BRECKENRIDGE AND LANE CAMPAIGN DOCUMENTS, No. 3. 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST THE ATTACK OF 
 JUDGE DOUGLAS-CONSTITUTIONAL EIGHTS OF THE STATES. 
 
 SPEECH OF 
 
 HOE J. P. BENJAMIN,'*" 
 
 ( 
 
 OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, MAY 22, 1860. 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY Issued by the National Democratic Executive Committee, 1860. 
 
r 
 
 VJ C 
 
 " ; 
 
 b . 
 
 
BRECKENRIDGE AND LANE CAMPAIGN DOCUMENTS, No. 3. 
 
 DEFENCE OF THE NATIONAL DEMOCRACY AGAINST THE ATTACK 01' 
 JUDGE DOUGLAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE STATES. 
 
 SPEECH OF HON. J. P. BENJAMIN, 
 
 / 
 
 OF LOUISIANA. 
 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY 22, 1860. 
 
 Mr. PRESIDENT : When we met here in 
 December the public mind was deeply 
 stirred. It was stirred by an occurrence 
 which had taken place for the first time in 
 our history the invasion of one of the 
 States of the Confederacy by a band of fa- 
 natics for the avowed purpose of interfering 
 with its domestic institutions and setting its 
 slaves at liberty. The whole country was 
 deeply stirred, but especially stirred was the 
 South, and this universal excitement found 
 immediate vent in Congress. Scarcely had 
 we met, when numerous resolutions were 
 placed upon our table by different Senators, 
 which, on the 2d of February, were ordered, 
 by a resolution of the Senate, to be printed 
 together. The first was a resolution sub- 
 mitted by the honorable Senator from Ohio, 
 (Mr. PUGH,) who, on the loth of Decem- 
 ber, proposed that the Committee on Terri- 
 tories 
 
 " Be instructed to inquire into the expediency 
 of repealing so much of the acts approved Septem- 
 ber 9, 1850, for the organization of territorial go- 
 vernments in New Mexico and Utah, as require 
 -that 11 the laws passed by the Legislatures of 
 those Territories shall be submitted to Congress 
 for approval or rejection." 
 
 That was offered on the loth of Decem- 
 ber, before even the House of Representa- 
 tives had been organized. To that an 
 amendment was offered by the Senator from 
 Iowa, (Mr. HARLAN.) which I shall not read. 
 The next was a resolution submitted on the 
 16th of January by the Senator from Illi- 
 nois. (Mr. DOUGLAS,) in relation to instruc- 
 tions to the Committee on the Judiciary to 
 report a bill for the protection of the States 
 and Territories of the Union against inva- 
 sion. Next, on the 18th of January, were 
 resolutions submitted by the Senator from 
 Mississippi, (Mr. BROWN.) Next, were 
 amendments to those resolutions submitted 
 by the Senator from Minnesota, (Mr. WIL- 
 KINSON.) Next, were the resolutions sub- 
 
 mitted by the other Senator from Missis- 
 sippi, (Mr. DAVIS,) on the 2d of February; 
 and, finally, to those resolutions amend- 
 ments were offered by the Senator from 
 Delaware. (Mr. SAULSBURY.) 
 
 Here, then, was a series of propositions 
 before the Senate, seven in number, all di- 
 rected to the question of slavery in the 
 States and Territories, and all ordered by 
 the Senate " to be printed together for dis- 
 cussion." Under these circumstances, it 
 became obvious that, unless some concert 
 of action was had by gentlemen who pro- 
 fessed the same political principles in rela- 
 tion to this vital issue now before the coun- 
 try, the discussion must be confused and 
 pointless. If every member offered his own 
 resolutions in his own language, and if there 
 was no concert among those who enter- 
 tained the same principles, the time of the 
 Senate would be needlessly exhausted, and 
 we should come to no practical result. Un- 
 der these circumstances, a suggestion was 
 made from what quarter I know not, and 
 certainly it is not of the slightest conse- 
 quence that the members of the Demo- 
 cratic party, who were supposed generally 
 to entertain sentiments in accordance with 
 each other, should meet and should agree 
 upon the phraseology of the resolutions that 
 they were disposed to support, and, after 
 harmonizing upon that phraseology, should 
 agree to stand by it, with a view to get a 
 vote of the Senate upon distinct proposi- 
 tions, as the principles of the Democratic 
 party, so far as that party was represented 
 by the Senators in Congress. 
 
 Now Mr. President, these resolutions be- 
 ing before us, the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois, (Mr. DOUCLAS,) the other dayI 
 am sorry that I do not see him in his seat ; 
 I shonld have waited for him, if I had the 
 slightest hope of seeing him in the Senate ; 
 he was not here yesterday ; he is not here 
 to-dy ; and it is impossible for any one of 
 
 WASHINGTON CITY Issued by the National Democratic Executive Committee, I860. 
 
 I 
 
<v - 
 
 us to say when he will be here again the 
 honorable Senator from Illinois, in one of 
 the most extraordinary speeches ever deliv- 
 ered in a deliberative body, and which oc- 
 cupies over twenty consecutive columns of 
 the Globe, and which was followed, a day 
 or two after, in reply to the Senator from 
 Mississippi, (Mr. DAVIS,) by several^ other 
 columns, has undertaken >'hat certainly is 
 without precedent in 'the history of the 
 C'uuntry has undertaken to defend his indi- 
 vidual claims to the Presidency of the 
 United States; and, in so doing, has divided 
 out his elaborately-prepared speech into dif- 
 ferent portions, some of which alone shall I 
 attempt to answer-; and I attempt that an- 
 swer because that Senator thought proper 
 to arraign my State and to arraign me, with 
 other Democratic States and other Demo- 
 cratic Senators, for daring to discuss the 
 propositions and resolutions now before the 
 Senate. 
 
 % More than half of that Senator's speech 
 was devoted to the perfectly idle and un- 
 necessary task of proving that those princi- 
 ples winch he now asserts to be the true 
 constitutional principles under which the 
 Territories of the United States are gov- 
 erned, were advocated by him as such years 
 and years ago ; and therefore he undertook 
 tb prove to the Senate and to the country 
 to which he appealed so often that there 
 has been no inconsistency in his course, anc 
 that if he and his brother Democratic Sen- 
 ators are at issue upon any point, it is we, 
 and not he, who have proved inconsistent 
 I shall return to that, sir, in a moment. 
 
 The next proposition of the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois was, that he was the 
 embodiment of the Democratic party, and 
 that all who dissented from this modest 
 proposition were rebels. He next arraigned 
 all his Democratic brethren in this Cham- 
 ber for daring to offer resolutions to the 
 Senate declaratory of constitutional princi- 
 ples ; and he called the resolutions now be- 
 fore us a caucus platform, which he said the 
 Charleston convention, which represents 
 him, treated with the scorn and contempt 
 that they merited. 
 
 Next he said that seventeen Democratic 
 States of this Union, and all his brother 
 Democratic Senators who did not agree 
 with him, were disunionists, and he arraigned 
 them as such. He said that they were 
 traveling on the high road to the disunion 
 of these States. Then, in the plenitude of 
 his indulgence, he told us that we were sin- 
 ning through ignorance and did not know 
 what road we were traveling, and, with 
 princely magnanimity, tendered his clemen- 
 cy and hie pardon to those who, after being 
 enlightened by his counsel, should tender 
 repentance. And after having done all that 
 having attacked every Democratic State 
 inaaoO *i t 
 
 n the Union, and almost every Democratic 
 Senator in this body, he closed with a state- 
 ment that all that he had said was in self- 
 defence; that he attacked nobody, and that 
 
 the world should know, if 1 
 again, it would be, as he 
 
 he ever spoke 
 had just then 
 
 tpoken, to defend himself from attack. 
 
 Now. Mr. I* resident, -lest 1 should be sup- 
 ppsed to have at all exaggerated, in this 
 statement, what the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois thought, proper to say in relation to 
 resolutions involving purely constitutional 
 and political principles, I will read here and 
 there passages from his speech, in support 
 of the assertion that I made. In relation 
 to the action of his brother Senators, kc 
 says this : 
 
 " Sir, let the Democratic Senators attend to their 
 official duties, and leave the national conventions 
 to make their platforms, and the party will be uni- 
 ted. Where does this trouble come from ? From 
 uiir own caucus chambers a caucus of Senators 
 dictating to the people what sort of platform they 
 shall have. You have been told that no less than 
 twelve Southern Senators warned you in the cau- 
 cus against the consequences of trying to force 
 senatorial caucus platforms on the party. Sir, I 
 do not know when the people ever put it in a 
 Senator's commission that he is to get up plat- 
 forms for the national conventions, on the suppo- 
 sition that the delegates who go there have not 
 sense enough to do it themselves. 
 
 "Although the action of the caucus was heralded 
 to the world to be, as was generally understood, 
 or the purpose of operating on the Charleston con- 
 vention, it did not have its effect. The resolutions 
 lay still. When it was proposed to postpone them 
 here in the Senate, before the Charleston conven- 
 tion, I voted against the postponement. I wanted 
 to give a ch'ance for a vote on them before the party 
 icted. I did not believe the pnrty then would 
 igree to the dictation. I do not think they would 
 obey the order. Sir, the Charleston convention 
 scorned it, and ratified the old platform." 
 
 I appeal to the Senate whether or not 
 this is self-defence. I appeal to the Senate 
 whether or not this be, as I have stated it 
 to be, an arraignment by the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois against the action of 
 almost the entire body of his brother Demo- 
 crats a perversion ofthe truth and the facts, 
 a misrepresentation of what occurred; for 
 this, namely, that the meeting of the Sena- 
 tors who adopted a series of resolutions, 
 which they believed to be sound constitu- 
 tional doctrine, was based upon the fact 
 that a large series of independent resolu- 
 tions had been put before the Senate, and 
 that some concerted action of the party in 
 relation to those resolutions was just as 
 necessary as the concerted action of the 
 parties who supported the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill in 1854, when the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois called them into council every morn- 
 ing almost of his life during that controver 
 sy. When that bill was pending ; when 
 amendments were offered around the Cham- 
 ber, for the purpose of concentrating action 
 
3 
 
 ,md preventing 1 that division of the party 
 vhich might be taken advantage of by the 
 opponents upon the floor of the Senate, the 
 lonorable Senator from Illinois called to- 
 gether those who supported the bill every 
 norning, and asked .their opinions, and 
 changed and modified the phraseology to 
 suit all and to obtain the assent of all. 
 That was the purpose of the Democratic 
 Senators who met to consider resolutions 
 "hat Senators all around the Chamber had 
 offered. That they did ; and that is what 
 las been perverted into an attempt to dic- 
 tate a party platform to a convention. 
 
 Nay, more, sir, in order that there might 
 be no possibility of misrepresenting those 
 resolutions as being the dictation of a party 
 platform, the Senate postponed the consid- 
 eration of the resolutions until after the 
 party had met, and made what the Senator 
 from Illinois says is its platform ; and that 
 very postponement is brought up here as an 
 arraignment of the intentions of the Sena- 
 tors, who are now speaking on these resolu- 
 tions, after the platform has been made, as 
 he says. It was with the view, as he now 
 says, to affect his presidential chances. I 
 leave that accusation for what it is worth. 
 I have stated the accusation, and stated the 
 defence. 
 
 Next, sir, I say that the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Illinois, not satisfied with discuss- 
 ing the constitutional questions now before 
 the Senate upon their merits, has thought 
 proper to arraign seventeen Democratic 
 States of this Union as disunionists. He 
 accompanies it with' the suggestion that he 
 forgives us, because we know not what we 
 do. I say, sir, the fact that the Senator 
 from Illinois arraigns seventeen Democratic 
 States, and nearly all his Democratic breth- 
 ren here, as disunionists, I will also show, 
 by an extract from his speech the other day, 
 of a few lines. He tells us that these reso- 
 lutions are a Yancey platform ; and that 
 the resolutions reported to the Charleston 
 convention by a majority of the States of 
 this Union, by the almost unanimous assent 
 of the Democratic States of the Union, was 
 a Yancey platform also; and that Yancey 
 made the platform for the party, made the 
 caucus platform, and made the platform for 
 the majority of the Democratic States of 
 the Union ; and that all, together with 
 Yancey, are disunionists. Here is his lan- 
 guage, sir, 
 
 "The Yancey platform at Charleston, known as 
 the majority report from the committee on resolu- 
 tions, in substance and spirit and legal effect, was 
 the same as the Senate caucus resolutions; the 
 same as the resolutions now under discussion, ami 
 upoxi which the Senate is called upon to vote. 
 
 " l\do not suppose that any gentleman advoca- 
 ting this platform in the Senate, means or desires 
 disunion. I acquit each and every man of such a 
 purpose; but, I believe, in my conscience, that 
 
 such a platform of principles, insisted upon, will 
 lead directly and inevitably to a dissolution of 
 the Union. This platform demands congressional 
 intervention for slavery in the Territories in cer- 
 tain events. What are these events? In the 
 event that the people of a Territory do not want 
 slavery, and will not provide, by law, for its intro- 
 duction and protection, and that fact shall be 
 ascertained judicially, then Congress is to pledge 
 itself to pass laws to force the Territories to 
 have it." 
 
 So, sir, these resolutions are a " Yaneey 
 platform," a caucus platform, a disunion 
 platform ; and the purpose is, of all who 
 support them and vote for them, after the 
 people of a Territory shall have decided that 
 " they do not want slavery, and that fact 
 has been ascertained judicially, to get Con- 
 gress to force slavery on them." That is 
 the deliberate statement, prepared and put 
 forth to the world, revised and corrected by 
 the honorable Senator from Illinois. Mr. 
 President, my State voted for that platform. 
 I shall vote for this caucus-Yancey plat- 
 form, if that helps the Senator from Illi- 
 nois. If it helps him to give nicknames, 
 and he thinks that an appeal to the people 
 of the country will be helped by accusing 
 Democratic States and Democratic Sena- 
 tors of being led by a gentlemen whom he 
 supposes to be unpopular, and calls them 
 supporters of a Yancey platform and of a 
 disunion platform, let him have the benefit 
 of such appeal. I, for my part, accept the 
 responsibility, and stand by the resolutions 
 and the platform. But, sir, at the same 
 time I deny that there is the slightest ap- 
 proach to truth or correctness in the linea- 
 ments ascribed by the honorable Senator 
 from Illinois to the platform adopted by 
 the majority of the Democratic States at 
 Charleston, or. to the principles which are 
 here advocated by the almost unanimous 
 vote of the Democratic Senators. I deny 
 that there is the least approach to truth in 
 his picture. No man here has called upon 
 Congress to force slavery upon an unwilling 
 people. No man here has called upon. Con- 
 gress to intervene and force slavery into the 
 Territories. No man has asked Congress to 
 do what the gentleman speaks of in another 
 part of his speech as making a slave code 
 for the Territories that being another of 
 the slang phrases which the honorable Sen- 
 ator from Illinois adopts from Republican 
 gentlemen at the North, and parades to the 
 American people as proof that he is sound 
 on this subject of the Democracy, and that 
 we are unsound. No man has asked for 
 such a thing, or anything approaching to 
 such a thing, as I shall proceed hereafter to 
 show. 
 
 Now. Mr. President, having shown to you 
 the charges made by the honorable Senator 
 from Illinois against the Democratic States 
 <r,f this Confederacy, and the Democratic 
 
Senators in this Hall which charges I 
 repel and mean to disprove to-day I desire 
 to read a few words which I find at the close 
 of his speech, for the purpose of showing 
 how nearly and how closely his conclusions 
 and his speech accord with what I have just 
 stated : 
 
 " I am sorry to hare been forced to occupy so 
 much of the time of the Senate; but the Senate 
 will bear me witness that I have not spoken, in 
 the last two years, on any one of these topics, 
 except when assailed, and then in self-defence. 
 You will never find the discussion renewed here 
 again by me, except in self-defence. I have stu- 
 diously avoided attacking any man, because I did 
 not mean to give a pretext for renewing the 
 H9?ault on me; and the world shall understand 
 that if my name is brought into this debate again, 
 it, will be done aggressively, as an assault on me; 
 and if I occupy any more time, it will be only in 
 self-defence." 
 . 
 
 Mr. President, this mode of discussing 
 public subjects is a very convenient one 
 arraigning every gentleman sitting here on 
 this side of the Chamber, attacking them in 
 the most offensive of all manners ; spreading 
 that attack, revised and corrected, in the 
 official columns of the Globe, issuing it out 
 to the world ; and then saying that if any 
 man should raise his voice here to repel it, 
 it will be an assault on him, and the world 
 s^all know that he does not speak except 
 in self-defence. He makes it impossible to 
 answer his charges without attacking his 
 course, and then says he is driven by self- 
 defence to fresh assaults ! I am afraid, Mr. 
 President, that I shall be obnoxious to the 
 charge of asailing the honorable Senator 
 from Illinois, if it be indeed an assault to 
 repel a most wanton and unprovoked attack. 
 
 More than one half-the the speech of the 
 honorable Senator from Illinois was devoted, 
 as I said before, to the purpose of proving 
 his own consistency, from some period which 
 I do not care to go back to, down to 1854 
 and 1856, and the present time. He says 
 he is now consistent with the principles that 
 he then professed. I do not deny it. I do 
 not know that any body denies it. On the 
 contrary, that is the precise charge brought 
 against him, as I shall proceed to show. 
 The precise charge is that, having agreed 
 with us that he would abandon those prin- 
 ciples, if they were proved to be false, he 
 now flies from his bargain ; he'uow denies 
 what he agreed to ; he now refuses to be 
 bound by that to which he had previous- 
 ly given his consent ; and defends himself, 
 because, as he Bays, he is now in accordance 
 with what he was then. I do do not pro- 
 pose to go back beyond the year 1857 ; be- 
 cause every one here knows that, up to the 
 year 1857, the honorable Senator from Illi- 
 nois had the cordial friendship and support 
 of all the members of the Democratic party. 
 Every one on this floor knows that, up to 
 
 the year 1857, the honorable Senator from 
 Illinois was looked upon with pride and con- 
 fidence as one of the acknowledged leaders 
 of the Democratic party. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, is it not a subject 
 deserving of some inquiry ; will it not natur- 
 ally suggest itself to the American people 
 to inquire how happens it that a gentleman, 
 who for a long series of years possessed the 
 confidence and admiration of his party, upon 
 whom they looked with pride, whom they 
 acknowledged as a leader, and for whom they 
 reserved their choicest honors, should sud- 
 denly find himself separated from every De- 
 mocratic State in the Union, and from the 
 whole body of his Democratic associates here 
 and in the other House? What magic has 
 effected this change in the universal senti- 
 ment towards him ? What occult power 
 has been brought to bear upon the Senator 
 from Illinois, that to-day he complains and 
 whines that he is the subject of a common 
 assault by gentlemen who were formerly with 
 him, and who, he says, are pursuing him with 
 ruthless malignity ? How happens it that 
 the Senator from Illinois forgot to touch 
 that part of the recent history of the coun- 
 try in his speech ? I propose to commend 
 myself to the consideration of that part of 
 the history. 
 
 When, in 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska bill 
 was before us 1 must be guilty of some re- 
 petition ; it is impossible to avoid it when a 
 question has been worn so threadbare there 
 were three distinct sentiments professed upon 
 this floor in relation to the government of 
 the Territories of the United States. The 
 gentlemen on the other side of the Chamber 
 professed the principle that the Congress 
 of the United States had the power to go- 
 vern the Territories, and that there was to 
 be found in the Constitution of the United 
 States no prohibition against exercising that 
 power so as to exclude slavery ; and they 
 therefore went for excluding slavery from 
 the Territories by the power of Congress, 
 which had an admitted power to govern 
 them. The southern members of the Demo- 
 cratic party, with some of the members from 
 the North, agreed with the Republican party 
 that the Congress of the United States had 
 the undoubted power to govern the Territo- 
 ries ; but they held that there was a limita- 
 tion to that power to be found in the Con- 
 stitution of the United States, which limita- 
 tion prevented the Congress of the United 
 States from exercising the power to exclude 
 slavery ; but, on the contrary, imposed it as 
 a duty upon Congress to protect property in 
 slaves, just as all other property. The third 
 school had at its head, at that time, the 
 venerable Senator from Michigan, now in 
 the Department of State. With him were 
 joined the honorable Senator from Illinois, 
 and the honorable Senator from Michigan 
 
then, Mr. Stuart, I think. They held that 
 the sole power of Congress was to institute 
 an organic act, as they termed it ; that the 
 sole power was to give, as it were, a consti- 
 tution to the Territories by which the people 
 might be brought together in organized form, 
 and that when the people were thus brought 
 together in an organized form, in a legisla- 
 tive capacity, they possessed inherent sover- 
 eignty, just as a State, and had a right to 
 do in relation to slavery just as they pleased. 
 
 Those were the the three principles advo- 
 cated upon this floor. I think I state them 
 correctly. I try to .do so, at all events. 
 When we were discussing the principle to 
 be introduced into the Kansas-Nebraska 
 bill, we all agreed that we were opposed to 
 the principles advocated by the Republican 
 party. We all agreed that whether Con- 
 gress had the power or not to exclude sla- 
 very from the Territories, it was injurious to 
 exercise that power ; that Congress ought 
 not to intervene. That is what we said, and 
 all the Senators from the South concurred 
 with that. When we came further to deter- 
 mine what was to be done, after having de- 
 cided that Congress should not intervene, 
 we split. The Democrats of the South, and 
 some of the Democrats of the North agree- 
 ing with them, in our caucus meetings, in 
 discussing the principles of the bill, in fram- 
 ing its provisions, in preparing it for dis- 
 cussion in the Senate, said : "The Territo- 
 rial Legislature has no power to exclude the 
 people of the South, or their property, from 
 the Territories, because the Territories are 
 governed by Congress as a trustee for all 
 the States ; the Territorial Legislature can 
 get no power but the power that Congress 
 gives it, and Congress itself has no power 
 to exclude our property from the Territo- 
 ries, which belong to us as well as to the 
 free States." The Senator from Illinois said 
 differently. The Senator from Illinois said 
 that he believed the Territorial Legislature 
 had the right, whilst the people of the Ter- 
 ritory were in a territorial organization, to 
 exclude slavery if they pleased. We split 
 on that ; we could not agree. I admit all 
 that the Senator said here the other day as 
 to it. He said so then ; he says now. I 
 complain exactly of that consistency ; be- 
 cause when we could not agree, he said that 
 he would agree with us to submit it to the 
 courts, and if the courts decided in our 
 favor, he would give up and join us ; and 
 we agreed if the courts decided against us, 
 that we would give up and join him. It is 
 that very consistency that is complained of; 
 and I shall proceed to prove it. 
 
 It is bad faith when the honorable Sena- 
 tor no longer worships at the shrine of con- 
 stitutional principle. Professing to agree 
 to leave the matter to the decision of the 
 courts, professing to respect the courts in, 
 
 their decisions, he has gone astray after false 
 gods, and is now worshiping the idols of 
 evasion and circumvention. Sir, I do not 
 state of my own authority the position of the 
 honorable Senator from Illinois, I read again 
 from his speech the other day. He is speak- 
 ing of the power of a Territorial Legislature 
 to exclude slavery. The Senator from Illi- 
 nois is right in saying that his opinion was 
 clearly explained at the time. He asserted 
 the power in the Territorial Legislature : 
 
 "I believe the power existed; others believed 
 otherwise; wo agreed to differ; we agreed to refer 
 it to the judiciary; we agreed to abide by their 
 decision ; and I, true to tuy agreement, referred 
 my colleague to the courts to find out whether the 
 power existed or not. The fact that I referred 
 him to the courts has been cited as evidence that 
 I did not think, individually, that the power ex- 
 isted in a Territorial Legislature. After the evi- 
 dence that I produced yesterday, and the debate 
 just read upon the Truuibull amendment, no man 
 who was an actor in those scenes has an excuse to 
 be at a loss as to what' my opinion was." 
 
 The Senator from Illinois is right; his 
 opinion was clearly expressed at the time. 
 He asserted the power in the Territorial 
 Legislature : 
 
 " But it was not my opinion that was to govern ; 
 it wns the opinion of the court on the question 
 arising under a territorial law after the Territory 
 should have passed a law upon the subject. Bear 
 in mind, that the report introducing the bill was, 
 that these questions touching the right of property 
 in slaves, were referred to the local courts, to the 
 territorial courts, with a right of appeal to the 
 Supreme Court of the United States. When that 
 case shall arise, and the court shall pronounce its 
 judgment, it will be binding on me, on you, sir, 
 and on every good citizen. It must be carried out 
 in good faith ; and all the power of this Govern- 
 ment the Army, the Navy, and the Militia all 
 that we have must be exerted to carry the deci- 
 sion into effect in good faith, if there be resistance. 
 Do not bring the qnestion back here for Congress 
 to review the decision of the court, nor for Con- 
 gress to explain the decision of the court. The 
 court is competent to construe its own decisions, 
 and issue its own decrees to carry its decisions 
 into effect. 
 
 " We are told that the court has already decided 
 the question. If so, there is an end of the contro- 
 versy. You agreed to abide by it ; I did. If it 
 has decided it, let the ..decision go into effect; 
 there is an end of it; what are we quarreling 
 about? Will resolutions of the Senate give any 
 additional authority to the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States? Does it need an 
 endorsement by the Charleston convention to give 
 it validity ? If the decision is made, it is the law 
 of the land, and we are all bound by it. If the 
 decision is not made, then what right have you to 
 pass resolutions here, prejudging the question,, 
 with a view to influencing the views of the court? 
 If there is a dispute as to the true interpretation 
 and meaning of the decision of the court, who can 
 settle the true construction, except the court itself, 
 when it arises in another case ? Can you deter- 
 mine by resolutions here what the decision of the 
 court is, or what it ought to be, or what it will be ? 
 It belongs to that taibunal. The Constitution has, 
 
wisely separated the political from tho judicial 
 department of the government. The Constitution 
 has wisely made tho courts a co-ordinate branch of 
 the Government; as independent of us as we are 
 of them. Sir, you have no right to instruct that 
 court how they shall decide this question in dis- 
 pute. You have no right to define their decision 
 for them. When that decision is made, they will 
 issue the proper process for carrying it into effect; 
 and the Executive is clothed with the Army, tho 
 Nary, and the Militia, the whole power of the 
 Government, to execute that decree. All I ask, 
 therefore, of you, is non-intervention hands off. 
 In the language of the Georgia resolutions, let 
 the subject be banished forever from th Halls of 
 Congress or the political arena, and referred to 
 the Territories, with a right of appeal to the 
 court? ; and there is an end to the controversy." 
 
 Mr. President, I have read that extract 
 at length, that all may see the precise point 
 at which the honorable Senator from Illinois 
 has separated himself from his Democratic 
 brethren and the Democratic party. I have 
 hinr here now, in his speech before the Senate 
 the other day, declaring that that was the 
 bargain ; that whenever the court made the 
 decision he would stand by it ; that he had 
 always intended to stand by it ; that it was 
 binding on him in good faith ; and that the 
 whole power of the Government should, with 
 his consent, be called into operation for the 
 purpose of carrying out the decision. I shall 
 proceed presently to show that the Senator 
 from Illinois, not once, but again and again, 
 since 1857, has been engaged, in conjunction 
 with gentlemen of the Black Republican 
 party, first in endeavoring to explain away 
 the decision that has been made, and next 
 that he has made the broad and open avowal 
 in the face of the country that, if the deci- 
 sion is made, it shall not go into effect. 
 That is the arraignment of the honorable 
 Senator from Illinois. Let him not go back to 
 1840, or 1844, or 1848, or 1852, or 1854, when 
 he had the party with him, nor even to 1856 ; 
 but let him come down to the decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States, in 
 the spring of 1857, and let him follow me 
 while I pursue his devious track since that 
 day. 
 
 Early in the year 1857 the Dred Scott 
 decision was pronounced by the Supreme 
 Court of the Unitecf States. If my re- 
 collection serves me, the decision had not 
 been printed when we adjourned. A num- 
 ber of us, I think, subscribed together to 
 obtain a number of copies from the public 
 printer, agreeing that he should print such 
 a number as we believed the Senate would 
 be willing to have printed when it reassem- 
 bled ; and if the Senate declined to print it 
 when it assembled, we made ourselves re- 
 sponsible to .him for the price. It was de- 
 sired that the decision of the Supreme 
 Court should go to the country.' The dis- 
 senting opinions of the two judges, who 
 were in the minority, had been printed. 
 
 The opinion of the court was still unknown. 
 The result of its opinion was pretty well 
 ascertained ; but in a matter of that magni- 
 tude it was deemed of the last importance 
 to have the very language of the court, and 
 to have it spread broadcast through the 
 land. Now, Mr. President, we are told 
 that this decision decides nothing of what 
 was at issue at the time ; nothing of that 
 issue which the honorable Senator from Il- 
 linois agreed to leave to the courts. I do 
 not know any better way of ascertaining 
 what a court decided than to do as the 
 honorable Senator from Illinois has advised 
 us to do take the court's own statement of 
 what it decided. In reference to this Dred 
 Scott decision, it will be observed by any 
 gentleman who chooses to refer to the nine- 
 teenth volume of Howard's Reports, that 
 every judge gave his opinion seriatim; be- 
 cause there were numerous questions on 
 which all did not choose to be bound, with- 
 out giving a statement of their particular 
 views ; but Mr. Chief Justice Taney de- 
 livered the opinion of the court. The rest 
 were mere statements of particular views. 
 " Mr. Chief Justice Taney," is the expres- 
 sion, " delivered the opinion of the court ;" 
 and Mr. Chief Justice Taney is said to have 
 made a syllabus of the points which he, the 
 organ of the court, considered to have beeu 
 decided by the court. 
 
 Now, in regard to the attempt to get 
 rid of the authority of this decision on the 
 ground that the questions were not before 
 the court, and that they were obiter dicta, 
 allow me to say this : it is true that when a 
 precise point is before a court, the judg- 
 ment of the court upon that point is alone 
 that which binds the parties ; but no lawyer 
 will contradict the assertion, that those 
 principles which the court itself lays down 
 as being the basis upon which it arrives at 
 its conclusions, are decisions by the court ; 
 they are not obiter dicta. Obiter dicta, 
 merely passing sayings, are such views 
 thrown out by a judge in the course of his 
 reasoning as have no reference to the points 
 upon which he is deciding the case ; but 
 whenever, in order to reach a result, the 
 court proceeds to give those reasons for 
 that result, and in giving those reasons for 
 arriving at the result, it lays down the prin- 
 ciples upon which the result is reached, I 
 say those principles are considered as de- 
 cided by the court. If unnecessary to its 
 decision, they have less weight; but if the 
 court itself declares the principles that it 
 lays down to be necessary to its decision, 
 and declares that it does decide them, then 
 I say no lawyer can fail, when that case is 
 -brought up before the court, to say the 
 court has so decided. 
 
 I do not choose to go into that at any 
 length, nor even to read the syllabus of the 
 
15 
 
 pressly recognizes property in slaves, and from 
 that other constitutional provision, that no person 
 shall be deprived of property without due process 
 of law." 
 
 Pretty straightforward propositions, one 
 would suppose. 
 
 "Hence, they reach the conclusion that, as the 
 Constitution of the United States expressly recog- 
 nizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person 
 from being deprived of property without due pro- 
 cess of law, to pass an act of Congress by which 
 a man who owned a slave on one side of a line 
 would be deprived of him if he took him on the 
 other side, is depriving him of that property with- 
 out due process of law. That I understand to be 
 the decision of the Supreme Court. I understand, 
 rilso, that Judge DOUGLAS adheres most firmly to 
 that decision; and the difficulty is, how is it pos- 
 sible for any power jfco exclude slavery from the 
 Territory unless ' in violation of that decision ? 
 That is the difficulty. 
 
 "In the Senate of the United States, in 1856, 
 Judge TRUMBULL, in a speech, substantially, if 
 not directly, put the same interrogatory to Judge 
 DOUGLAS as to whether the people of a Territory 
 had the lawful power to exclude slavery prior to 
 the formation of a constitution. Judge DOUGLAS 
 then answered at considerable length, and his 
 answer will be found in the Congressional Globe 
 under the date of June 9, 1856." 
 
 I have not that answer, but I have his 
 answer of the 2d of July, 1856, which the 
 Senator from Georgia read yesterday, in 
 which he says : 
 
 "My answer then was, and now is " 
 
 Here is his senatorial answer in Congress 
 here : 
 
 "My answer then was, and now is, that if the 
 Constitution carries slavery there, let it go, andm 
 pmoer on earth can take it away / but if the Con 
 stitution does not carry it there, no power but the 
 people can carry it there." 
 
 Not just what he said in Illinois. 
 Lincoln proceeds : 
 
 Mr 
 
 " The Judge said that whether the people could 
 exclude slavery prior to the formation of a consti- 
 tution or not, tea* a question to be decided by the 
 Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as wil 
 be seen by the Congressional Globe, in a variety 
 of forms^ all running to the same thing in sub 
 stance that it was a question for the Supreme 
 Court. I maintain that when he says, after th 
 Supreme Court have decided the question, thatth 
 people may yet exclude slavery by any mean 
 whatever, he does virtually say that it is not a 
 question for the Supreme Court, He shifts hi* 
 ground. I appeal to you whether he did not saj 
 it was a question for the Supreme Court. Hni 
 not the Supreme Court decided that question 
 When he now says the people may exclude slavery 
 does he iiot make it a question for the people 
 Does he not virtually shift his ground, and saj 
 that it is not a question for the court, but for the 
 people? This is a very simple proposition a 
 very plain and naked one." * * * 
 
 ; Again : I will ask you, my friends, if you 
 were elected members of the Legislature, what 
 would be the first thing you would have to do be- 
 bre entering upon your duties ? Swear to sup- 
 port the Constitution of the United States. Suppose 
 r ou believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Con- 
 titution of the United States guarantees to your 
 neighbor the right to hold slaves in that Territory 
 that they are his property how can you clear 
 your oaths, unless you give him such legislation 
 as is necessary to enable him to enjoy that pro- 
 perty? What do you understand by supporting 
 the constitution of a State or of the United States? 
 Is it not to give such constitutional helps to the 
 rights established by that Constitution as may be 
 practically needed ? Can you, if you swear to 
 support the Constitution, and believe that the 
 Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath 
 without giving it support? Do you support the 
 Constitution if, knowing or believing there is a 
 right established under it which needs specific 
 legislation, you withhold that legislation? Do 
 you not violate and disregard your oath ? I can 
 conceive of nothing plainer in the world. There 
 can be nothing in the words 'support the Consti- 
 tution/ if you may run counter to it by refusing 
 support to any right established under the Consti- 
 tution. And what I say here will hold with still 
 more force against the Judge's doctrine of 'un- 
 friendly legislation.' How could you, having 
 sworn to supporj the Constitution, and believing 
 it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in the Ter- 
 ritories, assist in legislation intended to defeat that 
 right? That would be violating your own view 
 of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were 
 to do so, how long would it take the courts to hold 
 your vote* unconstitutional and void? Not a 
 moment. 
 
 " Lastly, I would ask, is not Congress itself 
 under obligation to give legislative support to any 
 right that is established in the United States Con- 
 stitution? I repeat the question, is not Congress 
 itself bound to give legislative support to any 
 right that is established in the United States Con- 
 stitution ? A member of Congress swears to sup- 
 port the Constitution of the United States; and 
 if he sees a right established by that Constitution 
 which needs specific legislative protection, can he 
 clear his oath without giving that protection ? 
 Let me ask you why many of us who are opposed 
 to slavery upon principle, give our acquieacenco 
 to a fugitive slave law? Why do we hold our- 
 selves under obligation to pass such a law, and 
 abide it when it is passed? Because the Constitu- 
 tion makes provision that the owners of slaves 
 shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives 
 the right to reclaim slaves, arid that is, as Judge 
 DOUGLAS says, a barren right, unless there is legis- 
 lation that will enforce it." 
 
 Now, sir, let it not be said that I am 
 reading Republican doctrines here, because 
 these very passages from the speeches of 
 Mr. Lincoln were introduced as discoveries 
 by the Senator from Illinois' these and the 
 other passages in relation to the confusion 
 between a State and a Territory. When 
 the Attorney General had replied to the 
 magazine article of the Senator from Illi- 
 nois, a rejoinder was issued, called "the re- 
 joinder of Judge Douglas to Judge Black," 
 in which he says, speaking of the magazine 
 article : 
 
16 
 
 "In that article, without assailing any one" 
 He never assails any one 
 
 "In that article, without assailing any one, or 
 impugning any man's motives, I demonstrated 
 beyond the possibility of cavil or dispute by any 
 fair-minded man, that if the proposition were 
 true, as contended by Mr. Buchanan, that slavery 
 exists in the Territories by virtue of the Constitu- 
 tion, the conclusion is inevitable and irresistible, 
 that it is the imperative duty of Congress to pass 
 all laws necessary for its protection ; that there is 
 and can be no exception to the rule that a right 
 guaranteed by the Constitution must be protected 
 by law in all eases where legislation is essential to 
 its enjoyment; t!nat all who conscientiously believe 
 that slavery exists in the Territories " 
 
 Senators, listen to me now. . The Senator 
 from Illinois stood here last week, hour after 
 hour, and asked what was this new issue 
 which we were trying to force on the party, 
 and whence its necessity. Why not stand, 
 said he, on the platform of 1856? Why 
 not take that Cincinnati platform which 
 we agreed to in 1856 ? Who is it, he says, 
 that is forcing these new issues on the 
 party? I have tracked him through Illi- 
 nois. What did he say in his defence of 
 the Harper's Magazine article about the ne- 
 cessity of putting this very resolution in the 
 platform ? He says he has demonstrated 
 
 "That all who conscientiously believe that 
 slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of the 
 Constitution are bound by their consciences and 
 their oaths of fidelity to the Constitution to sup- 
 port a congressional slave code for the Territories." 
 
 I deny that ; but I want to show his view 
 of what our duty is : 
 
 "And that no consideration of political expedi- 
 ency can relieve an honest man, who so belieres, 
 from the faithful and prompt performance of this 
 imperative duty." 
 
 That is Judge DOUGLAS'S view of our 
 position; and yet, hour after hour, he stands 
 up here and attacks us for doing that which 
 he says our oaths and our consciences im- 
 pose upon us, as a duty so imperative that 
 it is impossible for us as honest men, to 
 avoid doing it. He says further, in the 
 same " rejoinder :" 
 
 "I also demonstrated, in the same paper, that 
 the constitution, being uniform throughout the 
 United States, is the same in the States as in the 
 Territories is the same in Pennsylvania as in 
 Kansas,- and, consequently, if slavery exists in 
 Kansas by virtue of the Constitution of the 
 United States, it must of necessity exist in Penn- 
 sylvania by virtue of the same instrument; and 
 if it be the duty of the Federal Government to 
 force the people of the Territory to sustain the 
 institution of slavery, whether they want it or 
 not, merely because it exists there by virtue of 
 the Constitution, it becomes the duty of the Fede- 
 ral Government to do the same thing in all the 
 States for the same reason. 
 
 "This exposition of the question produced con- 
 steruation and dismay in the camp of my assail- 
 ants." 
 
 He just copied the arguments from Mr. 
 Lincoln's dispute with him, put them into 
 the Harpers Magazine article, and tells us 
 that this exposition of his of the constitu- 
 tional rights and duties of the States of this 
 Union produced consternation and dismay 
 amongst his assailants ! Why, Mr. Presi- 
 dent, what is there in this argument which 
 the honorable Senator from Illinois has 
 copied from those Republicans who again 
 and again have attacked the decisions of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States that 
 under the doctrine of the Dred Scott de- 
 cision slavery exists as well in the States as 
 in the Territories ; a sophism so bald, a 
 proposition so destitute of a shadow of 
 foundation, that it never was used by any 
 man who believed it, but was put forth to 
 deceive those who could not understand the 
 question. 
 
 What is the decision of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States? It is this, 
 plainly and simply : Congress has jurisdic- 
 tion over and power to govern the Terri- 
 tories; the powers of Congress under the 
 Constitution are limited ; amongst the limi- 
 tations is a prohibition to destroy and im- 
 pair or confiscate the property of citizens 
 without due process of law. Slaves are 
 property, and therefore Congress has no 
 power to confiscate them, to destroy them, 
 or to impair the right of property in them, 
 without due process of law. That is what 
 the Supreme Court says. What has that 
 to do with a State? Does Congress legis- 
 late for a State ? Does Congress govern a 
 State ? Is there anything in the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States prohibiting a 
 State from doing as it pleases in its own 
 legislation, except a certain clause in which 
 the prohibitions are plainly stated, and 
 which does not include the slavery question 
 at all. There are certain prohibitions on the 
 States in the Constitution, and amongst them 
 are emitting bills of credit, raising armies and 
 navies, levying taxes or duties on imports, 
 on exports all these are prohibited to the 
 States. The States are not prohibited from 
 legislating on slavery in their own limits ; 
 but the Supreme Court of the United States 
 hold that Congress is prohibited by the 
 Constitution from doing so in the. Territo- 
 ries, and yet the Senator from Illinois re- 
 peats this absurd position, that because 
 Congress cannot destroy property in slaves 
 in a Territory therefore State constitutions 
 cannot destroy it m the States ! 
 
 It was, Mr. President, well known to the 
 Senator from Illinois when he penned this 
 article, that there was nothing in it what- 
 ever. He was driven to it. Every time he 
 
17 
 
 liscusses the question, if he holds to the 
 principles he has promulgated in the Senate, 
 and now adheres to before the nation, he 
 will be driven, step by step, back and back, 
 to the Black Republican camp. Let him 
 beware of the first step outside of the in- 
 trenchments of the Constitution. Let him 
 beware .'lest he gets so far that return be- 
 comes impossible. He has already got to 
 using their arguments, to adopting their 
 principles, and after vaunting here that he 
 is the embodiment of the Democratic party, 
 and 'offering indulgence and quarter to all 
 Democratic Senators ahd all Democratic 
 States that disagree with him, he joins in 
 the cry that Democratic sentiments, truly 
 expounded, lead to disunion. 
 
 Sir, I have trespassed on the attention of 
 the Senate rather longer than I intended. 1 
 shall be as brief as possible for the remain- 
 der of the time I shall occupy. The Sena- 
 tor from Illinois, the other day, went fur- 
 ther. He has not only evaded, avoided and 
 circumvented the South by the Nebraska 
 bill, if, indeed, it be susceptible of the con- 
 struction he gives it, and confers on the 
 people of the Territories the right he now 
 alleges, but, with all his promises, the cloven 
 foot again sticks out. He warns us yes 
 Senators, he warns us that if the Tennes- 
 see resolution is adopted at Baltimore, he 
 will explain away that, too. Nothing can 
 bind him, according to his present state- 
 ments. Let me read this Tennessee resolu 
 tion, and 1 will ask every man within the 
 sound of my voice whether it does not seem 
 to be as plain and clear as the English Ian 
 guage can make it ? Pass it, and he tells 
 you it will not bind him. He says it has a 
 double construction and a double meaning 
 He has prepared everybody for a double 
 meaning to it. He asked the Senator from 
 Ohio to read it ; 'and here it is : 
 
 " Mr. Pugh read, as follow : 
 
 "Resolved, That all citizens of the United State 
 have an equal right to settle with their property 
 in the Territories, and that under the decision o" 
 the Supreme Court, which we recognize as a 
 exposition of the Constitution, neither their right 
 of person or property can be destroyed or impaire 
 by congressional or territorial legislation." 
 
 I confess that I read it over and over, an 
 could not see a loop to hang a doubt on. A 
 the citizens of the United States have a 
 equal right to settle with their property i 
 the Territories, and no territorial legislatio 
 can impair it. That is the Tennessee reso 
 lution. What is the warning given to u 
 by the Senator from Illinois ? Here it is : 
 
 "We have had predictions that the party was t 
 bo reunited by tho adaption of that resolution 
 The only objection I have to it is, that it is liabl 
 to two constructions." . 
 
 The Cincinnati platform that he warns us 
 o stick to that, of course, is not. Oh, 
 o ! But this will be liable to two construc- 
 ons, and I have puzzled my brain for an 
 our to get at that other construction. I 
 r ill read what the Senator said, and per- 
 aps other Senators may be more fortunate 
 ban I have been. I think I have got a 
 limpse. He says it is liable to two con- 
 tractions 
 
 "And certainly and inevitably will receive two, 
 irectly the opposite to each other, and each will 
 e maintained with equal pertinacity." 
 
 We know what the South will maintain 
 under that resolution ; and who will main- 
 am any other construction ? Surely, tho 
 Senator from Illinois means that he will, 
 >ecause he knows we will not. We can see 
 but one meaning, and no man imbued with 
 constitutional principles can discover but 
 one, and that is, that all citizens those who 
 own slaves, as well as those who own horses 
 have a right to go with their property into 
 the Territories have an equal right to go 
 here ; and that their property shall not be 
 mpaired. But the Senator from Illinois 
 says there is another construction that will 
 maintained, and persistently maintained. 
 And what is it ? He says : 
 
 'The resolution contains, in my opinion, two 
 ;ruisrns ; and fairly considered, no man can ques- 
 ;ion them." 
 
 What is the fair consideration he gives 
 it? 
 
 " Thoy are, first, that every citizen" 
 
 Not " all the citizens." The resolution 
 says all the citizens. He says every citizen. 
 But I will show you why he says so : 
 
 " Every citizen of the United States has an equal 
 right in the Territories; that whatever right the 
 citizen of one State has may be enjoyed by the citi- 
 zens of all the States." 
 
 See how he is changing it now ! 
 
 "That whatever property the citizen of one 
 State may carry there, the citizens of all the States 
 may carry." 
 
 And then they will go on with the old Re- 
 publican objection, that we are all at per- 
 fect liberty to go into the Territories with- 
 out our property ; that we are all on an 
 equal footing. The old Republican argu- 
 ment that was brought up here in the dis- 
 cussions on the Kansas-Nebraska bill in 
 1854, the Senator from Illinois tenders to us 
 now for the canvass of I860. He will tell 
 us, " You are not excluded from the Terri- 
 tory ; a northern man goes with his horses, 
 you may go with horses ; a northern Dian 
 
18 
 
 goes with a cow, you may go with a cow ; a 
 uorthern man does not go with a slave, and 
 you shall not go with a slave ; " and that is 
 the equality that he says it means. The 
 Senator from Illinois is kind in warning us 
 in advance this time how this proposition 
 will be got rid of. The South will be fools 
 if they do not take advantage of the warn- 
 ing, and see if something cannot be devised 
 which the astute and practiced ingenuity of 
 the Senator from Illinois cannot get around, 
 if the English language can hold him. Now 
 he says: 
 
 "And on whatever terms the citizens of one 
 State can hold it, and have it protected, the citi- 
 ens of all States can hold it and have it protected, 
 without deciding what the right is which still 
 remains for decision.-' 
 
 So that the Tennessee platform will leave 
 us just where we are now. What is his ob- 
 jection to it ? 
 
 "I want no double dealing, or double construc- 
 tion." 
 
 That is his objection. He wants things 
 clear, plain, and straight ; and then when 
 we ask that they shall be put down clear, 
 plain, and straight, he abuses us for making 
 new tests in the party ; talks about assaults 
 on him ; kept the Senate occupied for eight 
 mortal hours, whilst he was attacking every 
 man and every State in the entire Union 
 that would not support his pretensions for 
 the Presidency. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, the people have at 
 last come to this point; the Democratic 
 delegates of the South have come to this 
 point. I speak not of the delegates in either 
 House of Congress. It is the fashion to 
 speak of congressional dictation, in a cer- 
 tain class of public journals under the con- 
 trol of certain public men, and yet one would 
 suppose that a seat in Congress affords at 
 least some prima facie probability of the 
 possession of the confidence of the constit- 
 uency, and that the unanimous concurrence 
 of opinion of the chosen representatives of 
 the Democracy, both of States and constit- 
 uencies, is some prima facie proof of what 
 Democratic principles are. But all that is 
 nothing. In modern slang, this is a Yancey 
 and caucus platform, and we are congress- 
 ional dictators. I, therefore, leaving out of 
 view the opinions of members of Congress 
 in both branches of the General Assembly 
 of the United Statos, now say that it has 
 been demonstrated by the delegates of the 
 South, sent by the State conventions from 
 primary meetings, that the time has come 
 when all constitutional rights, guaranteed to 
 UB under the decision of the Supreme Court 
 which was taken by the Senator from Illi- 
 nois and his coadjutors as the common arbi- 
 
 ter of our dispute, shall be acknowledged ; 
 that all that we demand shall be put down 
 in the bond ; that there shall be no longer a 
 doubt in relation to it. 
 
 Mr. President, when mere private rights 
 of property are concerned when the ques- 
 tion is, who owns a farm, or who owns a 
 horse, or who is entitled to $100, it is au 
 old aphorism of the law'; misera est servitus, 
 ubijus aid vagum aut incertum est : wretch- 
 ed and deplorable is the slavery where the 
 law which governs a man's rig-lit is vague or 
 uncertain. And shall we we who repre- 
 sent Democratic States and Democratic 
 constituencies be asked why it is that we 
 will not leave these rights, on which they 
 rest for their property, which are even vital 
 to their existence, open to doubt and denial ? 
 Shall we be asked why it is that we demand 
 that the charter of these rights be written 
 clearly, plainly, beyond the possibility of 
 doubt or misconstruction ? Oh, no, says the 
 Senator from Illinois, " in 1856 we were 
 unanimous upon the Cincinnati platform ; I 
 have given it a construction, and the Charles- 
 ton convention has backed my construction, 
 and I am the Democratic party ;" and it is his 
 construction, and the construction adopted 
 by a minority at Charleston, that he presents 
 to us here, and asks us by what right we 
 call for something 'plainer or clearer as the 
 charter of our constitutional privileges ? 
 Miserable and deplorable is the slavery 
 where the law governing the property of the 
 individual is doubtful or uncertain. Degrad- 
 ing and dishonoring to a State is it, when 
 its sovereignty cannot ask for an expression 
 or acknowledgment of its sovereign rights 
 in an assembly of equals. The people of the 
 South do not mean to be put off this time 
 with any doubtful or vague construction. 
 The Senator from Illinois is opposed to 
 double meanings and double constructions ; 
 he dislikes the Tennessee platform on that 
 ground. We share his dislike ; fas est ab 
 hoste doceri: we will be taught by him. We 
 will ask that everything in our platform be 
 put down plainly and clearly. 
 
 Mr. President, the honorable Senator 
 from Illinois, in the plenitude of his power, 
 tells us that the Democratic platform has 
 been adopted, and backs him. He next 
 tells us that it is glory enough for him to 
 have been supported by a majority of the 
 delegates of the Democratic party at a con- 
 vention ; and then, with an allusion some- 
 what transparent, to a course of proceeding 
 by others which would be agreeable to him, 
 he says that when others got a majority he 
 sent word to his friends to vote for them. 
 He does not say that he thinks everybody 
 ought to send word to vote for him, but he 
 leaves it to us, if we are generous or lib- 
 eral, to draw our own conclusions. Now, 
 Mr. President, I know what happened at 
 
19 
 
 that convention only from the public records 
 of the country, and the report of its dele- 
 gates. It is reported that, as his highest 
 Vote, upon one or two ballots, the honora- 
 ble Senator from Illinois received one hun- 
 dred and fifty-two and a half votes, and I 
 think that was the highest. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. For several ballots seven 
 or eight. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. How did he get 
 them ? Were there one hundred and fifty- 
 two delegates in the convention of whom he 
 was the choice ? 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Certainly; they expressed 
 it by their vote. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. Oh, that was part 
 of the arrangement by which those who 
 were not candidates for the Presidency were 
 caught, but the truth of history will leak 
 out in despite of those little arrangements. 
 (Laughter.) I had here amongst my papers, 
 I think, the speech of a delegate, who ex- 
 plains this majority. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. State the substance of it. 
 If it was said at Charleston I shall recol- 
 lect it. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. Well, sir, I will 
 state the substance of it ; I cannot find the 
 extract I had, and I shall have to affix it to 
 my speech. Gentlemen have doubtless seen 
 it. Scarcely had the Charleston convention 
 met, and a committee been appointed on 
 organization, when it reported an organiza- 
 tion of presidents, vice-presidents, and sec- 
 retaries, and sprung this resolution on the 
 convention instanter the convention had 
 previously adopted the rules of the previous 
 Democratic conventions 
 
 " The committee further recommend " 
 
 The subject was not committed to them 
 at all 
 
 "The committee further recommend that the 
 rules and regulation!* adopted by the Democratic 
 convention of 1852 and 1856 be adopted by this 
 convention for its government;" with this addi- 
 tional rule: 
 
 "That any State which has not provided or 
 directed by its State convention how its votes may 
 be given, the convention will recognize the right 
 of each delegate to cast his individual vote." 
 
 As a certain gentleman was a candidate 
 for the Presidency Heaven preserve the 
 country from candidates for the Presidency ! 
 wherever the gentleman's friends were in 
 the majority, they had taken special pains, 
 by pre-organization, to get a resolution 
 passed at the State conventions instructing 
 the delegates to vote as a unit, and thus 
 they fastened down every man in a minority 
 in the United States, and in spite of him- 
 self got his vote cast for the Senator from 
 Illinois, although he wa,s opposed to him. 
 
 But the conventions in other States leaving 
 the Democratic delegates to the instincts 
 of their own judgment ; leaving in opera- 
 tion the time-honored traditions of the pap- 
 tv ; not tyinjr up their delegations by in- 
 structions' left them to act as they might 
 think proper ; and when they got to Charles- 
 ton, by forcing the votes of all the minori- 
 ties that were against Mr. DOUGLA.S, and 
 freeing the hands of all the minorities that 
 were in his favor, his friends had cast for 
 him all the minorities, both those for him 
 and those against him, in all the United 
 States. That is the way he got one vote 
 more than half the convention. Now, what 
 I was looking for was this : the distinct 
 statement of a delegate from Massachu- 
 setts, (Mr. BUTLER,) that there were fifteen 
 steady, persistent votes against the Senator 
 from Illinois from the State of New York 
 alone. I am telling you what IVIr. Butler 
 said. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I read his speech last 
 night ; I think he said twelve. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. I read it this morn- 
 ing , it said fifteen. It may have changed 
 since last night. 
 
 Mr. *PUGH. Very well ; fifteen dele- 
 gates. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. He says there were 
 fifteen delegates from New York alone who 
 were steady, persistent opponents of Mr. 
 DOUGLAS ; yet those votes were cast for him. 
 There was a tninotity in Indiana, but those 
 votes were cast for him. There were minori- 
 ties in other States, which I added up; and 
 instead of having a majority of the delegates 
 of the Democratic party throughout the 
 United States in his favor, Mr. DOUGLAS was 
 in a lean minority of but one-third of the 
 delegates, and tha.t one-third exclusively 
 from Republican States. The whole Demo- 
 cratic party of the United States, as its Dem- 
 ocratic electoral votes will testify, was op- 
 posed to him unanimously. Mr. Butler says 
 so. My friend from Minnesota, (Mr. RICK,) 
 has just handed me the extract in the Con- 
 stitution of this morning ; and I will read 
 not the whole of it, but portions of it. and if 
 I am wrong in my memory as to fifteen, I 
 will give up. 
 
 Mr. PUGH. I read it in the Herald 
 last night. 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN. Mr. Butler, in giv- 
 ing an account to his constituents at a 
 meeting called to censure him, but which 
 approved and endorsed him after he was 
 through, said : 
 
 " In New York there were fifteen votes opposed 
 to Judge DOUGLAS from first to last, yet her thirty- 
 five votes wore cast for him on every ballot; in 
 Ohio, six votes." 
 
 Mr. PUGH. Not one. 
 
20 
 
 Mr. BENJAMIN 
 
 "In Indiana, five vote? : in Minnesota, two votes 
 opposed to him, yet by that rule east for him, so 
 that the majority was more apparent than real." 
 
 I leave out the six votes from Ohio. The 
 Senator from Ohio, who was a delegate 
 himself, must certainly know better than 
 the delegate from Massachusetts, and I 
 abandon the point to his superior know- 
 ledge ; but here, without counting any more, 
 fifteen in New York, five in Indiana, two in 
 Minnesota, make twenty-two. Take twen- 
 ty-two from one hundred and fifty-two, and 
 there remain one hundred and thirty, with- 
 out counting a solitary vote against him 
 from the State of Ohio. But, sir, I will 
 not enter into these minutiae, which ought 
 not to be entered into in the Senate, and 
 which I certainly never would have thought 
 of speaking of,, but for the constant vaunt 
 of the Senator from Illinois that the major- 
 ity was his, and he was entitled to a nomi- 
 nation ; that the party had backed his prin- 
 ciples, and that we were all rebels against 
 his high majesty. I should not have in- 
 quired into this matter but for that. And 
 now what does this this delegate say as the 
 sum total of what occurred ? He says : 
 
 " Now, with the South opposed to Judge DOUG- 
 LAS, even to a disruption of the party j with every 
 Democratic free State voting against him; with 
 two-thirds of the delegation of the great State of 
 Pennsylvania firmly against him, one-half nearly 
 of New York hostile. New Jersey divided, and the 
 only State in New England where the Democracy 
 can have much hope (Connecticut) nearly equally 
 balanced, what was it the part of wisdom for your 
 delegate to do ?" 
 
 That is the question Mr. Butler presents 
 to his constituency. What does he say? 
 
 "I found also that Judge DOUGLAS was in op- 
 position to almost the entire Democratic majority 
 of the Senate of the United States. No matter 
 who is right and who is wrong, it is not a plensant 
 position for a candidate of the Democratic party." 
 
 This is Mr Butler's language : 
 
 "I found him opposed by a very large majority 
 of the Democratic members of the House of Repre- 
 sentatives." 
 
 We have watched him here : 
 
 " It is doubtless all wrong that this should be 
 eo, yet ?o it is. I have heard that the sweetest 
 wine makes the sourest vinegar, but I never heard 
 of vinegw sour enough to make sweet wine. Cold 
 apathy and violent opposition are not the prolific 
 parent of votes. I found, worse than nil for a 
 Democratic candidate for the Presidency, that the 
 Clerk of the Republican House of Representatives 
 was openly quoted as saying that the influential 
 paper controlled by him would either support 
 DOUGLAS or SEWARD, thug making himself, appa- 
 
 rently, an unpleasant connecting link between 
 them. 
 
 "With these facts before me, and impressing 
 upon me the/ conviction that the nomination of 
 Judge DOUGLAS could not be made with any hope 
 of safety to the Democratic party, what was I to 
 do ? I will tell you what I did do, and I am afraid 
 it is not what I ought to have done. Yielding to 
 your preference, I voted seven times for Judge 
 DOUGLAS, although my judgment told my that 
 my votes were worse than useless, as they gave 
 him an appearance of strength in the convention 
 which I felt he had not, in fact, in the Democratic 
 party." 
 
 That is the gentleman who stands up 
 here, and as the embodiment of the Demo- 
 cratic party challenges the entire body of 
 his Democratic fellow-Senators. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, all that I have 'said 
 has been said somewhat in indignation. It 
 was not in human nature not to feel indig- 
 nation at the charges so profusely scattered 
 against me and my friends, and my State ; 
 but still, sir, after all, " more in sorrow than 
 in anger." Up to the years 1857 and 1858, 
 no man in this nation had a higher or more 
 exalted opinion of the character, the ser- 
 vices, and the political integrity of the 
 Senator from Illinois than I had. I can 
 appeal to those who may have heard me in 
 the last presidential canvass, in my State, 
 where, for months together, day and night, 
 I was traveling in support of the Demo- 
 cratic party, and helping, as far as my hum- 
 ble abilities would admit, to break down the 
 Know-Nothing party, which had then a de- 
 cided majority of the voters of our State 
 inscribed in its lodges. We succeeded in 
 that contest. The canvass was a success- 
 ful one ; and it did so happen that, in the 
 course of that canvass, I had again and 
 again to appeal to my Democratic fellow- 
 citizens of the State of Louisiana to stand 
 by the gallant Democracy of the North 
 who stood by us, to frown down this new 
 organization, whose only effect could be to 
 injure the Democratic candidate and his 
 success ; and then, in speaking of that 
 bright galaxy of Democratic talent, Demo- 
 cratic integrity, and Democratic statesman- 
 ship, that I now see gathered and clustered 
 around me, the central figure was the hon- 
 ored portrait of the Senator from Illinois. 
 
 Sir, it has been with reluctance and sor- 
 row that I have been obliged to pluck down 
 my idol from his place on high, and refuse 
 to him any more support or confidence as a 
 member of the party. I have done so, I 
 trust, upon no light or unworthy ground. I 
 have not done so alone. The causes that 
 have operated on me have operated on the 
 Democratic party of the United States, and 
 have operated an effect which the whole 
 future life of the Senator will be utterly 
 unable to obliterate. It is impossible that 
 confidence thus lost can be restored. On 
 
21 
 
 what ground has that confidence been for- 
 feited, and why is it that we now refuse him 
 out support and fellowship ? I have stated 
 our reason to-day. I have appealed to the 
 record. I have not followed him back in 
 the false issue or the feigned traverse that 
 he makes in relation to matters that are not 
 now in contest between him and the Demo- 
 cratic party. The question is not what we 
 all said or believed in 1840 or 185. How 
 idle was it to search ancient precedents, and 
 accumulate old quotations from what Sena- 
 tors may have at different times said in re- 
 lation to their principles and views. The 
 precise point, the direct arraignment, the 
 plain and explicit allegation made against 
 the Senator from Illinois is not touched by 
 him in all of his speech. 
 
 We accuse him for this, to wit : that 
 having bargained with us upon a point upon 
 which we were at issue, that it should be 
 considered a judicial point ; that he would 
 abide the decision ; that he would act under 
 the decision, and consider it a doctrine of 
 the party ; that having said that to us here 
 in the Senate, he went home, and under the 
 stress of a local election, his knees gave 
 way ; his whole person trembled. His ad- 
 versary stood upon principle and was beaten ; 
 and lo ! he is the candidate of a mighty 
 party for the Presidency of the United 
 States. The Senator from Illinois faltered. 
 He got the prize for which he faltered ; but' 
 lo ! the grand prize of his ambition to-day 
 slips from his grasp because of his faltering 
 in his former contest, and his success in the 
 canvass for the Senate, purchased for an ig- 
 noble price, has cost him the loss of the 
 Presidency of the United States. 
 
 Here were two men, struggling before the 
 people of a State on two great sides of a 
 political controversy that was dividing the 
 Union, each for empire at home. One stood 
 on principle was defeated. To-day, where 
 stands he ? The other faltered received 
 the prize; but, to-day, where stands he? 
 Not at the head of the Democratic party of 
 these United States. He is a fallen star. 
 We have separated from him. He is right 
 in saying we have separated from him. We 
 
 have separated from him. not because he 
 held principles in 1856 different from ours. 
 We have separated from him, not because 
 we are intolerant of opposition from any- 
 body, for the Senator from Ohio (Mr. PUGH) 
 is an honored member of our organization. 
 We separated from him because he has de- 
 nied the bargain that he made when he 
 went home ; because, after telling as here in 
 the Senate that he was willing that this 
 whole matter should be decided by the Su- 
 preme Court, in the face of his people, he 
 told them that he had got us by the bill ; 
 and that, whether the decision was for us or 
 against us, the practical effect was to be 
 against us ; and because he shows us now 
 again that he is ready to make use of Black 
 republican arguments used against himself 
 at home, and to put them forth against the 
 Democratic party in speeches here in the 
 Senate. 
 
 Now, Mr. President, this will be repre- 
 sented as an attack on the honorable Sena- 
 tor from Illinois ; but I finish my speech, as 
 he did his, by saying " the Senate will bear 
 me witness that I have not spoken, on this 
 subject until attacked ; all I have said is in 
 self-defence. I attack no man, and the 
 world shall know if ever I speak again, it 
 shall be in self-defence." (Laughter.) Mr. 
 President, the best defence is to carry the 
 war into the enemy's country. I belong to 
 no school of politicians that stand on the 
 defensive. If attacked, I strike back, and 
 ever shall. If the Senator from Illinois 
 wants the world to know that he spoke only 
 in self-defence, let the same measure of jus- 
 tice be meted out to me, and in answer to 
 any one who can, by possibility, consider 
 what I have said as an attack, I reply 
 "self-defence." (Laughter.) I wish my 
 speech qualified just like that of the hono- 
 rable Senator from Illinois. If his is an 
 attack, mine is; if his is "self-defence" 
 against some unknown person, mine also is 
 "self-defence" against somebody that has 
 attacked me and my State, whose name I 
 do not know. (Laughter.) That is just 
 my position, I state it plainly ; I am sorry 
 the Senator is not here to hear it stated. 1