332 



CONGRESS, U. S. 



ever blackened or disgraced the annals of civ- 

 ilized warfare. The whole nation was reeling 

 to and fro, and staggering like a drunken man ; 

 commerce was destroyed; the ordinary busi- 

 ness of the entire country had been suspended, 

 and the good men and the loyal men and the 

 true men all over the land thought of nothing, 

 did nothing, oared for nothing but the success 

 of our army and the maintenance of this Gov- 

 ernment. It was at this tune that a Senator 

 of the United States, bound by the most solemn 

 of earthly obligations to sustain the Govern- 

 ment in which he held an office of high dignity 

 and honor, boldly declared to the country that 

 he was opposed to the entire policy of the Gov- 

 ernment that policy which is for maintaining 

 its very existence ! " 



Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, replied: "Mr. 

 President, I am not surprised at anything that 

 occurs in times of high excitement ; nor am I 

 surprised at distortions of the human intellect 

 by which the most ordinary actions or the 

 simplest forms of expression are perverted from 

 their purpose, and have attached to them a 

 meaning (from emphasis and an imperfect state- 

 ment of facts) which otherwise no rational man 

 would attach to them. I had hoped, however, 

 that when the resolution of the Senator from 

 Minnesota was submitted to a committee of 

 this body ; when the whole matter was investi- 

 gated and weighed by them, and the party 

 accused heard, and they reported that the res- 

 olution ought not to pass, the honorable Sena- 

 tor would be content to submit to the deter- 

 mination of the committee, and without com- 

 ing here with a written set speech for the 

 purpose of aggression upon my friend from 

 Indiana, would let the vote of the Senate be 

 taken, if he desired it, without the necessity 

 of any controversy on the subject." 



A very extended debate followed, during 

 which Mr. Bright said : " I have said repeatedly 

 that I have no recollection of ever having 

 written this letter. I have no doubt when the 

 letter was asked for, Mr. Lincoln said he want- 

 ed to go there to dispose of an invention in 

 firearms. I understand Mr. Lincoln says I 

 gave him a letter to Mr. Floyd in the month 

 of December, which was some time before I 

 gave him the letter to Mr. Davis, recommend- 

 ing his improvement in firearms, whatever it 

 was: I really do not know what it was, and 

 never heard what it was. I went this morning 

 to the War Department, and with the aid of 

 the chief clerk searched its files for the pur- 

 pose of ascertaining whether there was such a 

 letter there. The chief clerk stated that if it 

 was merely a letter of introduction, such a one 

 as would be given in a case of that kind, the 

 presumption was that Governor Floyd threw 

 it in his basket, and so it had been destroyed, 

 or he might have it among his private papers. 

 Mr. Lincoln, I understand, says I gave him a 

 letter first recommending his firearm to Mr. 

 Floyd. If it was such a valuable improvement, 

 and was likely to be so serviceable in the de- 



struction of human life, and I was in collusion 

 with the Southern States, I would hardly 

 have recommended it first to Governor Floyd, 

 then Secretary of War. I suppose I gave him 

 a letter first to Mr. Floyd, and he, finding that 

 like many of these Yankee inventions there 

 was nothing in it, threw it overboard, and then 

 Mr. Lincoln came and bored me for a second 

 letter to Jefferson Davis, and I gave him that 

 one. I have no doubt those are the facts." 



At the close of the debate the vote on the 

 question of expulsion was taken and resulted 

 as follows : 



YEAS. Messrs. Anthony, Browning, Chandler, 

 Clark, Collamer, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, 

 Foot, Foster, Grimes, Hale, Harlan, Henderson, How- 

 ard, Howe, Johnson, King, Lane of Indiana, McDou- 

 gall, Merrill, Pomeroy, Sherman, Simmons, Sumner, 

 Trumbull, Wade, Wilkinson, Wilmot, Wilson of 

 Massachusetts, and Wilson of Missouri 32. 



NATS. Messrs. Bavard, Carlile, Cowan, Harris, 

 Kennedy, Latham, Nesmith, Pearce, Powell, Rice, 

 Saulsbury, Ten Eyck, Thomson, and Willey 14. 



Mr. Lovejoy, of Illinois, offered a bill for 

 the prohibition of slavery in the Territories of 

 the United States, on which an extended de- 

 bate took place. He subsequently proposed to 

 modify the substitute as follows, which was 

 agreed to : 



To the end that freedom may be and remain forever 

 the fundamental law of the land in all places whatso- 

 ever, so far as it lies within the powers or depends 

 upon the action of the Government of the United 

 States to make it so : therefore, 



Be it enacted 'by the Senate and House of Representa- 

 tives of the United States of America in Congress as- 

 sembled, That slavery or involuntary servitude, in all 

 cases whatsoever (other than in the punishment of 

 crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convict- 

 ed), shall henceforth cease, and be prohibited forever 

 in all the Territories of the United States, now exist- 

 ing, or hereafter to be formed or acquired in any way. 



Mr. Lovejoy then moved to amend by strik- 

 ing out the preamble. 



Mr. Cox, of Ohio, said: "I would like to 

 amend that by inserting the words ' to carry 

 out the Chicago platform, and to dissolve the 

 Union.' That is the idea." 



The previous question was seconded, and 

 the main question ordered, which was on the 

 amendment striking out the preamble. 



The amendment was agreed to. 



The bill was subsequently passed ayes, 85 ; 

 noes, 50 in the following words: "That 

 from and after the passage of this act there 

 shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servi- 

 tude in any of the Territories of the United 

 States now existing, or which may at any time 

 hereafter be formed or acquired by the United 

 States, otherwise than in the punishment of 

 crimes whereof the party shall have been duly 

 convicted." 



Thus, what was originally known as the 

 "Wilmot Proviso" offered in the House about 

 1847, after fifteen years became a law. This 

 was the arrow that had pierced the heart of 

 the Union. 



In the Senate, on the 13th of March, the bill 



