hide
pendent Government antagonistic TO that of the
United States, is this Government justified in sit
~
Mr.. Cowan-We have solemnly aud unani-
mousiy decided here that were not seeking to
conquer and subjugate the people OF the Southern
States. but to rescue and restore To them the Gov
eminent displaced by the rebellion. That we do
by virtue OF the Constitution and of our rights
under it. My honorable friend from Minnesota,
however, goes further, and asks, in the case he
puts If lie whole of the people of South Caro-
lima were to refuse obedience to the Govern ment
a. cd fafe WhQ lQr va hQ IL
fed in permitting them to establish an independ-
eut government Tor themselvesl answ er that is
question of policy. 10 be determined alter we
had put down all armed resistance and found the
unanimity OF her people against us We would
then consider the necessity of holding her as a
conquered province; and should say that it ought
to be a most pressing necessity which would JUST
fy Us II We did do SO; however. We would, 10y that
act, virtually admit her out ofthe Union. aud hold
her the same foreign State which was ours
by the fortune of war Thus would do 10y yir-
tue OF the laws OF nations, and not by virtue of our
constitutional authority over her, and here lies
the difference; we might have chosen at the out
set of this war to consider the seeded States
out of the Union, and we might have determin-
ed to conquer them-not to restore them again
as States in the Union. but to hold them ut our
wiil-this would have been conquest, su9jugation.
On he other hand, we had a right to consider the
rebellion only partial, and not involving the
whole people, and that would suppress it, and
restore the Union before, aud we took the
question distinctly to which of the two modes
we would adopt-when il was decided that We
would not conquer or subjugate. but restore
And. Mr.. President, am for standing there, and
under that hypothesis, / hold it utterly mposSi
BILE to succeed if the whole people are against US,
because we can only adopt the other mode of con
quest by going back now, and admitting what We
at first denied on all hands, namely: that the Sc
ceded States were actually out OF the Union. and
to be dealt with wholly under the laws OF nations
and not under the Constitution. Are we ready to
do thatl / think not; but that we must 90 on
ms We have started, and maint lin ourselves upon
Is consistently till the end and then if such an
extraordinary unaDimity of the people is found
against Us as has been predcatei here, it wi be
time enough to settle and determine the question
of policy, of conquest.
Mr. Wilkinson-The Senator tries to dodge
the issue a little. He supposes the case OF Cuba
That is not parallel case. We do not propose
to go outside of the limits of the United States
The question that propounded to him is 10
the duty OF this Government 10 maintain its in
tcgriiy over its own territory and within its own
border. Ii is not as to our going to Cuba 90
not base my question upon the doctrines of the
Ostend manifesto / ask whether it is not the
b0unden duty of this Government, as an indie
pendent, separate nation. to maintain the integ-
rity OF every inch of its territory within its limits
no matter what the people of certain district
may say or do or decide in regard TO it. | DC
not want the Senator to 20 off and try to draw
me on to the platform of james Buchanan and
Mr. Soule in their Ostend manifesto.
Mr.. COwnn--l have said. Mr. President as a
matter of constitutional law. that there nc
authority, but TINT il was question Of policy
and as that question had not been settled in thi.
country, II had not arisen for the consideration
OF our statesmen. | have no opinion to express
upon 1t, except the one | have expressed, that
nothing but the most pressing necessity to enable
US to secure ourselves would authorize Us To dc
it under our form of Government.