About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 Jefferson Davis, Reply of Hon. Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, to the Speech of Senator Douglas, in the U.S. Senate, May 16 and 17, 1860 1 (1860)

handle is hein.slavery/rhjdms0001 and id is 1 raw text is: REPLYV OF lion. JEFFERSON DAVIS, of Mississippi, TO THE SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, In the 1U. S. Senate, N11y 16 ano1 17, 1800. Tna Scnate resumed the enusiutrition of the Resoltiions submitted ty Mr. DAvia on the Ist of March, relative to State INtgt-, the institutimn oi -1 i%, ry in t e Stat.-, :nd the rights if citizens ofl the several Stares in the Territirie . Mr IOUGLAS hlvinZ concluded his speech- Mr. DAVIs aro.e and std: M r. PiESID .T:- Wilen the Senator from Illi- DoIs Vomlitmenced hi spet-ih, he announced his ,h- ject to he to answer to ai arraignment, or, as he also termed it, an indiwtment, which he said I had made aginst him. He 6herefire enused extracts to be read fi-un my renarks to the Senate. Those extracts annoi.nwe that I have been the uniform op- ponent of what is called sq'titer sovereiitry, and that, havim opposed it heretofore, I wa; now, least of all, dis1osed to yie it quarter. At a siub- sequent period the fact was slated that the senator from Illinois and myself had been opposed to each other on those questoins which I considered as most distinctly my w oz Southern interests in 150. He has nit answered to the allegation. He has not attempted to 4. .ow that he did not stand in that position. It is true he has associated himself with Mr. Clay, and, before closin, I will show that the association does not hblng to hii: that upon those test questions they did not vote together. He then, somewhat vauntingly, reminded me that he was with the victorious party, asserted that the de- mocracy of tie country then sustained his doctrine, and that I waVs thus oin.'side of that orzanization. With Mr. Clav! If he had been with him he would have been in g-ood company; but the old Jack'in democracy will be a little surprised to learn that Clay was the leader of our party, and that a mian proves his allezian-e to it by showiig how closely he followed in the fotsteps of Htniiry Clay. When the sena or opened his argument, by de- daring his purpose to be fair and courteous, I little supposed that an explanation made by me in favor of the Secretary of State, and which could iot at all disturb the line of his art'ument, would have been followed by the rude antinuncement that lie could not permit interruption thereafter. A senator has the rirlit toc'aim exemption from interruption if he will follow the thread of his argument, direct his discourse to the q'iestion at issue, and confine him- self to it; but if lie roakes up a medley of arraign- ments of the men who have been in public life for ten years past, and addressing individuils in his presence, he should permit an interruption to be made for correction as often as he misrepresents their position. It would have devolved on me more than once, if I had been re-ponsible for his frequent references to me, to correct him and show that he mis-stated facts; but as he would not per- mit himself to be interrupted, I am not responsible for anything he has imputed to me. The senator commenced with a disclaimer of any purpose to follow what he considered a bad prac- tice of arraigning senators here on matters for which they stood responsible to their constituents; but straightway proceeded to make a general ar- raignment of the present and the absent. I believe I constitute the only exception to whom he granted consistency, and that at the expense of party asso- ciation, and, he would have it, at the expense of sound judgment. He not only arraigned individu- als, but even States-Florida, Alabama, and Geor- ia-were brought to answer at the bar of the Sen- ate for the resolutions they had passed; Virginia I was held responsible for her policy ; Mississippi received his critical notice. Pray, sir, what had all this to do with the question ? Etipecially, what had all this to do with what he styled an indictment against him ? It is a mere resort to a species ot de- clamat ion, which has not been heard to-day for the first time; a pretext to put himself ti the attitude of a persenited man, and, like the satyr's guest, blowing lint and cold in the same breath, in the midst of his complaint of persecution, vaunts his su[iene power. If his opponents be the very small minority which he describes, what fear has he of ptrsecution or proscription? Can he not draw a distinction between one who says: * I give no quarter to an idea, and one who proclains the policy of putting the advocates of that idea to the sword ? Such wats his figurative language. That figure of the sword, however, it seemed, as he progressed in his development, re- ferred to the one thought always floating through his brain-exclusion from the spoils (if office, for, at last, it seemed to nirrow down to the suipposi- tton that no man who agreed with him, was, with our consent, to be either a Cabinet officer or a col- lector. Who has advanced any such doctrine ? Have 1, at this or any other period of my acquaint- aice with him, done anythine to justify hint itn at- tributing that opinion to me? I pause for his answer. Mr DOUGLAS. I do not exactly understand the senator. I have 11o Clinplaint tio nake of thei si-nator to ime i ppi of o-ver having Lei uinkinid or uinvigenrous towards lime, i' that is what he mleans to say. MR. DAVIS. Have I ever promulgated a doc- trine which indicated that if my friends were in power, I would sacrifice every other wing of the democratic party? Mr. DO)UGLAS I understood the naking of a test on this issor aainst me would reach every othir [i in tat heli nay olpinionti; and, tiereiore, i I was 10t enni enougt t hold offic.-, no am in agreeing with me would be ; and henct, every man of my opinions would be excluded Mr. DAVIS. Ah, Mr. President; I believe I now have caught the clue to the argument; it was not before apprehended. I was anioig those who thought the senator, with his opinions, ought not to be chairman of the Committee it Territories. This, I suppose then, is the whole imposition. But have I not said to the senator, at least once, that I had no disposition to question his democracy- that I did not wish to witihold from him any tribute which was due to his talent and his worth? Did I not offer to resign the only chairmanship of a com- mittee I had, if the Senate would confer it upon him? Then, where is this spirit of proscription the complaint of which has constituted some hours of his speech? If others have manifested it, I do not know it; and as the single expression of no quarter to the doctrine of squatter sovel-eignty' was the basis of his whole allegation, I took it for granted his reference to a purpose to do hin and his friends such wrong must have been intended for me. The faet that the senator criticised the idea of

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most