' -^^ ^ *•''•• ^4^ °<^ *•■» jP ^ •'■• AT * Qi0i « '<\n <^^ ♦•^ ^-^^•^^ 45? .Dm REMARKS HON. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 6, IKOl. OS THE rksoi.i;tio>j of mr. dixhn to print the INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN Mr. DOUGLAS said: Mr. President : I cannot assent to the construction wliich the Sen- ator from North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] has pLaced upon the Presi- dent's inauguraL I have read it carefully, with a view of ascertaining distinctly what the policy of the Administration is to be. The inau- gural is characterized by ability, and by directness on certain points ; but with such reservations and qualifications as require a critical anal- ysis to arrive at its true construction on other points. I have made such an analysis, and come to the conclusion that it is a peace offering rather than a war message. Having examined it critically, I think I can demonstrate tliat there is no foundation for the apprehension which has been spread through the country that this message is equivalent to a declaration of war ; that it commits the President of the United States to recapture the forts in tlie seceded States, and to hold them at all hazards, to collect the revenue under all circumstances, and to execute the laws in all the States, no matter what may be the circum- stances that surround him. I do not understand that to be the char- acter of the message. On the contrary, I understajpd it to contain a distinct pledge that the policy of the Administration sliall be conducted with exclusive reference to a peaceful solution of our national difficul- ties. True^ the President indicates a certain line of j)olicy whicli he intends to pursue, so far as it may be consistent with the peace of the country, but he assures us that this policy will be modified and changed whenever necessary to a peaceful solution of these difficulties. The address is not as explicit as I could desire on certain points; on certain other points it is explicit. The message is explicit and certain upon the point that the President will not, directly or indirectly, in- terfere with the institution of slavery witliin the States — is specific upon the point that he will do everything in his power to give a faithful execution to the Constitution and the laws for the return of fugitive slaves — is explicit upon the point that he will not oppose such amend- 2 ■r\']->'^ ments to the Constitutiou as may be deemed necessary to settle the slaverj'' question and restore peace to the country. Then, it proceeds to indicate a line of policy for his Administration. He declares that, in view of the Constitution and laws, the Union remains unbroken. I do not suppose any man can deny the proposition, that in contem- plation of law, the Union remains intact, no matter what the fact may be. There may be a sei)aration de facto, temporary or permanent, as the sequel may prove; but, in conterai)lation of the Constitution and the laws, the Union does remain unbroken. I think no one can deny the correctness of the proposition, as a constitutional principle. Let us go further and see what there is in the address that is supposed to pledge the President to a coercive policy. He says: "I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States." This declaration is relied upon as conclusive evidence that coercion is to be used in the seceding States; but take the next sentence: ''Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part. I shall perform it, so far as is practicable, unless" — unless what? Let us see what the con- dition is on the happening of which he will not enforce the laws — - "unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some other authoritative manner direct the con- trary." This condition, on which he will not enforce the laws in the seceding States, is not as explicit as T could desire. When he alludes to his "riglitful masters, the American people," I suppose he means the action of Congress in withholding the requisite means. Query : Does he wish to be understood as saying that the existing laws confer upon him "the requisite means?" or, does he mean to say that inasmuch as the existing laws do not confer the requisite means, he cannot exe- cute the laws in the seceding States unless those means shall be conferred by Congress ? The language employed would seem to imply that the President was referring to the future action of Congress as necessary to give him the requisite means to enforce obedience to the laws in the seceding States. Doubtless the President was not uninformed of the fact that his friends in the House of Representatives had prepared a force bill, conferring these requisite means to coerce obedience in the seceding States, and that that bill was defeated in the House. He must be aware, historically, that in 1832, General Jackson deemed ad- ditional legislation necessary to enforce the revenue laws at Charleston, and that a force bill was then passed, which expired by its own lim- itation in a short time, I think two years, and is not now in force. Docs Mr. Lincoln consider that he has any more power to coerce the collection of the revenue in Charleston harbor Avithout further legisla- tion than (xeneral Jackson had in 1832? When he pledges himself to collect tiie revenue and to enforce the laws in those States, unless Congress withholds the requisite means to enable him to do so, is he not to be understood that whetlior he does enforce them or not depends upon the future action of Congress? I think that is the proper con- struction of his language. In a subsequent paragraph he says: " The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts." What power? Does he mean that wliicli has heen confided, or that which may be confided? Does he mean tliat he will exercise the ])ower unless Congress directs the contrary, or that he will exercise it when Con- gress confers it? I regret that tliis clause is understood by some per- sons as meaning that the President will use the whole military force of the country to recapture the forts, and other places, which have been seized without the assent of Congress. If such was his meaning, he was unfortunate in the selection of words to expiess the idea. He does not say that he will recapture or retake, hold and occupy the forts and other places. Nor does he say that he will rocon)mend to Congress to furnish him men and money for such a purpose; but "the power con- fided to me will be used to hold, occhpy, and possess tlie property and places belonging to the Government." To say the least of it, this is equivocal language. I am not going to condemn him for it; my present object is not to censure, but to ascertain the true meaning of the inaugural, in order to learn whether the Administration is com- mitted to an aggressive policy, which must inevitabl}' involve us in civil war, or to a peaceful solution of our national troubles. He says further, " but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using offeree against or among the people any- where." He will use the power confided to him to hold, occupy, and possess the ibrts and other property, and to collect the revenue ; but beyond these objects he will not use that power. I am unable to under- stand the propriety of the distinction between enforcing the revenue laws and all other laws. If it is his duty to enforce the revenue laws, why is it not his duty to enforce the other laws of the land? What right has he to say that he will enforce those laws that enable him to raise revenue, to levy and collect taxes from the people, and that he will not enforce the laws which protect the rights of persons and prop- erty to the extent that the Constitution confers the power in those States? I reject the distinction; it cannot be justified in law or in morals If taxes are to be collected, and the revenue laws are to be enforced, the la,ws that afford protection, as a compensation for the taxes, must also be enforced. The next paragraph is also objectionable. I will read it: "Whore hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and uni- versal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the federnl offices, there will be no atti.'mpt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the str.'Ct legal right may exist in the government to enforce tne exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, T deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices." I rejoice to know that he will not attempt to force obnoxious strangers to hold office in the interior places where public sentiment is hostile; but why draw the distinction between "interior localities'" and exte- rior places? Why the distinction between the States in the interior and those upon the sea-board? If he has the power in the one case, he has it in the other ; if it be his duty in the one case, it is his duty in the other. There is no provision of the Constitution or the laws which authorizes a distinction between the places upon the sea-board and the places in the interior. This brings me to the consideration of another clause in the message which I deem the most important of all, and the key to his entire policy. I rejoiced when I read this declaration, and I wish to invite the attention of the Senate to it especially, as showing conclusively that Mr. Lincoln stands pledged to that policy which will lead to a peaceful solution, and against every policy that leads to the contrary. I Avill read the paragraph : " The course lierc indicated will be followed, unless current events and experience shall show a modification or chanire to be prosier, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to the circumstances actually existing, and with a view and hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoraticoi of fraternal sympathies and alfections." After indicating the line of policy which he would pursue, if con- sistent witli the peace of the country, he tells us emphatically that that course will be followed unless modifications and changes should be necessary to a peaceful solution of the national troubles, and if in any case or exigency a change of policy should be necessary, it will be made " with a view and hope of a peaceful solution." In other words, if the collection of the revenue leads to a peaceful solution, it is to be collected ; if the abandonment of that policy is necessary to a peaceful solution, the revenue is not to be collected ; if the recapture of Fort Moultrie would tend to a peaceful solution, he stands pledged to re- capture it; if the recapture would tend to violence and war, he is pledged not to recapture it ; if the enforcement of the laws in the se- ceding States would tend to facilitate a peaceful solution, he is pledged to their enforcement; if the omission to enforce those laws would best facilitate peace, he is pledged to omit to enforce them ; if maintaining possession of Fort Sumter would facilitate peace, he stands pledged to retain its possession ; if. on the contrary, the abandonment of Fort Sumter and the withdrawal of the troops would faoilitate a peaceful solution, he is pledged to abandon the fort and withch-aw the troops. Sir, this is the only construction that I can put upon this clause. If this be not the true interpretation, for what purpose was it insertedPjie The line of policy that he had indicated was stated vaguelj'; but therejPr is not a pledge to use coercion ; there is not a pledge to retain a fort ; ;|i( there is not a pledge to recapture an arsenal ; there is not a pledge tonul collect revenue; there is not a pledge to enforce the laws unless there] on is attached to each the condition ; and the condition is, that he willjion do it only when that course tends to a peaceful solution of the national! ie troubles, and that lie will not do it in any case where it does noilieu tend to a peacel'iil solution. jie, I submit, then, to the Senate whether tlie friends of peace have nollJuJi much to rejoice at in the inaugural address of the President. It is much more conservative document than I had anticipated. It is much more i)acific and conciliatory paper than I had expected. j|ii would not venture the expression of an opinion upon it on hearing i delivered, until I had carefully examined and analyzed it. Aftej examination, I am clearly of the opinion that the Administratioi stands pledged 1)y the inaugural to a peaceful solution of all our diffih culties, to do no act that leads to war, and to change its policy just s often and whenever a change is necessary to preserve the peace. So much, sir, for the policy of the Administration. Now a fe^ iQWe, 'Hi words ii})on the President's views of the causes of the present difficul- ties and the remedies for those difficulties. In a manner peculiar to himself and to his usual course of argument, he proceeds to show, first, what did not produce the trouble. Let us see what did not do it : " All profoss to be coritont in the Union, if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly-written provision of the Constitution lias ever been denied. If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly-written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution; certainly would, if such right were a vital one. Hut such is not our case." Here we are told that these difficulties have not grown out of the violation of any express provision of the Constitution ; tliey have not arisen from the denial of any right guarantied Ly an express provi- sion. He then proceeds to show wliat is the cause of tlie trouble. Here it is : " But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every Question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any ocument of reasonable length contain express ))rovisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State autliority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories ? The Constitu- tion does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in tlie Territories? The Con- stitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities." ''From questions of this class spring" all our troubles. What lass? The attempt of Congress to exercise power on the slavery question where there is no "express" provision of the Constitution conferring the power; the attempt on the one side to prohibit slavery, ind the attempt on the other side to protect it, where there is no 'express" provision authorizing either — these are the causes of our )resent troubles, according to the statement of the President. The '-auses are to be traced to the absence of any constitutional provision llefining the extent of the power of Congress over this subject. If the president has stated the causes of our difficulties fairly and truly ; if hey all arise from the absence of a constitutional provision on the ubject of slavery in the Territories, what is the remedy? The remedy oust be to adopt an amendment that will make an express constitu- ional provision on the subject. The absence of such a provision being he cause, the -supplying of such a provision must be the remedy. lence the President has demonstrated with great clearness and force lie absolute necessity of such amendments to the Constitution of the Inited States as will define and settle the question whether or not ai'ongress has the ])ower to prohibit slavery ; whether or not it has the apwer to protect slavery ; whether or not it has the power to legislate In the subject at all. He gives us to understand that there will never ite peace until that question is settled ; it cannot be settled except by temiendments to the Constitution ; and hence he proceeds to tell us how lomch amendments can be obfained. He tells us that these amendments m the Constitution may be obtained in either of the modes prescribed 8c|i the instrument: the one is where Congress takes the initiative, as e did the other day, and submits the proposed amendments to the W60 i ♦ «/ ^^ oX ^.