The position and policy of the Republicans in Congress, in relation to the important questions growing out of slavery, are beginning to take definite shape. We have no doubt they will be thorough and effective enough to answer all just expectations of the radical portion of the party, and yet sound and cautious enough to avoid threatened dangers, and so accomplish the results most to be desired, without increasing the difficulties or extending the limits of the war. The speech of Senator Fessenden of Main, on the question of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, gives the key note to the policy of Republicans and Union men, as near as it can be hit at the present moment. His discussion of the whole subject was clear and statesmanlike, but we print only such paragraphs as touch the subject in hand:
“I know what the argument has always been in opposition to it: ‘You are affecting the institution of slavery; you are weakening its power; you are doing something that will have a tendency to injure it; you are giving an example that may produce evil to the institution of slavery in the States themselves.’ So be it. Is there any obligation binding on me that, in exercising a constitutional power, in doing that which I have a right to do under the great charter which I have sworn to support, I should do nothing which indirectly might affect the institution of slavery in the States of the Union.”
“I have said during the last canvass repeatedly, and I aided in passing a resolution through Congress to effect, that the object and purpose of this war was not to affect slavery in the States, but to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. I have said at this session that that pledge has been made by me; that the party to which I belonged had pledged itself that it did not come into power and would not prosecute this war for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States; and I said that, so far as I was concerned, I meant to keep my pledge. – But, sir, I did not say, nor did the party to which I belong ever say, that it pledged itself to do nothing that indirectly might affect the institution of slavery. Do gentlemen call upon us, because we are prosecuting this war, to forget all we have said, and all we have been struggling to accomplish for years? What sir, have we been struggling for? It was to place this government in a position where it should not lend its aid to slavery. Since its formation, it has been devoted to that object; and what the Republican party contended for, as I understood it, was to free the government from the incubus that had been laid upon it through its unnatural connection with this peculiar institution.
“Now, sir, are gentleman so unreasonable as to ask us, in this particular crisis of our affairs, and because of the peculiar existing state of things, that we shall forget all we have heretofore said on this subject; that we shall forego all we have tried to attain; that we shall at once ignore the question of slavery altogether, that we shall do nothing directly or indirectly which is calculated to effect our own purpose, and that a constitutional purpose, which we declared long ago? In my judgment, it is asking too much of us; and the process of reasoning by which gentlemen attempt to meet this question, it strikes me, is hardly a fair one. Let me ask the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Willey) for whom I have very great respect, does it follow, when we act constitutionally in one direction, that therefore we mean to act unconstitutionally in another direction? Does it follow, because we adopt one measure, that we mean to adopt another, and a different one? The honorable senator has connected all the measures before Congress together, and he views them as parts of a whole. In the first place, there is the recommendation of the President; in the next place, there is the bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and in the third place, here are the questions with regard to the confiscation of property, and again the resolutions of the honorable senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) with regard to the States themselves; and the honorable Senator from Virginia Takes it for granted that they are parts of a system. Let me tell him it is not so; and he acts unwisely in leading his people to suppose, because we carry out, or attempt to carry out, what we believe to be a constitutional power and a duty resting upon us with regard to this particular measure, that therefore we mean to exercise a power which may not belong to us under the constitution. Each measure should be left to be judged, and to stand or fall upon its own merits and according to its issue.
Why, sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly for myself and that I dissent entirely from the conclusions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this Union as gone and destroyed. The fundamental idea upon which we started in this contest was, that no state could take itself out of the Union, no State could destroy its existence as a State, or change its relations to the Union. We have not recognized State action. From the beginning we have considered all action as individual action, as having nothing whatever to do with the States as such. But, sir, I do not intend to argue that question now. It is enough to say, in this connection that upon this particular point the opinions of the honorable senator from Massachusetts are his own, for which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly well able to defend. What right, then, has the honorable Senator from Virginia to say that he considers all the propositions that have been made as parts of a system, and designed as an attack on the institution in the States where it exists, and a breach of the obligations under which the dominant party held itself with reference to this particular question?
“Mr. President, that the Republican party would rejoice to see slavery abolished everywhere, that they would rejoice if it no longer existed, that they feel it to be a blot upon our fair institutions and a curse to the country, there is no doubt. I can answer, for one, that has been my opinion always, and I have expressed in here and elsewhere; but, sir, I have held, and I hold to-day, and I say to-day what I have said in my place before, that the Congress of the United States, or the people of the United States through the Congress, under the Constitution as it exists now, have no right whatever to touch, by legislation, the institution of slavery in the States where it exists by law. I have said that, and I say it again, boldly; for my position never has been misunderstood on this subject. But sir, I say further, that so far as the people of this country have the power, under the Constitution, to weaken the institution of slavery; to deprive it of its force; to subject it, as an institution, to the laws of the land; to take away the political influence which it has wielded in this country, and to render it, so far as they can, a nullity, they have the right to do so, and it is their solemn duty to exercise it. And I say, moreover, that honorable Senators mistake in endeavoring to excite the sensibilities of their people by complaining of any constitutional action of ours upon this subject and charging us with a breach of plighted faith.
“Why, sir, do you suppose we came into power to sit still and be silent on this subject; that we came into power to do nothing; to think nothing to say nothing lest by some possibility a portion of that people of the country might be offended? That was the argument of the honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. Wright) [sic] this morning, as I understand it. Sir. It is no more than ought reasonably to be expected – no matter whether in progress of this war or not, no matter where it touches – if the people of this country should see that the institution of slavery has been the prolific cause of all that we now suffer, the ground upon which this rebellion originated, and has been carried on, that they will, wherever they can constitutionally strike at it, do so. All that anybody ought to ask is, hands off wherever the constitution prohibits you from touching it at all.
“I do not grow restive, sir, because on this question I am no longer positive; but I cannot help feeling a little wonder that Senators here or gentlemen out of this hall should undertake to suppose that this cry, which we have heard so long, and which has produced so much effect, that we must not touch the question at all, what ever may be its condition, and whatever may be ours, is to be listened to. I will hold, as I have always said before, strictly and strongly to every pledge that I gave individually, or that my party gave and that I assented to; but you must not expect me to take back all my opinions; you must not expect me to hold back my hand where I can strike at the institution as an institution; you must not expect me to restrain myself when I see an opportunity in any way to dissever this Government from the support of that institution directly or indirectly. I should be false to my own principles if I did so. I should be false to all the professions that I have made from my youth up. I should be false to all the instinct of my nature, and all the duty which I owe to my country, believing, as I do that the institution is, has been, and ever will be a curse.”
– Published in the Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 19, 1862
“I know what the argument has always been in opposition to it: ‘You are affecting the institution of slavery; you are weakening its power; you are doing something that will have a tendency to injure it; you are giving an example that may produce evil to the institution of slavery in the States themselves.’ So be it. Is there any obligation binding on me that, in exercising a constitutional power, in doing that which I have a right to do under the great charter which I have sworn to support, I should do nothing which indirectly might affect the institution of slavery in the States of the Union.”
“I have said during the last canvass repeatedly, and I aided in passing a resolution through Congress to effect, that the object and purpose of this war was not to affect slavery in the States, but to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land. I have said at this session that that pledge has been made by me; that the party to which I belonged had pledged itself that it did not come into power and would not prosecute this war for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States; and I said that, so far as I was concerned, I meant to keep my pledge. – But, sir, I did not say, nor did the party to which I belong ever say, that it pledged itself to do nothing that indirectly might affect the institution of slavery. Do gentlemen call upon us, because we are prosecuting this war, to forget all we have said, and all we have been struggling to accomplish for years? What sir, have we been struggling for? It was to place this government in a position where it should not lend its aid to slavery. Since its formation, it has been devoted to that object; and what the Republican party contended for, as I understood it, was to free the government from the incubus that had been laid upon it through its unnatural connection with this peculiar institution.
“Now, sir, are gentleman so unreasonable as to ask us, in this particular crisis of our affairs, and because of the peculiar existing state of things, that we shall forget all we have heretofore said on this subject; that we shall forego all we have tried to attain; that we shall at once ignore the question of slavery altogether, that we shall do nothing directly or indirectly which is calculated to effect our own purpose, and that a constitutional purpose, which we declared long ago? In my judgment, it is asking too much of us; and the process of reasoning by which gentlemen attempt to meet this question, it strikes me, is hardly a fair one. Let me ask the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Willey) for whom I have very great respect, does it follow, when we act constitutionally in one direction, that therefore we mean to act unconstitutionally in another direction? Does it follow, because we adopt one measure, that we mean to adopt another, and a different one? The honorable senator has connected all the measures before Congress together, and he views them as parts of a whole. In the first place, there is the recommendation of the President; in the next place, there is the bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and in the third place, here are the questions with regard to the confiscation of property, and again the resolutions of the honorable senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner) with regard to the States themselves; and the honorable Senator from Virginia Takes it for granted that they are parts of a system. Let me tell him it is not so; and he acts unwisely in leading his people to suppose, because we carry out, or attempt to carry out, what we believe to be a constitutional power and a duty resting upon us with regard to this particular measure, that therefore we mean to exercise a power which may not belong to us under the constitution. Each measure should be left to be judged, and to stand or fall upon its own merits and according to its issue.
Why, sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly for myself and that I dissent entirely from the conclusions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this Union as gone and destroyed. The fundamental idea upon which we started in this contest was, that no state could take itself out of the Union, no State could destroy its existence as a State, or change its relations to the Union. We have not recognized State action. From the beginning we have considered all action as individual action, as having nothing whatever to do with the States as such. But, sir, I do not intend to argue that question now. It is enough to say, in this connection that upon this particular point the opinions of the honorable senator from Massachusetts are his own, for which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly well able to defend. What right, then, has the honorable Senator from Virginia to say that he considers all the propositions that have been made as parts of a system, and designed as an attack on the institution in the States where it exists, and a breach of the obligations under which the dominant party held itself with reference to this particular question?
“Mr. President, that the Republican party would rejoice to see slavery abolished everywhere, that they would rejoice if it no longer existed, that they feel it to be a blot upon our fair institutions and a curse to the country, there is no doubt. I can answer, for one, that has been my opinion always, and I have expressed in here and elsewhere; but, sir, I have held, and I hold to-day, and I say to-day what I have said in my place before, that the Congress of the United States, or the people of the United States through the Congress, under the Constitution as it exists now, have no right whatever to touch, by legislation, the institution of slavery in the States where it exists by law. I have said that, and I say it again, boldly; for my position never has been misunderstood on this subject. But sir, I say further, that so far as the people of this country have the power, under the Constitution, to weaken the institution of slavery; to deprive it of its force; to subject it, as an institution, to the laws of the land; to take away the political influence which it has wielded in this country, and to render it, so far as they can, a nullity, they have the right to do so, and it is their solemn duty to exercise it. And I say, moreover, that honorable Senators mistake in endeavoring to excite the sensibilities of their people by complaining of any constitutional action of ours upon this subject and charging us with a breach of plighted faith.
“Why, sir, do you suppose we came into power to sit still and be silent on this subject; that we came into power to do nothing; to think nothing to say nothing lest by some possibility a portion of that people of the country might be offended? That was the argument of the honorable Senator from Indiana (Mr. Wright) [sic] this morning, as I understand it. Sir. It is no more than ought reasonably to be expected – no matter whether in progress of this war or not, no matter where it touches – if the people of this country should see that the institution of slavery has been the prolific cause of all that we now suffer, the ground upon which this rebellion originated, and has been carried on, that they will, wherever they can constitutionally strike at it, do so. All that anybody ought to ask is, hands off wherever the constitution prohibits you from touching it at all.
“I do not grow restive, sir, because on this question I am no longer positive; but I cannot help feeling a little wonder that Senators here or gentlemen out of this hall should undertake to suppose that this cry, which we have heard so long, and which has produced so much effect, that we must not touch the question at all, what ever may be its condition, and whatever may be ours, is to be listened to. I will hold, as I have always said before, strictly and strongly to every pledge that I gave individually, or that my party gave and that I assented to; but you must not expect me to take back all my opinions; you must not expect me to hold back my hand where I can strike at the institution as an institution; you must not expect me to restrain myself when I see an opportunity in any way to dissever this Government from the support of that institution directly or indirectly. I should be false to my own principles if I did so. I should be false to all the professions that I have made from my youth up. I should be false to all the instinct of my nature, and all the duty which I owe to my country, believing, as I do that the institution is, has been, and ever will be a curse.”
– Published in the Burlington Weekly Hawk-Eye, Burlington, Iowa, Saturday, April 19, 1862
