mm F'/Sf THE PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE. SPEECH HON. SAMUEL A:SMITH, OF TENNESSEE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 9, 1856. The House liaving resumed the consideration of the motion to print extra copies of the Annual Message of the President of the United States — Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee, said: Mr. Speaker, I wish this morning to reply briefly to the remarks made yesterday by two gentlemen from Ohio, [Messrs. Campbell and Sherman,] on the motion to refer and print the message of the President of the United States. This debate is an extraordinary one; but, as the gauntlet has been thrown down by the Re- publicans, it must be taken up by the Democrats, as they seem to be the challenged party. Ob all occasions it is allowable to those defeated in any contest, whether personal, physical, or political, to make excuses for their defeat; and on most occasions those who have taken the lead in an unsuccessful contest of any kind are pre- pared to furnish their friends with some excuse plausible in its character for their defeat; and more particularly after it has occurred under assurances like those given by the Republican party in the late presidential canvass. If nothing had been said in reference to the causes of defeat, 1 should not have considered it my duty to say anything upon this occasion. I have always found, even in traveling from court to court with gentlemen who had favoi"ite horses, that when their horses stumbled they would complain of the blacksmith who shod them, or would say that the horse had been shod too long. Even the Mexi- can General Santa Anna furnished an excuse to liis people, and made them believe that they triumphed in the great battles of Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo. Napoleon the 1. furnished an ex- cuse for his defeat at Waterloo; but he gave as a reason, that his expected reinforcements did not arrive on the field of battle in time to take part in the conflict which determined the fate of France. No auch excuse as that has been furnished by the Republican party in the remarks made by either of the gentlemen from Ohio on yesterday. The Republicans, with their forces all in the field, well disciplined and ready for the contest before it commenced, have been vanquished, and they now attempt to furnish an excuse for their defeat. They charge upon the Democratic parly an avowed of different sentiments in the different sections of the Union. If this had been all that was said yesterday, I should not have felt it my duty to say a word upon this occasion. The excuse was so silly, if I may be allowed the expression, and calculated to have such little influence upon the public mind, that I should not have replied to it, had the remarks of the gentlemen been confined to those excuses for defeat to which I have re- ferred. But, sir, I saw in the speech of the gentleman from Ohio yesterday, a different purpose from what was disclosed in their words. I saw in the speech of the gentleman who last addrei\sed the House [Mr. Sherman] an effort at a unio7i be- tween that element which had fought the Dem- ocratic party at the North, and thai which had opposed it at the South, in order to unite all in the next presidential contest, which will come off in 1860. The gentleman from Ohio has backed down from the position taken by the Republican party in the last canvass, in this House and in the country, in reference to the question of sla- very. It was said to me, as I came on to Weish- ington, by a distinguished man who occupies a seat upon this floor, that there would be an effort to unite all the elements of opposition to the Democratic party in one body to carry the next election, and, to accomplish their object, nom- inate a southern man as their candida.te for the Presidency. The first step towards the accom- plishment of that object was, in my judgment, taken on yesterday in this House, ft will not, it cannot succeed; but the effort will be made, and \ e 'ii! .SC.5 I should not be surprised , from what has occurred in the southern States in the late presidential canvass, to see that party successful, so far as the leading men of tiie Republican party, and of those opposed to the Democratic party in the South, are concerned. But the gentleman from Ohio said that the great issue in the last canvass was the restoration of the Missouri compromise line, and the policy of the present Administration, and that that policy had been condemned by more than three hundred thousand majority of the popular vote. I take issue with the gentleman in that assertion; and I am prepared to show that, so far from that being true, the policy of President Fierce has been app oveil, and that a restoration of the Mis- souri compromise line has been condemned by one million three hundred and thirty thousand votes. The position of the various candida;ts in that contest WHS well known. That of Mr. Buchanan was in favor of the repeal, and against the res- toration, of the Missouri restriction. That of Mr. Fillmore was against the restoration of that line. Mr. Fillmore took ground against its re- peal and also against its restoration. Now, sir, the number of votes cast for those two candidates over those cast for Fremont is more than all those which were given to the Republican candi- date at the late presidential election. But suppose I am wrong in the idea that the votes cast for Fillmore in the northern States were opposed to the restoration of the Missouri compromise line; yet those who voted for him in the southern States openly avowed that they were opposed to its restoration. It was so pro- claimed by all their speakers on the stump. Now, take the votes which Mr. Buchanan re- ceived and the votes given to Mr. Fillmore in the southern States, and there is a clear majority of more than two hundred thousand against the rcBtoration of the Missouri compromise line. Yet the gentleman from Ohio, in a very extraor- dinary manner, asserted that the policy of Pres- ident Pierce upon that subject has been con- jlemned by a majority of three hundred thousand votes. Mr. SHERMAN. I desire to propound a question to the gentleman. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I yield for an interrogatory, but for nothing else. Mr. SilERMAN. Does not the gentleman know that thousands of persons in the northern States who were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri compromise voted for Mr. Buchanan? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I do; but they were utterly opposed to its restoration. Mr. SHERMAN. Does he not know that the candidate of the Democratic party in the Lan- caeier district of Pennsylvania, in which Mr. Buchanan resides, was one of those here who TO»^■d rif'iinst the repeal of the Missouri compro- mise—who condemned it upon the floor of this HuusL-, ;.n(l upon the hustings.' Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I know that Mr. Heister, who ran in the Lancaster district, took open and bold ground in the late presidential campaign against the restoration of the Missouri compromise. He said that he had voted against the repeal of that compromise; but he unequiv- ocally opposed its restoration. Mr. SHERMA\. Was that gentleman, who thus opposed the restoration of the Missouri cnmprgmise, elected in the Wheatland district? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. He was not; he was defeated. Perhaps, if he had voted for the repeal, he might have boen elected. At the time of the repeal of the Missouri compromise he belonged to the Whig party, every northern member of which voted against that repeal. Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, is this dis- cussion in order? The SPEAKER. The Chair thinks the dis- cussion is in order on a motion to print and refer the message of the President. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It has been asserted in the South, in almost every presiden- tial canvass and in every State canvass, that the Democratic party of the northern States were unsound on the question of the constitutional rights of the Soutli. "We have denied this. We have held that the Democratic party North and the Democratic party South occupied one and the same ground. We took the same position in the late canvass. The gentleman furnishes, as he supposes, mate- rial to the opposition to the Democratic party in the South with which to fight us in future presi- dential and State canvasses. But his attempt will be fruitless. The people of the South now understand the position of all the parties in the northern States, and they look to the Democracy as the only one national in its principles and just in its action to all sections of the Union. It was boldly proclaimed yesterday that Mr. Buchanan was a minority President, and that the administration of President Pierce was con- demned by the people. It was alleged that Mr- Buchanan" was elected under false pretenses. A little investigation would have satisfied the gen- tleman from Ohio [Mr. Campbell] that neither of these propositions i^.'true in fact. I am pre- pared to refute all of them. Mr. Buchanan has clear majorities over all others in enough States to make' him President without a single electoral vote from any State which he only earned by a plurality of votes. He has carried by clear ma- jorities sixteen States — fourteen southern, and tlie States of Pennsylvania and Indiana. Those States number one hundred and fifty-two electoral votes, being eleven more than the nui.iber re- quired to elect a President. So that if the strength of Fremont and Fillmore and Gerrit Smith were all combined he would have enough votes to elect him. Let us try this in another way, for these are facts which go out to the people. The sixteen States which Mr. Buchanan carried by clear ma- jorities have a population by the last census of ia,3yi,8:34. The entire population of the United Slates liy the same census is put down at 2.>,09&,- 578. Therefore he had a clear majority of the people of the Union in ftwor of his election. Yet it is said that he is a minority President, and that the principle of the restoration of the Mis- souri compromise was indorsed by the people. Mr. Fremont carried the six New Etigland States and Wisconsin and Michigan. Those eight States have a population of 3,431,000. The States of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa were carried by pluralities. They have a popiiiation of over 6,000,000. Mr. Fill- more carried Maryland, with a population of 583,000. So that Mr. Buchanan and the Demo- cratic party have been indorsed by a large ma- jority of tiie people of the United States. The total number of votes polled for Buchanan at the recent election may be stated in round numbers at 1,800,01)0 For Fremont 1,275,000 For Fillmore 850,000 Total number of votes 3,9-::i5,000 Buchanan over Fremont 525,000 Over Fillmore 950,000 Fremont over Fillmore 425,000 Buchanan's nlurahty over Fremont is 100,000 more than Fremont's plurality over Fillmore. Fremont lacks about 1,375,000 of a majority of the whole. Buchanan lacks about 325,000 of a majorityof the v.'hole. In all the non-slaveholding Stales taken together, Fremont is in a minority of more than 200,000. His vote, however, exceeds Buchanan's in said States al)out 1.30,000. It is not true, therefore, that sectionalism has carried the day by a popular majority. The people of the country are opposed to sectionalism. The people of the North and of the South are in favor of the Union, and of preserving the rights of every section of the Union. The Democratic party was successful in the recent contest, even under the adverse . circumstances v.-hich sur- rounded it, and elected tlie President by a large majority of the electoral colleges. The Sates we have carried contain a majority of the popula- tion of the United States. Buchanan and Breck- inridge have a large majority of the electoral col- leges. Why, tlien, is it said that tb.e verdict of the pcojvle was against the policy of the Demo- cratic party, and that the administration of Pres- ident Pierce has been condemned by the people? The convention which nominated Mr. Buchanan indorsed President Pierce and his administration. This we ail know. The very convention which nominated him indorsed the Kansas-Nebiasica bill, which was the great issue in the presidential canvass. Mr. BARCLAY. I v.^sh to ask the gentleman whether the resolution indorsing the administra- tion of President Pierce waa published and cir- culated in the Democratic papers of Pennsyl- vania? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I know nothing about what was published in the Pennsylvania papers. It was contained in the ofiicial proceed- ings of the convention, which wre published all over the country. But, sir, 1 hope that no Penn- sylvanian here will esteem the people of that noble Siate so ignorant as not to know what occurred in the Cincinnati Convention, when its proceedings were public, and published in nearly all the journals of the country. Mr. WASHBUPcNE, of Illinois. Do I uf'der- stand the gentleman to state that this resolution inijor.sing the administration of Pierce was pub- lished in all the norlhern Democratic papers? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Yes, sir, all th'. leading ones of whic-li I have any KnowleUge. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. As part of tlie platform ? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. As part of the proceedings of the Cincinnati Convention. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I undertak'- to say that it was not published in ma;.y of the Illinois Democratic papers. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It was published in the northern Democratic papers as part of the proceedings of the convention. It was published in the Boston Post, in the New York Day Book, and in the Pennsyl vanian. These are the leading papers of the North wliich I saw. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. In my sec- tion of the country it not only was not published in those papers, but they denied that such a res- olution was passed. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I am afraid that my tViend's part of the country is a bcnighlc^d place, anyhow, and should not be surprised if -so good a thing would never find its way into hif " beat." Is there a Democratic paper in the gentleman's district. Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There are two or three which profess to be, bat they have only a very limited circulation. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Do theysupport the regular Democratic candidates ? Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. There wen- several Democratic papers in my State which did not publish it. I believe the Freeport Bulletin was one. I will not bo certain, however. Mr. SMITH, of Tennesisee. That evades th.- question, and I turn the gentleman over to his colleague, [Mr. Marshall.] Mrr MARSHALL, of Illinois. With the per- mission of the gentleman from Tennessee, I wish to ask my colleague a question. I understand my colleague to assert that Democratic papers in Illinois repudiated the resolution of the Cincinnati Convention indorsingtheadministration of Frank- lin Pierce, and denied that such a resolution had been adopted. This is a grave and sweeping- charge, and I wish him to state distinctly what i Democratic papers in Illinois he refers to. I Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I am not ! certain. I cannot state with certainty; but my i impression is that the Freeport Bulletin denied ' that such a resolution had been adopted at Cin- } cinnati. I Mr. MAR.SHALL, of Ilhnois. I wish to be j understood distinctly as asserting that no paper I in Illinois, uecognized as an organ of the Denio- ' cratic party, and circulating among the people : of that State, ever denied the adoption of such 'a resolution. On the contrary, the Democracy I of Illinois everywhere, witliout evasion or equiv- I ocation, sustained the platform and proceeding.'! ' of the Cincinnati Convention, the principles of ' the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and the administra- i tion of Franklin Pierce. Any assertion to the I contrary cannot be sustained l)y the facts. The j position of the Democracy of Illinois cannot be ' mistaken by any one who wishes to understand it. They are in favor of withdrawing this question | of slavery entirely from the Halls of Congress, j and of leaving its adjustment to the people of each I State and Territory for themselves, without any 1 interference wliatever from without. And this just principle, I cannot doubt, will be sustained ; by a large majority of the people of the northern States, when it is fairly and honestly presented, ; without misrepresentation or evasion by our op- i poncnts. i Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the i gentleman state to the House whether he knows ; of his own knowledge that the State Register j and the Chicago Times, two leading Democratic papers in that State, published the resolution among the proceedings of the convention.-' [ Mr. MARSHALL, of Illinois. Both of them j did. And every paper which undertook to pub- [ lish the entire proceedings published that among j the other resolutions of the convention. Mr. ALLEN. For the information of my } cfdieague, I can state to him that the Chicago Times, the Springfield Register, and the Gluincy Herald, three of the leading Democratic papers in the northern part of the State, published that : reeolution of the Cincinnati Convention. Mr. MORRISON. I desire to state that all the , Democratic papers in the eighth congressional district of Illinois published that resolution; and not only the Democratic papers, but the Republi- ■ can papers in that district published it also, and upon it based their assault upon the Democratic ; party, because that party had indorsed the admin- i istration of Franklin Pierce. | Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I would ask the ! gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. WAsiiBunNc,] if he knows one single Democratic paper in his j district which did not publish it.-' | Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. I have stated j that already. | Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Is it so to your i own know!eds:e.' ' Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. My im- pression is that the Freeport Bulletin is one paper which did not publish that resolution. j Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. The resolutions ; of the Democratic Convention were public mat- \ ters, and every Democratic member of Congress ] was entitled, I beheve, to eighty copies, and they were distributed among the northern and southern States. I hold in my hand one of the resolutions of that convention, v/hich I will read. It is as follows: j "Resolved, That claiming fellowsliip with, and desiring ; the cooperation of, all who regard the preservation of the I Union under the Constitution as the paramount issue — and ; repudiating all sectional panics and platlbrins concerning domestic slavery, which seek to enihro:! the State.* and incite to treason and armed resistance to law in the Terri- tories, and whose avowed purposes, if consummated, must , e«d in civil war and disunion— the American Democracy recognize and adopt the principles contained in the organic laws estahlishing the Tenntories of Kansas and Nebraska 83 embodying the only sound and safe solution of the ! « slavery question' upon which the great national idea of the people of this whole country can repose in its determ- i jned conservatism of the Union — non-interference iw Con- [ gross with slavery in State and Territory, or in the JDistrict [ of Columlia.'' i Upon that platform Mr. Buchanan went before \ the country — a platform made in the State from > which the gentleman comes who yesterday ad- dressed the House, and attempted to show that the Democracy of his State were ignorant of the principles upon which they voted for the Dem- ocratic candidate. Mr. GROW. I would ask the gentleman if he, and the party with whom he acted in the South, understand that resolution to mean that previous to the formation of a State constitution the people of a Territory could prohibit or permit slavery.' Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. It is well known that there is a difference of opinion between northern and southern gentlemen upon what is called the question of" squatter sovereignty." I have never regarded it as of any importance. I know that a large portion of the peo]ile of the North, of all parties, believe that the people, in a territorial capacity, can exclude or admit slavery, because they believe it is an inherent right, and one not conferred by Congress. The people of the South disbelieve that, with some exceptions. There are some in the South who believe that the people have an inherent right to admit or exclude slavery in a territorial capacity, and there are many in the North who believe that the people of a Territory have not that power until they form a constitution to ask admission as a State into the Union. I have said I regard this as a question of no practicability. I have held that in a territorial capacity they had not the right to exclude slavery. Yet the majority of the people in the Territory will decide this question, after all. In a Terri- tory we must have laws, not to establish, but to protect the institution of slavery; and if a major- ity of the people of a Territory are opposed to the institution, they will refuse to pass laws for its protection. We have the right to take slaves into the Ter- ritory without any law establishing the institu- tion. But southern men must be satisfied that there will be laws for their protection before they will take their property, whether negroes or horses, with them into any State or Territory of the United States. Mr. H. MARSHALL. I would inquire whether Mr. Buchanan in the presidential cam- paign took the northern or southern construc- tion of the question } Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. He took the bold and strong ground that the people had the right to settle the question for themselves. He has always taken ground against what the gen- tleman terms " squatter sovereignty." Mr. H. MARSHALL. Do I undestand the gentleman to say that Mr. Buchanan holds that the people of a Icrritory, prior to the formation of a State constitution, have the right to exclude slavery .' Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Mr. Buchanan has never taken any such ground. I will read the ground he has taken. Mr. H. MARSHALL. I know what he says in his letter of acceptance. As the Democratic party went into the canvass with two construc- tions of the question, I only wish to know which he took, or whether he took both Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Here is the ground he assumed. The following resolution is a part of the platform adopted by the Democratic [ National Convention which nominated Mr. Buch- \ anan, and which he most cordially approved: ! " Renolvcl, That we recognize the right of the people of i all the Territories', includinc; Kansas and Nohra;*ka, actiiii! j through the lesally and fairly-expressed will of a majority of actual residents, and whenever the number of their inhabitants justifies it, to form a constitution, with or with- | out domestic slavery, and be admitted into the Union upon j terms of perfect equality with tlie otlier States." j That is the ground taken by Mr. Buchanan and the convention which nominated him. The j doctrine that the people of a Territory have the j right to form their own institutions in their own way is the true and Democratic doctrine. As to the institution of slavery, they ought not to jiro- hibit or establish it until tiiey form a constitution to ask admission as a State into the Union. If ; the people of a Territory are opposed to theinsti- j tutioa of slavery, they will not pass laws to pro- ' lect it, and it will not go there. If, on the con- ' trary, they are in favor of it, they will pass laws [ for its protection, and it will go there. It will either go there or not, according to the popular sentiment of the people of the Territory. The gentleman from Kentucky himself supported a , candidate for the Presidency who maintained the ! doctrine of squatter sovereignty. Mr. H. MARSHALL. Our candidate did not hold that doctrine. He was opposed to it, as every man who supported him North and South was opposed to it. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. How many times did the gentleman's candidate vote for the prin- ciples of the Wilmot proviso? Mr. H. MARSHALL. Do you understand that to be squatter sovereignty ? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. The seventh section of the platform upon which the gentleman fought the battle contains what the gentleman himself considered an indorsement of the doctrine of squatter sovereignty — the language of the Nebraska bill. Mr. H. MARSHALL. Not at all. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Yet the gentle- man talks to me of squatter sovereignty, when his candidate has voted for the principle of the Wilmot proviso every time it came before the House when he was a member of this body. He denounced the repeal of the Missouri compro- mise, which compromise excluded the gentleman and myself from going to the Territories of Kan- sas and Nebraska unless we left our servants behind us. Such are the strange scenes presented to us; and they go to show more forcibly the truth of what 1 stated to the gentleman from Ohio, that there is a movement on foot to unite all the elements of opposition to the Democratic party in the canvasses which are to come off in the future. It has been frequently stated that the Dem- ocratic party North and the Democratic party South take 'different ground in reference to the affairs of Kansas and the future of that Territory. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sherman] said that the Democratic party in the North assumed the ground that they were a better free-soil party than the Republican party. Now, I have a right to speak on this subject. I was in the canvass North and South. I spoke in free and slave States. I addressed the people of the gen- tleman's own State at Cincinnati, together with two others, one from Ohio and one from Connec- ticut. I spoke in Trenton, New Jersey, with gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New York, one of them" Prince John, "as he is sometimes called. The sentiments uttered by these gentlemen were precisely those I entertain and have published to my people. The only difference between us was this: I live in a slave State, in the midst of the in- stitution, and like it; they live in free States, and did not like it; yet they had the patriotism to stand up to a maintenance of all the guarantees of the Constitution for the protection of the insti- tution. This, in my judgment, entitles them to the more credit. Mr. SHERMAN. The gentleman ha?" said that he has spoken at the same meeting with Prince John Van Buren. Now, I would ask him whether he indorses the_ doctrines promul- gated by that gentleman during the late campaign, and whether they would stand upon the .tame stump and rehearse them together? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I most certainly agree in all that Mr. Van Buren said at Trenton in reference to the question of slavery. It was the only one of his speeches I heard. It was published, and gentlemen can see it if they so desire. He there boldly avowed his opposition to any interference with slavery in the States or Territories, and stated that he would support the admission of Kansas into the Union as a slave or a free State, as the people should determine. Mr. SHERMAN. My question is not an- swered at all. Do you concur in the opinion.'? expressed by John Van Buren in the last cam- paign in regard to the events in Kansas and the policy of the repeal of the Missouri compromise ? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I heard nothing from him which I did not concur in, though I do not remember to have heard him speak of events in Kan.sas. Mr. SHERMAN. One further question. I would ask the gentleman if he is aware that not only John Van Buren, but that Wendell Phillips, a well-known Abolitionist, voted with the Demo- cratic party ? Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I am authorized to deny that Wendell Phillips acted with the Democratic party. Mr. SHERMAN. I have been informed tliat he did. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Whetherhe did or not it is not material. I know that a distin- guished gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Orr,] who occupies a seat upon this floor, and the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Cobb,] went into the State of Maine, and that the two gentle- men from Georgia, [Mr. Stephen's and Mr. ' Cobb,] went to Pennsylvania, and avowed openly and put upon the record then sentiments, which were the s:ime as are avowed here upon this floor, and the same as those held by the JDemocratic candidate for the Presidency. mmm wmm 6 Now, sir, after all this has occurred — after we ' have avowed North the same sentiments which ' we did at home after we have foug;ht the battle ' and gained the viciory, our opponents come here ' and endeavor to make out that they would have carried the election if it had not been for a fraud ; practiced by the Democratic party. I need pur- i sue this snlject no further. j The gentleman from Ohio also alluded to the delay in tVi! progr-ssof business in the House, at ' the commencement of the session, on account of j the Delegate fiom Tiansas; and I must be allowed to make one remark in reference to what he said j upon that subject. No one was here contesting i the seat of General Whitfield; and the objection j made by t'ne gentl.iman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] to his taking the oath of office, was one i of the most extraordinary of all the singular pro- j ceedings of the so-called Republican party. The action of the Democratic party was not factious. All we desired was a /air I'oif, and that we determined to -have. [ He told us that all the difficulties under which ! the country had. labored had arisen from the j opening of this af;italion by the President, in the repeal of the Missouri compromise line. He told us further, that that act had brought about all the civil war which had existed in Kansas, and then, to my astonishment, he thanked the President for interposing to put a stop to that \ civil war, which h;; said would have been existing | yet but for the interposition of the General Gov- | ernment. I was astonished at that, because the i gentleman, and the party with which he acts, [ took the lead in, withholding supplies from the | Army, with which alone the President could in- 1 terfere and put a stop to that civil war. After | doing all he could to prevent the Prosidtnt from j having the means which enabled him to terminate } that fearful strife, he turns round and thanks him ; for putting a stop to it. He ought to liave thanked ; the people of the country that we have a Presi- I dent who, wiien this f louse failed to furnish j supplies to the Anny of the United States, had ! the courage to call us back and keep us here until [ we did furnish him with the means which enabled i him to accomplish what has called forth the com- j mendation of the gentleman from Ohio. The i Democratic party, the Republican party, and; the American pai y, now see that the bold stand \ then taken by the President did save the country | from a civil v/ar which might have led to blood- j shed outsid.' of Hie limits of Kansas. But after ; he has done that, and is thanked therefor, he is ' denounced for whit they consider an innuendo ' against that party which attempted to stop the ' supplies for the A"-my, ann thus favor their ov.'n sectional views against the Government. ! Mr. GROW. How did the Republicans j attempt to slop the supplies at the last session? i Mr. SMiTlI, of Tennessee. P>y attempting! to put upon a regular appropriation bill an un- ! constitutional pro\ision. ! Mr. GROW. They voted all the supplies, | but proposed to prevent the President from car- j rying on those disturbances in Kansas. I believe gentlemen "upon his side of the House voted | against the Arm)' appropriation bill. i Mr. SPvlITH, of Tennessee. The mode adopted to stop the supplies was wor ;e than a straight, open, direct vole against anv" supplies to the Army of the United States. An amendment was put upon the bill which waa in direct conflict with one of the provisions of the Rt*pubhcan platform under which Colo.iel Fremont was nominated. That platform declares, as one of its specifications against the President of the United States, that he had deprived the people of the privilege of bearing arms, while one part of the amendment to the Army hill deprived lh« people of Kansas from bearing aims. But I must congratulate the gentleman upon a sentiment which he uttered yesterday — not ihut I approve of it. He says that the o>ily purposf of the Repubhcan party was to prevent the ex- tension of slavery. I would ask the gentleman if he believes in the platform upon which Mr. Fre- mont was nominated.' Mr. SHERMAN. I do. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I will no>r read a part of that platform: " Rcso/rei?, That with our republican fathers we bold it to be a self evident truth that all aieii aire cndowtiJ vriththe inalienable right to life, liberty, am' ths pursuit of happi- ness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure those rights to all persons within its exclusive jurisdici;o:i ; that as our rrpiih lican fathers, when they had abolished slavery iA all our national territory, ordained that no Tjersoii sliotild be de- prived of life, liberty, or property without due proecM of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of tli« Constitution against all attempts ro violate it for the pur- pose of establishing slavery in tjie lTi:ited Slates by positive lecjislation, prohibiting its eiistenet- or extension Uierein. 7'hat we deny the autliority of Co\)gr<>s>;, of a Tcrritorral Legislature, of any individual or a^'>ociatious of individ- uals, to give legal assistance to slaviry in any Territory of the United States while the present i,'oi!stiuitioa shall be maintained." Mr. SHERMAN. Does not the gentleman know that the context will show the only ground taken was that of opposition to the extension of slavery into the Territories: Mr.'SMlTH, of Tennessee. I will publish the whole resolution. I have read enough, however, to show the exact position th it lias been taken. They will not only resist the exten.sion of slavery by positive enactment, but " proh ibit its existenct ' ' in the States and Territories. Indeed, I would be glad if the Republicans would abandon these positions in their platform; but, notwithstanding their professions, we find gentlemen of that party daily acting with the senior member from Ohio, [Mr. GiuDiN'Gs,] who, more ihan once, has ex- pressed sympathy for any uprising of the slaves against their masters. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman state the times when, and the place;! where, the declii- rations were made to which hi- alludes.' Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. Upon . this flov.r and in the Philadi Iphia convention. He so ex- pressed himself in his speech on the McLeod case. I do not state the precise language he used, but only the substance of his remarks. Mr. GIDDINGS. Stand up to it or back out. Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. I do not care to get into a controversy with the senior member from Ohio. I am too young fir that. I did not suppose ho would deny my statement, and I will puljlish th« remarks of his to which I refer.* f say, Mr. Speaker, as a southern man, that if a bill were introduced into Congrosss for the establishment of slavery in any Territory, I would vote r..','ainsl it. I do not believe that (.'ongress has jx^wer either to prohibit or to es- tablish it. 1 wish to leave the decision of that matter to the people of the Territory; yet those •The followins ;ir(; the rcniar.ks of the gentK-iiian from Oliio [Mr. GiDDiMi.s] referrod to above. They were made ill the House of Ucpreseiitatives, April i'l, 1848, in reply to Mr. Bayly, of Viitiiiiia, and will be (bund in the Apn*'"ilix to tbe Congresisional Globe, first session of the Thirtieth fJongress, vol. 19, pajo SiS. They fully sustain wliat was xaid in refejenee to bis sympathy with slave insurrections ; and the only ini-^iake made was in the name ot the case in which these atrocious sentiments were uttered : ••The genth^niui, however, says that Abolitionists look M the insurrcctiiii of the slaves. Sir, who does not look to that inevitable result, uiib'ss the slave States remove the iH-avy burdens wl'.ich now rest upon the down-trodden and degraded people whom they oppress.' Is there a slave- b«lder who can shut his eyes to this sure finale of slavery .' And why should we not expect it ? Were we thus oppressed, muragcd, and abused, would we not use all the means which God and ii;Uure have placed within our power to remove such evils.' Would not duty to ourselves, to our offspring, to God, and to humanity, demand that we should rijie. Willi one accord and hurl our oppressors from us.' Can we justify our fathers of the Kevolution in their patriotic struggle (br political freedom, and then turn round and condemn the slaves of the South lor breaking the chains which hold them in physical bondage and in intellectual Jcgrad.Vion .' No, sir; no lover of justice, no unbiased luind sould blame tliem fur asserting and maintaining their ixialieoable rights." who refuse to allow the people of the Territory to mold their institutions in their own way, talk of " free Kansas." Kansas wa.