I do not believe in such legislation; nor do I believe in any legislation providing new facilities for a war, or tending to produce irritation and distrust.

Slavery cannot exist, where it does not govern.

There was characteristic wisdom in the remark of the venerable Chief Justice of England, Sir Matthew Hale, when he said that “we must not jump before we get to the stile.” It seems to me that Senators who are pressing this bill forget this…

I am heart and soul for putting down this Rebellion without playing into the hands of Rebels.

Now it must be plain to all that every word calculated to draw or drive any foreign government into alliance with the Rebellion does play into the hands of Rebels.

It is not my habit to shrink from responsibility; personal risks I accept willingly; but I confess anxiety that my country should not rush abroad in quest of new dangers, whose only effect will be to increase the national calamities.

Here is a statute, in itself a code, containing provisions exclusively applicable to these important matters, all determined by Congress in advance; but it is now proposed that Congress shall abdicate, leaving to the President alone this…

I would ask if it is in the power of the President merely by regulation to determine how offences on board private armed vessels shall be tried and punished?

I take it that Congress must deal directly with this question.

I am sure that it is unwise for Congress to renounce a duty belonging to it obviously under the Constitution, and which in former times it exercised.

Senators sometimes complain that great powers are assumed by the President; but, unless I misread this bill, they are about to confer on him powers large, indeed, beyond precedent.

There is, in the first place, the power to declare whether, in case of war with a foreign nation, letters of marque shall be issued,--a high prerogative, in times past reserved exclusively to Congress.

As once the French monarch exclaimed, “The State, it is I!”--so, when we have conferred these powers, one after another, on the President, I think he may make a similar exclamation.

The Senator who presses this measure seeks to employ private enterprise in all wars, domestic or foreign: I show him how it can be done.

He seeks to enlist the private marine of the country in the public service: I show him how it can be done.

He seeks to contribute at this moment to the national force: I show him how it can be done.

All that the Senator would do I would do, but in a way to avoid those embarrassments and difficulties necessarily incident to privateering, and so as to be in harmony with the civilization of our age.

Nor shall it be said that I shrink from any of the responsibilities which belong to us with regard to foreign nations; but I desire to say, that among the highest responsibilities which any can recognize is that of doing nothing needlessly…

I cannot err, when I insist that it shall be intrusted to those only whose position, experience, and relations with the Government give assurance that it will be exercised with wisest discretion.

To my mind the question between the two propositions is too clear for argument.

On one side it is irrational, barbarous, and fruitless, except of trouble.

On the other side you have practical strength, and the best assurance of that prudence which is the safeguard of peace.

I hope the President will remain firm against the letters of marque, so long as peace is preserved.

For one, I will never consent to any such intolerable rule.

Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.