Vol. XLV.
Washington, D. C., Tues., June 30, 1857.
No. 14,013
SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS.
_______
The papers of Illinois bring to us the report of a speech delivered by Mr. Senator Douglas at Springfield, the capital
of that State, on the 12th instant, in reply to an invitation addressed to him by a large number of distinguished
citizens, requesting him to favor them with his views on cerrain topics which now engross so large a share of the
public's attention... the remarks of Mr. D. were as follows:
The Territory of Utah was organized under one of the acts known as the Compromise measure of 1850, on the supposition
that the inhabitants were American citizens, owing and acknowledging allegiance to the United States, and consequently
entitled to the benefits of self-government while a Territory, and to admission into the Union on an equal footing
with the original States, so soon as they should number the requisite population. It was conceded on all hands and
by all parties, that the peculiarities of their religious faith and ceremonies interposed no valid and constitutional
objection to their reception into the Union, in conformity with the Federal Constitution, so long as they were in all
other respects, entitled to admission. Hence the great political parties of the country endorsed and approved the
Compromise measures of 1850, including the act for the organization of the Territory of Utah, with the hope and in
the confidence that the inhabitants would conform to the Constitution and laws, and prove themselves worthy, respectable
and law-abiding citizens. If we are permitted to place credence in the rumors and reports from that country (and it
must be admitted that they have increased and strengthened and assumed consistency and plausibility, by each succeeding
mail,) seven years' experience has disclosed a state of facts entirely different from that which was supposed to
exist when Utah was organized. These rumors and reports would seem to justify the belief that the following facts
are susceptible to proof:
1. That nine-tenths of the inhabitants are aliens by birth, who have refused to become naturalized, or to take the
oath of allegiance, or do any other act recognising the Government of the United States as the paramount authority
in that Territory.
2d. That all the inhabitants, whether native or alien born, known as Mormons, (and they constitute the whole people
of the Territory,) are bound by horrid oaths and terrible penalties to recognize and maintain the authority of
Brigham Young and the government of which he is head, as paramount to that of the United States, in civil as well as
religious affairs; and they will, in due time, and under the direction of their leaders, use all the means in their
power to subvert the Government of the United States, and resist its authority.
3d. That the Mormon government, with Brigham Young at its head, is now forming alliances with Indian tribes in Utah
and adjoining Territories, stimulating the Indians to acts of hostility, and organizing bands of his own followers,
under the name of "Danites or Destroying Angels," to prosecute a system of robbery and murder upon American citizens,
who support the authority of the United States and denounce the infamous and disgusting practices and institutions
of the Mormon government.
If, upon a full investigation, these representations shall prove true, they will establish the fact that the
inhabitants of Utah, as a community, are outlaws and alien enemies, unfit to exercise the right of self-government
under the organic act, and unworthy to be admitted into the Union as a State, when their only object in seeking
admission is to interpose the sovereignty of the State as an invincible shield to protect them in their treason and
crime, debauchery and infamy. (Applause.)
Under this view of the subject, I think it is the duty of the President, as I have no doubt it is his fixed purpose,
to remove Brigham Young and all his followers from office, and to fill their places with bold, able and true men,
and to cause a thorough and searching investigation into all the crimes and enormities which are alleged to be
perpetrated daily in that Territory, under the direction of Brigham Young and his confederates, and to use all the
military force necessary to protect the officers in discharge of their duties and to enforce the laws of the land.
(Applause.)
When the authentic evidence shall arrive, if it shall establish the facts which are believed to exist,
it will become the duty of Congress to apply the knife and cut out this loathsome, disgusting ulcer. (Applause.)
No temporizing policy, no half-way measure will then answer. It has been supposed by those who have not thought
deeply upon this subject that an act of Congress prohibiting murder, robbery, polygamy and other crimes, with
appropriate penalties for those offences, would afford adequate remedies for all the enormities complained of. Suppose
such a law to be on the statute-book -- and I believe they have a criminal code -- providing the usual punishment for
the entire catalogue of crimes, according to the usages of all civilized and christian countries, with the exception
of polygamy, which is practised under the sanction of the Mormon Church, but is neither prohibited nor authorized by
the laws of the Territory.
Suppose, I repeat, that Congress should pass a law prescribing a criminal code, and punishing polygamy among other
offences; what effect would it have -- what good would it do? Would you call on twenty-three grand jurymen, with
twenty-three wives each, to find a bill of indictment against a poor miserable wretch for having two wives? (Cheers
and laughter.) Would you call upon twelve petit jurors, with twelve wives each, to convict the same loathsome wretch
for having two wives? (Continued applause.) Would you expect a grand jury composed of twenty-three "Danites" to find
a bill of indictment against a brother "Danite" for having murdered a Gentile, as they call all American citizens
under their direction? Much less would you expect a jury of twelve "destroying angels" to find another "destroying
angel" guilty of the crime of murder, and cause him to be hanged for no other offence than taking the life of a
Gentile! No. If there is any truth in the reports we receive from Utah, Congress may pass whatever laws it choosess,
but you can never rely upon the local tribunals and juries to punish crimes committed by Mormons in that Territory.
Some other and more effectual remedy must be devised and applied. In my opinion, the first step should be the absolute
and unconditional repeal of the organic act -- blotting the Territorial government out of existence, upon the ground
that they are alien enemies and outlaws, denying their allegiance and defying the authorities of the United States.
(Applause.)
The Territorial government once abolished, the country would revert to its primitive condition prior to the act of
1850, "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," and should be placed under the operation of
the act of Congress of the 30th of April, 1790, and the various acts supplemental thereto and amendatory thereof,
"providing for the punishment of crimes against the United States within any fort, arsenal, dockyard, magazine, or
any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States."
All offences against the provisions of these acts are required by law to be tried and punished by the United States
Courts in the States or Territories where the offenders shall be "first apprehended or brought for trial."
Thus it will be seen that, under the plan proposed, Brigham Young and his confederates could be "apprehended and
brought for trial" to Iowa, Missouri, California, or Oregon, or to any other adjacent State or Territory, where a
fair trial could be had and justice administered impartially -- where the witnesses could be protected, and the
judgment of the court could be carried into execution, without violence or intimidation. I do not propose to introduce
any new principles into our jurisprudence, nor to change the modes of proceeding or the rules of practice in our
courts. I only propose to place the district of country embraced within the Territory of Utah under the operation
of the same laws and rules proceeding that Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota and our other Territories were placed before
they became organized Territories. The whole country embraced within these Territories under the operation of that
same system of laws, and all the offences committed within the same were punished in the manner now proposed, so
long as the country remained "under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States;" but the moment the
country was organized into Territorial governmens, with legislative, executive and judicial departments, it ceased to
be under the "sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States," within the meaning of the act of Congress,
for the reason that it had passed under another and a different jurisdiction. Hence, if we abolish the Territorial
government of Utah, pursuing and existing all rights and place the country under the "sole and exclusive jurisdiction
of the United States," offenders can be apprehended and brought into the adjacent States or Territories for
punishment, in the same manner and under the same rules and regulations which obtained and have been uniformly
practiced, under like circumstances since 1790.
If the plan proposed shall be found an effective and adequate remedy for the evils complained of in Utah, no one,
no matter what his political creed or partisan associations, need be apprehensive that it will violate any cherished
theory or constitutional right in regard to the government, of the Territories. It is & great mistake to suppose that
all the territory or land belonging to the united States must necessarily be governed by the same laws and under the
same clause of the Constitution, without reference to the purpose to which it is dedicated or the use which it is
proposed to make of it. While all that portion of the country which is or shall be set apart to become new States,
must necessarily be governed under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to
admit new States, it does not follow that other territory, not intended to be organized and admitted into the Union as
States, must be governed under the same clause of the Constitution, with all the rights of self-government and State
equality. For instance, if we should purchase Vancouver's Island from Great Britain for the purpose of removing all
the Indians from our Pacific territories and locating them on that island as their permanent home, with guaranties
that it should never be occupied or settled with white men, will it be contended that the purchase should be made and
the island governed under the power to admit new States when it was not acquired for that purpose, nor intended to be
applied to that object? Being acquired fur Indian purposes and applied to Indian purposes, it is not more reasonable
to assume that the power to acquire was derived from the Indian clause, and the island must necessarily be governed
under and consistent with that clause of the Constitution which relates to Indian affairs. Again, suppose we should
deem it expedient to buy a small island in the Mediterranean or the Carribean Sea for a naval station, can it be said
with any force or plausibility that the purchase should be made or the island governed under the power to admit new
States? On the contrary, is It not obvious that the right to acquire and govern in that case is derived from the power
"to provide and maintain a navy," and must be exercised consistently vrith that power. So, if we purchase land for
forts, arsenals, or other military purposes, or set apart and dedicate any territory which we now own for a military
reservation, it immediately passes under the military power and must be governed in harmony with it. So if the land
be purchased for a mint, it must be governed under the power to coin money; or, if purchased for a post-office, it
must be governed under the power to establish post-offices and post-roads; or, for a custom-house, under the power
to regulate commerce; or for a court-house, under the judiciary power. In short, the clause in the Constitution under
which any land or territory belonging to the United States must be governed, is indicated by the object for which
it was acquired and the pnrpo.se for which it is dedicated. So long, therefore, as the organic act of Utah shall
remain in force, setting apart that country for a new State, and pledging the faith of the United States to receive
it into the Union as soun as it should have the requisite population, we are bound to extend to it all the rights
of self-government, agreeably to the clause in the Constitution providing for the admission of new States. Hence
the necessity of repealing the organic act, withdrawing the pledge of admission, and placing it under the sole and
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, in order that persons and property may be protected, and justice
administered, and crimes punished under the laws prescribed by Congress in such cases.
While the power of Congress to repeal this organic act and abolish the Territorial Government cannot b« denied, the
question may arise whether we possess the moral right of exercising the power, after the charter has been once granted
and the local government organized under its provisions. This is a grave question, one which should not be decided
hastily, nor under the iuflueuce of passion or prejudice. I am free to say that, in my opinion there is no moral
right to repeal the organic act of a Territory, and abolish the government organized under it, unless the inhabitants
of that Territory, as a community, have done such acts as amount to a forfeiture uf all rights under it, such as
becoming alien enemies, outlaws, disavowing their allegiance, or resisting the authority of the United States. These,
and kindred acts, which we have every reason to believe are daily perpetrated in thai Territory, would not only give
us the moral right, but make it our imperative duty to abolish the Territorial Government, and place the inhabitants
under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to the end that justice may be done and the dignity
and authority of the Government vindicated.
I have thus presented plainly and frankly my views of the Utah question -- the evils and the remedy -- upon the facts
as they have reached us, and are supposed to be substantially correct. If official reports and authentic information
shall change or modify these facts, I shall be ready to conform my notion to the real facts as they shall be found
to exist. I have no such pride of opinion as will induce me to persevere in an error one moment after my judgment is
convinced. If, therefore, a better plan can be devised, one more consistent with justice and sound policy, or more
effective as a remedy for acknowledged evils, I shall take great pleasure in adopting it, in lieu of the one I have
presented to you to-night.
In conclusion, permit me to express my grateful acknowledgments for your patient attention and the kind and respectful
manner in which you have received my remarks.
Note 1: Douglas' speech of June 12, 1857 was evidently first published in the Springfield Illinois State
Register, but with telegraphic transfer of the news, his words were quickly reproduced in the Chicago Times,
the Illinois State Journal, the Missouri Republican, the New York Times, etc. See also the
contemporary political tract: Speech of Hon. S. A. Douglas on Kansas, Utah, and the Dred Scott Decision,
Springfield, Ill., June 12, 1857 and Abraham Lincoln's rebuttal speech (also delivered in Springfield) of June 26,
1857, conveniently published in various contemporary newspapers, including the
Aug. 29, 1857 issue of the
Oregon Argus.
Note 2: As Chairman of the important Senate Committee on Territories, Senator Douglas had a keen political
interest in maintaining the proper governance of the western territories (several of which he had been
instrumental in establishing). His remarks in the third "point" of the above text support his standing opinion
and argument against granting Utah statehod without further delay. Why Douglas chose to elevate that argument
to the same political level as his other two "points" is debatable, but the fact that his Republican rivals
were then coupling the issues of slavery and polygamy in their national campaign rhetoric may provide part of
the explanation. In Utah, of course, Douglas' calling for "a full investigation" of the unfavorable
"representations" outlined in his speech (and perhaps even a disorganization of the territorial government)
elicited an inevitably severe response. Excerpts from the speech were published in the Deseret News of
Sept. 2, 1857, accompanied by a
scathing critique from Editor Albert Carrington, representing the views of the top Utah leadership. The
Mormons had hitherto managed to overlook their old friend Douglas' 1846 fall from grace -- when he advocated
their expulsion from Illinois -- and had worked with the "little giant" on getting Utah's organic act through
Congress, and other matters in the nation's capital. When he advised the Utah leaders to go slow in seeking
statehood, the celebrated Illinois Senator was placed on warning by none other than the ghost of Joseph Smith
(see the "prophetic" insertion into Smith's serialized history, as published by the Deseret News of
Sept. 24, 1856). For reasons not fully clear from today's perspective, Douglas allowed a political separation
to open between himself and his old Mormon allies. The breech between Douglas and the LDS leaders widened,
however, and in his speech of June 12, 1857, Douglas severed his old political ties with the Saints for good.
Note 3: In later years the Mormons would claim that Stephen A. Douglas' failure to gain the presidency in 1860
was a result of a curse placed upon him by Joseph Smith, jr. on May 18, 1843. Smith's purported "prophecy,"
in regard to the eventual fate of Mr. Douglas, was first published in the Deseret News of Sept. 24, 1856
-- evidently in response to Senator Douglas' lack of support in the statehood controvery. The "Douglas prophecy"
is not known from any pre-1856 source, including the journals of William Clayton, from which its wording was
supposedly taken for publicstion in the Deseret News.
|
