The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1871-01-10
. AN DO M I N Q
Speech Of Senator Thurman.

SpeeCn OF senator Idufmal.
| We publish the following admirable
speech Of Senator THURMAN in opposi
| ton to the San Domingo scheme, to
show the Democratic grounds in oppo
sition thereto. We ask for it an atten'
tive perusal. 1t was delivered on the
21st of December, 1870:
Mr. THURMAN-Mr. President, shall
occupy very little time. My purpose in
rising is chiefly to put upon record in
the fewest possible words the grounds
Iof nv opposition to the annexation Of
San Domingo. and ratherto state prop
ositions than to make an argument. But
before do that. wish to notice some
few remarks that have fallen from dit.
ferent Senators in the course of this de-
bate. Any stranger who should have
come into this Chamber within the last
two hours, unacquainted with the sub
Iject under discussion, and listening to
the speeches that have been made, would
naturally have come to the conclusion
that it was once more the field of an
Impeachment trial; but at this time it
was not President of the United States
who was arraigned and upon trial, but a
Senator of the United States, Senator
from the Commonwealth of Massachu-
sets. 1t is true that the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. Nye) was pleased to be-
stow on that Senator some of those fine
leulogies which fall so easily from his
tongue, and even to vouchsafe the re
mark that the Senator and the President
might lawfully differ in their opinions,
that the one had, right to his opinion
as we'll as the other / could not help
thinking when heard the remark that,
however that might be the judgment of
the Senator from Nevada, it was perhaps
not the judgment of the President of the
United States. When / reflected upon
the rude manner in which Motley was
thrust out of his mission at London,
when / thought of the long list of de-
capitated friends of the honorable Sena-
tor from Missouri Mr.. Schurz,) whose
heads have fallen within the last
few weeks, 1 could not help thinking
that perhaps the President of the United
States did not regard the dissent of a
Senator from his opinions with the same
charitable view as the Senator from Ne.
vada.
The Senator from, Michigan Mr..
Chandlerl was pleased to tell the Sena-
tor from Massachusetts that when he
came to train this little body of Demo
Gratis here it would not be very difficult
task, that there were not SO many of
them but that he might dress them in
line without any very great military ge-
mus to enable him 10 do so. When the
Senator made that remark my memory
took me back eighteen years,to the MEM
ora5le year 1852, There was a Presiden-
tial election that year. There were two
candidates, the Whig candidate, General
Winfield Scott, the Democratic candi-
date, General Franklin Pierce. They
stood upon platforms that in one partic-
uiar had no essential difference whatever,
platforms that have been proclaimed
ever since the year 1861 to have been
slavery platforms; platforms that
denounced in almost the same language
and with precisely the same meaning any
agitation whatever of the subject Of sla-
very or the abolition thereof, which de-
nounced it as unpatriotic in anybody in
any part of this Republic to seek to dis
turb by any agitation whatsoever tnat
status of slavery which existed in the
Southern States Upon that platform
the two great parties of the country
went to battle in that year-lS52; but
there was one man in tile Senate OF the
United States that day, and but one, who
repudiated both platforms and would
stand upon neither, who repudiated both
candidates and would vote for neither;
and that man was Charles Sumner.
see him standing in the Senate Chamber
then without a single follower. He had
no ten men-the number of the Demo-
Gratis bere-to dress into line then; he
had nobody but himself; and / have
lived to see the day when sixty Senators
OF the Republican party, the Senator
from Michigan among them. too. we're
following in his footsteps with the most
implicit obedience. have seen that
which I never expected to see; l have
seen the man who repudiated your can
nidate in 1852, who spit upon your plat
form then, at the head of your column
for nearly ten years in the Senate OF the
United States.
Where then were you who now talk of
nothing but freedom? Where then were
you who now boast Of the enfranchise-
ment of the African race? Where then
were you who are so ready to denounce
any man that ever stood up for the in
stitutions of the country, or at least
sought 20 prevent the country from be-
ing ruined by their distm bance? Where
were you Republican Senators, in the
year 1852, when the Senator from Mas
sachusetts stood, il not solitary, at least
alone? Where were you? Onehalf of
you, or nearly so, voting for Franklin
Pierce, and the rest Of you for Winfield
Scott.
Now, I am not here to defend the SEN
ator from Massachusetts. He Is quite
able to, defend himself. l am not here
to nominate him as commander-in-chief
of this little body of Democrats. | do
not think they want his leadership, and
do not think he seeks the command
But when he is reproached with the small
number OF his followers, with the num-
Der ten, / call the attention OF the Senate
to the fact that eighteen years ago be had
not one. tenth of ten to follow him, al
though since that time he has had six
times ten to obey his commands.
But, again, is there nobody in this
Chamber who concurs in the opposition
of the Senator from Massachusetts, to
the annexation of San Domingo but this
little band of ten Democrats! Are we
all? If that be the case, why was not
the treaty ratified? You have six men
here to our one; you have slx-sevenths