7
|
not in consequence of it. If the predicates of slavery and the Democratic party be true; if the Constitution, proprio vigore, extends slavery into the Territories, as claimed in the Dred Scott case; if slavery exists in Kansas and other Territories by the same rule that it does in the slave States, as asserted by President Buchanan, then slavery is the rule and freedom the exception in this Government, and there is nothing to prevent its domination and control everywhere in the Republic. These positions, and the policy which they logically lead to, would reverse the motive power of our civilization and progress, and run our institutions rapidly back into the dark ages. The leading politicians of the Democratic party have so far reversed the principlss and policy of that party, by incorporating into its platform the increasing demands of slavery, that they have run the party as far back as Charleston; and there, if our telegrams are to be relied upon, they have run it off the track, and a break-up is the result. This event, which may be regarded as a calamity by some, by the inscrutable dispensations of Him who can make the wrath of man to praise him, may result in saving much of the valuable material of which the Democratic party is composed from further destruction. It will at least teach men the folly of attempting to jump on to the platform of a train having a backward motion. It is difficult for us here, among the confused rumors which reach, us, to determine what the Charleston Convention has done or will do. The Democrats North will, I have no doubt, as heretofore, yield substantially to the demands of the slave power; and the party will incorporate into its platform the protection of slavery in the Territories. The contest is now mainly between those who maintain the position that slavery exists in the Territories by virtue of its property character, under the Constitution, and those who deny the predicate and the conclusion. There is, or has been, a middle ground of policy, (for I cannot discover any principle in it,) of which Senator Douglas is the expounder, if not the originator, which I cannot at this moment better characterize than to call it the Priest and Levite policy; passing by on the other side of slaves in the Territories, and allowing them to perish, as persons or property, as the case may be, among the thieves of Jericho, who may first happen to squat upon the public domain, "not caring whether slavery is voted up or down." This position, and its artful author and advocate, will soon be, if they are not already, politically ground to powder between the controlling forces of the upper millstone of freedom and the nether millstone of slavery. Mr. Chairman, slavery has sought refuge, as a last hiding place, under the protection of the Supreme Court; and if the present policy of the Democratic party is to prevail, that tribunal is hereafter to control and determine what laws |
shall be enacted by the law-making power for the government of the Territories. The slave-holding power expect to convert the national domain into slave Territories by the decree of a court, instituted to determine the rights of individuals properly before them. Neither Congress nor the people of a Territory are here-after to have any say or responsibility upon the question of slavery. The slave power is unwilling to trust the popular will, as reflected through Congress or the people of a Territory, who are more immediately interested with this question. Mr. Chairman, it is not the first time we have heard of an effort of despotism to shield itself behind technicalities and courts for protection; and I point gentlemen to a noted case in English history, where Charles I contended, unconstitutionally, that he had a right to exact ship-money from English subjects without the authority of an act of Parliament. He undertook to do it; and the question was submitted to the Court of Exchequer. John Hampden tested the matter; and he and his lawyers argued it for twelve days with the lawyers of the Crown. The King got his decision from a perhaps venal, at all events a willing, judiciary. The judges stood eight to four—about the same majority as there was in the Dred Scott case. But did he succeed in collecting his ship-money? He did not; and an indignant public opinion compelled a reversal of the judgment; and this will be the result of the Dred Scott ruling. The people have the lawful power to reorganize the Judiciary, if necessary, giving all the people a fair representation on the bench; and the inevitable course of events will vacate the seats now filled by the present judges, and other men will occupy their places, and then we shall see how long the Democratic party and the slave power will sing hosannas to the judgment of the Supreme Court. The slave power will then repudiate it, as the Democratic party did when it decided a bank constitutional. While I admit that a decision made by that court, in a case properly before it, is binding upon the parties, I fully concur with the able argument submitted to this House a few days since, by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Conkling,] that it is not binding upon Congress. We are bound to support the Constitution as we understand it. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Millson] very pleasantly told us yesterday, and I have no doubt sincerely, for his candor and ability command the respect of this side of the House, that the Republicans were about as powerless as if struck with lightning, on account of that decision. If that court is not struck with something worse than lightning, then I am mistaken in the effect of popular thunder. The free people of this country will not submit to have their Territories converted into slave States, at the dictation of the Supreme Court of the United States. |
|
