Rebellion Record: a Diary of American Events: Documents and Narratives, Volume 2.
Frank Moore, Ed.

[405] difference. It is better for every man who lives on this continent to fall a victim to this war rather than this noble country of ours should be broken.into fractions, quarrelling all the time. My voice, my life, my all shall be given freely for the purpose of maintaining the Union and carrying out in good faith the spirit and purport of this resolution.

Mr. Breckenridge said the Senator had seen fit to answer most of the remarks he had made. He then referred to the amendment of the Senator from Illinois, claiming it to be a general emancipation act. The Senator says he stands where he did, on the Constitution. That is the question. I profess to stand on that instrument, as steadily and as firmly as that Senator. I have endeavored to show that I stood upon it, and have been answered only by rhetoric and declamation. There has been no attempt to defend, on constitutional grounds, the proceedings now being enacted every day. The Senator undertakes to say that, in opposing the resolution, and in my general course here, I am not representing the people of Kentucky. I think I am. I am representing my own convictions, and as I read theirs. But to that tribunal I will submit the question, and if, indeed, the people of Kentucky believe that the prosperity of this country shall be best promoted by entering into this fratricidal and horrible war, and they shall determine to throw their energies into this struggle, not for the preservation of the Constitution and the principles of liberty, but for their destruction, I will acquiesce in her position, but I will no longer be her representative on the floor of the American Senate. The Senator from Ohio closed by saying he was for this war. I shall close by saying, that as a friend of the Constitution, as a friend of my country, as a Senator from the State of Kentucky, as a philanthropist, I am against this war.

Mr. Doolittle, (rep.) of Wis.--The Senator charges on the majority on this floor the responsibility of the country now being involved in a civil war, and charges also if the majority had yielded to the demands of the minority the country would now be at peace. Sir, what were these demands made by the minority? Not in support of the Constitution, not to stand by the Constitution as it is, but to make a new Constitution, with a provision that the institution of slavery should be carried into all the Territories we now have, and all we might hereafter acquire, even to Cape Horn. Not only did they make this demand, but they demanded it with arms in their hands. But do you suppose the representatives of the majority of the American people would acquiesce in such demands as these, made by a minority with arms in their hands, and threatening to overthrow the Government? Does that honorable Senator suppose, who was a candidate for the Presidency, and who was defeated, and when the candidate of the majority, who was elected, was about to be inaugurated, and a minority with arms in their hands, threatened to prevent that inauguration,--does he suppose the majority were to a man a humiliating demand of the minority? And, sir, worse than that, when the question was put to the representatives of this minority, If we agree to your demands that the Constitution shall be changed, will you then give up this doctrine of secession, and say you will stand by the Union hereafter? Did they agree to it? Not at all, sir. We could have no union on any terms whatever. They said we will have the right at any time, with arms in our hands, to withdraw from the Union. It was a minority, with arms in their hands, demanding not only a new Constitution, but demanding that we should acquiesce in the destruction of the Government. I will go further. I charge the friends of the honorable Senator from Kentucky with the design of breaking up the Charleston Convention long before the election, with the idea of forcing this issue to break up the Government, and I prove it by the declarations of his own friends in public.

Mr. Breckenridge said a great many personal allusions have been made, which, though not unparliamentary, are yet ungenerous and unjust. The Senator from Wisconsin, I suppose, believes what he says is true. I as firmly believe it not to be true, and that it was not true was proved by the conduct of those persons after the result of the election was known, in their long-continued, persistent efforts to adjust this question, but it was refused. In regard to myself, those who knew me best, know that never, from the moment I first knew what the Constitution of my country was, did I ever utter one word or cherish one thought that was false to the Constitution and Union of the country.

Mr. Browning, (rep.) of Ill., intended to vote for the resolution, but could not permit the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky to go unreplied to. The Senator had been allowed the largest liberty, and he has taken every opportunity to assail the President, but he had not heard a single word of denunciation against those who seized the property and assaulted the flag. He desired to know whether he approved the acts of South Carolina in attempting to withdraw from the Union, and the acts of those States who followed her in treason. He desired to ask the Senator from Kentucky what the President should have done when the flag was fired on, when loyal men were fired on and their lives assailed. He has not informed us, nor none of those who assailed the President have informed us. Should the Government have humbled itself before treason? If not, what else could it do? Those are deluding themselves totally who think that any compromise with treason will close this war. Chivalric Southern treason boasts that the slaves are arming in their behalf, but if suggested that the North put arms in the hands of its black citizens, then goes up a dismal howl. Let them beware lest they teach us a lesson — if they