Year: 1860

Remarks Of Mr.. Douglas in sseply to


Mr.. Seward, February goth.


MIR. DOUGLAS. Mr. President, l trust
l shall be pardoned for few remarks upon
so much OF the Senator's speech as consists
in an assault on tie Democratic party, and
especially with regard to the Kansas Ne
braska bal, of which was the responsible
author. 1t has become fashionable now.a.
days .or each gentleman making a speech
against the Democratic party to refer to the
kansas-Nebraska act as the cause of all the
disturbances that have since ensued. They
talk about the repeal of u sacred compac,
that had been undiSturLcl for more than !:
quarter Of a century, Us if those who com.
planned Of that violation of faith had been
faithful to the provisions Of the Missouri
compromise. Sir, wherein consisted tn
necessity for the repeal or abrogation of that
act, except it was that the majority of the
northern States refused to carry out the
Missouri compromise in good faith?
TODD willing to extend it to the Pacific
ocean, and aOide by it forever, and the en-
tire South. without one exception in this
body, was willing thus to abile by it; but
the iree-soil element of the northern Stat $
was so strong as to defeat that measure, and
thus open the slavery question anew The
men who now complain of the abrogation
OF that act were the very m n who denounc-
ed it, and denounced all of us who were
willing to abide by it so long as it stood up
on tine statutc-book, and we were trying to
carry it out. Sir, it was the defeat in the
House of Representatives Of the enactment
Of the bill to extend the Missouri compro-
mise to the Pacific OCEAN, alt.r it had pass ed
the Senate on my own motion, that opvned
the controversy of 1850, which was termi-
mated by the adoption Of the measures of
that year.


We carried those compromise measures
over the head of the senatoHfrom New York
and his present associates. We, in those
measures, established great policy, rcbuk-
ing his doctrine of intervention by the Con-
sreSs of the United States to prohibit slave
ry in the Territories. Both parties, in 1852,
plvdg si themselves to abide by that princ-
pl,, and thus stood pledged not to prohibit
,lavery in the Territories by act of Con-
gress. The Wing party affirmed that pledge,
and so did the Democracy. In 1854. we
only carried out in the kan>aS-N N >braska act
the same principle that had been affirm, d in
the compromise III assures Of 1850. | re-
peat that their resistance to carrying out in


good faith the settlement Of 1920, til, ir d.
feat of the bill for ext sndinS it to the Pacific
oc an, was the sole cause OF the agitation of
l so, and gave rise to the necessity of es-
tn Fishing the principle Of non-intsrvcnticn
by Congre. with slavery in the Territories.


Hence am not willing to sit here and al
low the senator from New York, with all the
weight of authority he has with the pow r.
iul party Of which he is the head. to arraign
me and the party to which bslong with
tn: responsibility for that agitation which
rests solely upon him and his ASSOCIATES
Sir. the Democratic party was willing to
carry out the compromise in good faith
Having been defeated in that for the want
of numbers. and having established the
principle of non-intervention in the colnpro-
mise measures of 1852, in lieu of it, tn.
Democratic party from that day to this has
been faithful to the new principle Of ADJUST
mcnt Whatever agitation has grown out
of the question since, has been occasioned
by the resistance of the party of which that
Senator is the head, to this great principle
which has been ratified by the American
people at two presidential elections If he
was willing to acquieScc in the solemn and
repeated Judgment Of that American peo-
pie to which he appeals, there would bc no
agitation in this country now.


But, sir, the whole argument of that SEN
ator goes far beyond the question of slave
ry, even in the Territories. His entire ar
gunpnt rests On the assumption That tho NJ
gro and the white man were equal by Di-
vine law, and hence that all laws and
and governments in viola.
ton of the principle of negro equality are
in violation of the law Of God. That is the
basis upon which his speech rests. He
quotes the Declaration of independence to
show that the fathers of the Revolution un-
derStood that the negro was placed on an
equality with the white man, by quoting til.
clause, "we hold these truths to be self-evi-
dent, that all men are created equal, and are
by their Creator with certain in
alienable rights, among which are life, lih.
erty, and the pursuit Of happiness" Sir,
the doctrine of that Senator and of his par
ty is--and have had to meet it for four
years-that the Declaration of Indepl lence
intended to recognize the negro and the
white man as equals under the Divine law,
and hence that all the provisions of the
Constitution of the United States which rec
ognize slavery arc in violation of the Divine
law. In othr words, it is an argument
against the Constitution of the United States
upon the ground that it is contrary to the
law Of God. The Senator from New York
has long held that doctrine. The Senator
from New York has cftcn proclaimed to the
world, that the Constitution Of the United
States was in violation of the Divine law,