The Art of Public Speaking - Section 38 | by Dale Carnegie & J. Berg Esenwein

Section 38 Appendix D. Speeches for Study and Practice. Robert Toomes on resigning from the Senate 1861. Abridged. The success of the abolitionists and their allies, under the name of the Republican Party, has produced its logical results already. They have for long years been sowing dragon's teeth and have finally got a crop of armed men. The Union, sir, is dissolved. That is an accomplished fact in the path of this discussion that men may as well heed. One of your Confederates has already wisely, bravely, boldly confronted public danger, and she is only ahead of many of her sisters because of her greater facility for speedy action. The greater majority of those sister states, under like circumstances, consider her cause as their cause, and I charge you in their name today, touch not segantum. It is not only their cause, but it is a cause which receives the sympathy and will receive the support of tens and hundreds of honest, patriot men in the non-slaveholding states, who have hitherto maintained constitutional rights and who respect their oaths, abide by compacts, and love justice. And while this Congress, this Senate, and this House of Representatives are debating the constitutionality and the expediency of seceding from the Union, and while the perfidious authors of this mischief are showering down denunciations upon a large portion of the patriotic men of this country, those brave men are cally and calmly voting what you call revolution. Aye, sir, doing better than that, arming to defend it. They appealed to the constitution, they appealed to justice, they appealed to fraternity, until the constitution, justice, and fraternity were no longer listened to in the legislative halls of their country. And then, sir, they prepared for the arbitrament of the sword. And now you see the glittering bayonet, and you hear the tramp of armed men from your capital to the Rio Grande. It is a sight that gladdens the eyes and cheers the hearts of other millions, ready to second them. Inasmuch, sir, as I have laboured earnestly, honestly, sincerely with these men to avert this necessity so long as I deemed it possible, and inasmuch as I heartily approve their present conduct of resistance, I deem it my duty to state their case to the Senate, to the country, and to the civilised world. Senators, my countrymen have demanded no new government. They have demanded no new constitution. Look to their records at home and from here, from the beginning of this national strife until its consummation in the disruption of the empire. And they have not demanded a single thing, except that you shall abide by the constitution of the United States, that constitutional rights shall be respected, and that justice shall be done. Sirs, they have stood by your constitution. They have stood by all its requirements. They have performed all its duties unselfishly, uncalculatingly, disinterestedly, until a party sprang up in this country which endangered their social system, a party which they arraign, and which they charge before the American people and all mankind with having made proclamation of outlawry against four thousand millions of their property in the territory of the United States, with having put them under the ban of the empire in all the states in which their institutions exist outside the protection of federal laws, with having aided and abetted insurrection from within and invasion from without, with the view of subverting those institutions and desolating their homes and their firesides. For these causes they have taken up arms. I have stated that the discontented states of this union have demanded nothing but clear, distinct, unequivocal, well-acknowledged constitutional rights, rights affirmed by the highest judicial tribunals of their country, rights older than the constitution, rights which are planted upon the immutable principles of natural justice, rights which have been affirmed by the good and the wise of all countries and of all centuries. We demand no power to injure any man. We demand no power to injure our confederate states. We demand no right to interfere with their institutions either by word or deed. We have no right to disturb their peace, their tranquility, their security. We have demanded of them simply, solely, nothing else, to give us equality, security and tranquility. Give us these and peace restores itself. Refuse them and take what you can get. What do the rebels demand? First, that the people of the United States shall have an equal right to emigrate and settle in the present or any future acquired territories, with whatever property they may possess, including slaves, and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment until such territory may be admitted as a state into the Union, with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with all existing states. That is our territorial demand. We have fought for this territory when blood was its price. We have paid for it when gold was its price. We have not proposed to exclude you, though you have contributed very little of blood or money. I refer especially to New England. We demand only to go into those territories upon terms of equality with you, as equals in this great confederacy, to enjoy the common property of the whole Union and receive the protection of the common government until the territory is capable of coming into the Union as a sovereign state, when it may fix its own institutions to suit itself. The second proposition is that property and slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States in all of its departments everywhere which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property, provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now belonging to every state to prohibit, abolish, or establish and protect slavery within its limits. We demand of the common government to use its granted powers to protect our property as well as yours. For this protection we pay as much as you do. This very property is subject to taxation. It has been taxed by you and sold by you for taxes. The title to thousands and tens of thousands of slaves is derived from the United States. We claim that the government, while the Constitution recognises our property for the purposes of taxation, shall give it the same protection that it gives yours. Ought it not to be so? You say no. Every one of you upon the Committee said no. Your Senators say no. Your House of Representatives says no. Throughout the length and breadth of your conspiracy against the Constitution there is but one shout of no. This recognition of this right is the price of my allegiance, withhold it, and you do not get my obedience. This is the philosophy of the armed men who have sprung up in this country. Do you ask me to support a government that will tax my property, that will plunder me, that will demand my blood, and will not protect me? I would rather see the population of my native state laid six feet beneath a sod than they should support for one hour such a government. Protection is the price of obedience everywhere, in all countries. It is the only thing that makes government respectable. Deny it and you cannot have free subjects or citizens. You may have slaves. We demand in the next place that persons committing crimes against slave property in one state and freeing to another should be delivered up in the same manner as persons committing crimes against other property, and that the laws of the state from which such persons flee should be the test of criminality. That is another one of the demands of an extremist and a rebel. But the non-slaveholding states, treacherous to their oaths and compacts, have steadily refused if the criminal only stole a black, and that black was a slave, to deliver him up. It was refused twice on the requisition of my own state as long as 22 years ago. It was refused by Kent and by Fairfield, governors of Maine, and representing, I believe, each of the then federal parties. We appealed then to fraternity, but we submitted. And this constitutional right has been practically a dead letter from that day to this. The next case came up between us and the state of New York, when the present senior senator, Mr. Seward, was the governor of that state, and he refused it. Why? He said it was not against the laws of New York to steal a black, and therefore he would not comply with the demand. He made a similar refusal to Virginia. Yet these are our confederates. These are our sister states. There is the bargain. There is the compact. You have sworn to it. Both these governors swore to it. The senator from New York swore to it. The governor of Ohio swore to it when he was inaugurated. You cannot bind them by oaths. Yet they talk to us of treason, and I suppose they expect to whip Freeman into loving such brethren. They will have a good time in doing it. It is natural we would want this provision of the Constitution carried out. The Constitution says slaves are property. The Supreme Court says so. The Constitution says so. The theft of slaves is a crime. They are a subject matter of felonious asportation. By the text and letter of the you agreed to give them up. You have sworn to do it, and you have broken your oaths. Of course, those who have done so look out for pretext. Nobody expected them to do otherwise. I do not think I ever saw a perjurer, however bald and naked, who could not invent some pretext to palliate his crime, or who could not, for fifteen shillings, hire an old Bailey lawyer to invent some for him. Yet this requirement of the Constitution is another one of the extreme demands of an extremist and a rebel. The next stipulation is that fugitive slaves should be surrendered under the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, without being entitled either to a writ of habeas corpus, or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of legislation, in the state to which he may flee. Here is the Constitution. No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due. This language is plain, and everybody understood it the same way for the first forty years of your government. In 1793, in Washington's time, an Act was passed to carry out this provision. It was adopted unanimously in the Senate of the United States, and nearly so in the House of Representatives. Nobody then had invented pretexts to show that the Constitution did not mean a black slave. It was clear, it was plain. Not only in the federal courts, but all the local courts in all the states decided that this was a constitutional obligation. How is it now? The North sought to evade it, following the instincts of their natural character. They commenced with the fraudulent fiction that fugitives were entitled to habeas corpus, entitled to trial by jury, in the state to which they fled. They pretended to believe that our fugitive slaves were entitled to more rights than their white citizens. Perhaps they were right. They know one another better than I do. You may charge a white man with treason, or felony, or other crime, and you do not require any trial by jury before he is given up. There is nothing to determine but that he is legally charged with a crime and that he fled, and then he is to be delivered up upon demand. White people are delivered up every day in this way, but not slaves. Slaves, black people you say, are entitled to trial by jury, and in this way schemes have been invented to defeat your plain constitutional obligations. Senators, the Constitution is a compact. It contains all our obligations and the duties of the federal government. I am content, and have ever been content, to sustain it. While I doubt its perfection, while I do not believe it was a good compact, and while I never saw the day that I would have voted for it as a proposition de novo, yet I am bound to it by oath and by that common prudence which would induce men to abide by established forms rather than to rush into unknown dangers. I have given to it, and intend to give to it, unfaltering support and allegiance, but I choose to put that allegiance on the true ground, not on the false idea that anybody's blood was shed for it. I say that the Constitution is the whole compact. All the obligations, all the chains that fetter the limbs of my people, are nominated in the bond, and they wisely excluded any conclusion against them by declaring that the powers not granted by the Constitution to the United States, or forbidden by it to the States, belong to the States respectively, or the people. Now I will try it by that standard. I will subject it to that test. The law of nature, the law of justice, would say, and it is so expounded by the publicists, that equal rights in the common property should be enjoyed. Even in a monarchy, the king cannot prevent the subjects from enjoying equality in the disposition of the public property. Even in a despotic government, this principle is recognised. It was the blood and the money of the whole people, says the learned Grotius, and say all the publicists, which acquired the public property, and therefore it is not the property of the sovereign. This right of equality being then, according to justice and natural equity, a right belonging to all States, when did we give it up? You say Congress has a right to pass rules and regulations concerning the territory and other property of the United States. Very well. Does that exclude those whose blood and money paid for it? Does dispose of mean to rob the rightful owners? You must show a better title than that, or a better sword than we have. What then will you take? You will take nothing but your own judgment. That is, you will not only judge for yourselves, not only discard the court, discard our construction, discard the practice of the government, but you will drive us out, simply because you will it. Come and do it. You have sapped the foundations of society. You have destroyed almost all hope of peace. In a compact where there is no common arbiter, where the parties finally decide for themselves, the sword alone at last becomes the real, if not the constitutional arbiter. Your party says that you will not take the decision of the Supreme Court. You said so at Chicago. You said so in committee. Every man of you in both houses says so. What are you going to do? You say we shall submit to your construction. We shall do it if you can make us, but not otherwise, or in any other manner. That is settled. You may call it secession, or you may call it revolution, but there is a big fact standing before you, ready to oppose you. That fact is, freemen with arms in their hands.