MR. TRUMBULL. Mr. President, the long public service of the
Senator from Kentucky, his acknowledged patriotism and devotion
to the Union, give great importance to whatever he says; and in
all he has said in favor of the Union and its preservation, and
the maintenance of the Constitution, I most heartily concur. No
man shall exceed me in devotion to the Constitution and the
Union. But, while this is so, what the Senator says of those of
us who disagree with him as to the mode of preserving the Union
and maintaining the peace of the country is well calculated, in
consequence of the position he occupies, to mislead and
prejudice the public mind as to our true position. Does he
expect, or can he expect, that compromises will be made and
concessions yielded when he talks of the great party of this
country, constituting a majority of its people, as being wedded
to a dogma set up above the Constitution; when he talks of us
as usurping all the territories, as ostracizing all the people
of the South, and denying them their rights? Is that the way to
obtain compromises? Instead of turning his denunciation upon
those who violate the Constitution and trample the flag of the
country in the dust, he turns to us and talks to us of
usurpations, of our dogmas; tells us that for a straw we are
willing to dissolve the Union and involve the country in blood.
Why are not these appeals made and these rebukes administered
to the men who are involving the country in blood? If it is a
straw for us to yield, is it anything more than a straw for
them to demand? If it is a trifle for us to concede, is it any
larger than a trifle which the South demands, and to obtain
which it is willing to destroy this Union, which he has so
beautifully and so highly eulogized?
Sir, I have heard this charge against the people of the North,
of a desire to usurp the whole of the common territories, till
I am tired of the accusation. It has been made and refuted ten
thousand times. Not a man in the North denies to every citizen
of the South the same right in a territory that he claims for
himself. And who are the people of the South? Slaveholders? Not
one white citizen in twenty of the population in the South owns
a slave. The nineteen twentieths of the non-slaveholding
population of the South are forgotten, while the one twentieth
is spoken of as "the South." The man who owns a slave in the
South has just as much right in the territory as a man in the
North who owns no slave. If the Southerner cannot take his
negro slave to the territory, neither can the Northern man.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account