Homepage
Login
Profile
BookClubs
dmBox
Read Ebook: American Eloquence Volume 3 Studies In American Political History (1897) by Johnston Alexander Editor Woodburn James Albert Editor
Font size:
Background color:
Text color:
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page
Ebook has 439 lines and 68660 words, and 9 pages
INTRODUCTION
SALMON PORTLAND CHASE On The Kansas-Nebraska Bill --United States Senate, February 3, 1854.
EDWARD EVERETT On The Kansas-Nebraska Bill --United States Senate, February 8, 1854.
STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS On The Kansas-Nebraska Bill --United States Senate, March 3, 1854.
CHARLES SUMNER On The Crime Against Kansas --United States Senate, May 20, 1856.
PRESTON S. BROOKS On The Sumner Assault --House Of Representatives, July 14, 1856.
JUDAH P. BENJAMIN On The Property Doctrine And Slavery In The Territories --United States Senate, March 11, 1858.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN On The Dred Scott Decision --Springfield, Ills., June 26, 1857.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN On His Nomination To The United States Senate --At The Republican State Convention, June 16,1858.
THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE DOUGLAS In Reply To Lincoln--Freeport, Ills., August 27, 1858.
WILLIAM H. SEWARD On The Irrepressible Conflict--Rochester, N. Y., October 25, 1858.
JOHN PARKER HALE On Secession; Moderate Republican Opinion --United States Senate, December 5, 1860.
ALFRED IVERSON On Secession; Secessionist Opinion --United States Senate, December 5, 1860.
BENJAMIN WADE On Secession, And The State Of The Union; Radical Republican Opinion--United States Senate, December 17, 1860.
JOHN JORDON CRITTENDEN On The Crittenden Compromise; Border State Unionist Opinion--United States Senate, December 18, 1860.
ROBERT TOOMBS On Secession; Secessionist Opinion --United States Senate, January 7, 1861.
SAMUEL SULLIVAN COX On Secession; Douglas Democratic Opinion --House Of Representatives, January 14, 1861.
JEFFERSON DAVIS On Withdrawal From The Union; Secessionist Opinion --United States Senate, January 21, 1861.
LIST OF PORTRAITS
WILLIAM H. SEWARD -- Frontispiece From a photograph.
SALMON P. CHASE -- From a daguerreotype, engraved by F. E. JONES.
EDWARD EVERETT -- From a painting by R. M. STAIGG.
STEPHEN A. DOUGLASS -- From a steel engraving.
JEFFERSON DAVIS -- From a photograph.
INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED VOLUME.
The third volume of the American Eloquence is devoted to the continuation of the slavery controversy and to the progress of the secession movement which culminated in civil war.
To the speeches of the former edition of the volume have been added: Everett on the Nebraska bill; Benjamin on the Property Doctrine and Slavery in the Territories; Lincoln on the Dred Scott Decision; Wade on Secession and the State of the Union; Crittenden on the Crittenden Compromise; and Jefferson Davis's notable speech in which he took leave of the United State Senate, in January, 1861.
Judah P. Benjamin may be said to have been the ablest legal defender of slavery in public life during the decade of 1850-60. His speech on the right of property in slaves and the right of slavery to national protection in the territories was probably the ablest on that side of the controversy. Lincoln's speech on the Dred Scott Decision has been substituted for one by John C. Breckinridge on the same subject; this will serve to bring into his true proportions this great leader of the combined anti-slavery forces. No voice, in the beginnings of secession and disunion, could better reflect the positive and uncompromising Republicanism of the Northwest than that of Wade. The speech from him which we have appropriated is in many ways worthy of the attention of the historical student.
We may look to Crittenden as the best expositor of the Crittenden Compromise, the leading attempt at compromise and conciliation in the memorable session of Congress of 1860-61. Crittenden's subject and personality add historical prominence to his speech. The Crittenden Compromise would probably have been accepted by Southern leaders like Davis and Toombs if it had been acceptable to the Republican leaders of the North. The failure of that Compromise made disunion and war inevitable. Jefferson Davis' memorable farewell to the Senate, following the assured failure of compromise, seems a fitting close to the period of our history which brings us to the eve of the Civil War.
The introduction of Professor Johnston on "Secession" is retained as originally prepared. A study of the speeches, with this introduction and the appended notes, will give a fair idea of the political issues dividing the country in the important years immediately preceding the war. Limitations of space prevent the publication of the full speeches from the exhaustive Congressional debates, but in several instances where it has seemed especially desirable omissions from the former volume have been supplied with the purpose of more fully representing the subjects and the speakers. To the reader who is interested in historical politics in America these productions of great political leaders need no recommendation from the editor.
J. A. W.
SALMON PORTLAND CHASE,
OF OHIO.
ON THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA BILL; SENATE,
FEBRUARY 3, 1854.
The bill for the organization of the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas being under consideration--Mr. CHASE submitted the following amendment:
Strike out from section 14 the words "was superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly called the compromise measures, and; so that the clause will read:
"That the Constitution, and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable, shall have the same force and effect within the said Territory of Nebraska as elsewhere within the United States, except the eighth section of the act preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the Union, approved March 6, 1820, which is hereby declared inoperative."
Mr. CHASE said:
Mr. President, I had occasion, a few days ago to expose the utter groundlessness of the personal charges made by the Senator from Illinois against myself and the other signers of the Independent Democratic Appeal. I now move to strike from this bill a statement which I will to-day demonstrate to be without any foundation in fact or history. I intend afterward to move to strike out the whole clause annulling the Missouri prohibition.
I enter into this debate, Mr. President, in no spirit of personal unkindness. The issue is too grave and too momentous for the indulgence of such feelings. I see the great question before me, and that question only.
Sir, these crowded galleries, these thronged lobbies, this full attendance of the Senate, prove the deep, transcendent interest of the theme.
A few days only have elapsed since the Congress of the United States assembled in this Capitol. Then no agitation seemed to disturb the political elements. Two of the great political parties of the country, in their national conventions, had announced that slavery agitation was at an end, and that henceforth that subject was not to be discussed in Congress or out of Congress. The President, in his annual message, had referred to this state of opinion, and had declared his fixed purpose to maintain, as far as any responsibility attached to him, the quiet of the country. Let me read a brief extract from that message:
"It is no part of my purpose to give prominence to any subject which may properly be regarded as set at rest by the deliberate judgment of the people. But while the present is bright with promise, and the future full of demand and inducement for the exercise of active intelligence, the past can never be without useful lessons of admonition and instruction. If its dangers serve not as beacons, they will evidently fail to fulfil the object of a wise design. When the grave shall have closed over all those who are now endeavoring to meet the obligations of duty, the year 1850 will be recurred to as a period filled with anxious apprehension. A successful war had just terminated. Peace brought with it a vast augmentation of territory. Disturbing questions arose, bearing upon the domestic institutions of one portion of the Confederacy, and involving the constitutional rights of the States. But, notwithstanding differences of opinion and sentiment, which then existed in relation to details and specific provisions, the acquiescence of distinguished citizens, whose devotion to the Union can never be doubted, had given renewed vigor to our institutions, and restored a sense of repose and security to the public mind throughout the Confederacy. That this repose is to suffer no shock during my official term, if I have power to avert it, those who placed me here may be assured."
The agreement of the two old political parties, thus referred to by the Chief Magistrate of the country, was complete, and a large majority of the American people seemed to acquiesce in the legislation of which he spoke.
A few of us, indeed, doubted the accuracy of these statements, and the permanency of this repose. We never believed that the acts of 1850 would prove to be a permanent adjustment of the slavery question. We believed no permanent adjustment of that question possible except by a return to that original policy of the fathers of the Republic, by which slavery was restricted within State limits, and freedom, without exception or limitation, was intended to be secured to every person outside of State limits and under the exclusive jurisdiction of the General Government.
And so, sir, the country was at peace. As the eye swept the entire circumference of the horizon and upward to mid-heaven not a cloud appeared; to common observation there was no mist or stain upon the clearness of the sky.
But suddenly all is changed. Rattling thunder breaks from the cloudless firmament. The storm bursts forth in fury. Warring winds rush into conflict.
Now, sir, who is responsible for this renewal of strife and controversy? Not we, for we have introduced no question of territorial slavery into Congress--not we who are denounced as agitators and factionists. No, sir: the quietists and the finalists have become agitators; they who told us that all agitation was quieted, and that the resolutions of the political conventions put a final period to the discussion of slavery.
This will not escape the observation of the country. It is Slavery that renews the strife. It is Slavery that again wants room. It is Slavery, with its insatiate demands for more slave territory and more slave States.
And what does Slavery ask for now? Why, sir, it demands that a time-honored and sacred compact shall be rescinded--a compact which has endured through a whole generation--a compact which has been universally regarded as inviolable, North and South--a compact, the constitutionality of which few have doubted, and by which all have consented to abide.
Add to tbrJar First Page Next Page