Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. 9 : From 1789 to 1856, From Gales and Seaton's Annals of Congress; From Their Registe Rof Debates; And From the Official Reported Debates (Classic Reprint)

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. 9 is a concise, reference‑style window into early American lawmaking and public debate. It gathers discussions from 1789 to 1856, offering quick access to how lawmakers argued on key issues of the day.

This edition helps readers understand how policy shaped the nation. It highlights the texture of congressional dialogue, key figures, and the evolving machinery of government, without assuming prior specialized knowledge.

• Track the tone and stakes of early fiscal and tariff debates, including how lawmakers framed protections for domestic industry.


• See how different regions and interests voiced their concerns in Congress, across topics like trade, money, and governance.


• Identify legislative priorities, committee roles, and how the House and Senate debated procedures and powers.


• Use the index and cross‑references to follow topics across years and chapters for quick research.

Ideal for readers of American history, political science students, and anyone needing a grounded map of the period’s legislative conversations.

Excerpt from Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, Vol. 9: From 1789 to 1856, From Gales and Seaton's Annals of Congress; From Their Registe Rof Debates; And From the Official Reported Debates

He has told us, sir, that it would be unconstitutional to make these amendments. Unconstitutional! sir. This assertion is certainly contradictory to experience - to the constitution itself; and the argument seems to move in a circle. We know, sir, that amendments have been made; that one of these, the amendment of 1804, by confining the choice of the States, when the election devolves upon the House of Representatives, to three, instead of the five highest on the list of those voted for by the electors, has made a material change; it impaired too, sir, a federative power, and increased a popular one. Suppose, sir, that it should be necessary to vest in the General Government powers which an emergency might render essential for the preservation of the Union. Cases might occur which I do not even wish to imagine. Must these powers be usurped at the hazard of revolution and bloodshed? Must we sit here like the Roman Senate - quietly fold our arms, and await our destruction with dignity? or must we not rather apply for these powers in the mode prescribed by the constitution? Our ancestors well knew that they could not pierce the veil of futurity, and provide for events beyond the ken of mortal wisdom. They provided a remedy, sir, for evils which might be disclosed by experience and practice; and they provided a security against amendments proposed from "light and transient causes " by the mode in which alone they can be effected. The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts has sought to draw on argument in support of his position from the proviso of the fifth article of the constitution, " that no amendment which may be made prior to the, year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Now, sir, to my mind, this clause, so for from helping his argument, militates most strongly against it; it indicates, to my understanding, that this special exception was necessary to exempt from amendment, for a limited time, the first and fourth clauses mentioned in it, and to confine any amendment of the federative feature in the Senate, which should deprive a State of its equal right, to the special case of the States consenting to it. I should,therefore, sir, most strongly infer, according to a very old and sound rule of construction, that the power of amendment in other cases, was to be inferred. Self-preservation is the primary law of societies, as well as of individuals, and, if necessary, we must act upon it I

The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts seems to think that the powers of the President have been greatly magnified by my honorable friend from South Carolina, (Mr. McDuffie ;) he deems them very limited, and not the proper object of much jealousy. I can assure him, sir, that he thinks very differently
from the fathers of the revolution, and the framers of this constitution, and the States who adapted it. The powers of this executive chief excited very lively apprehensions in the bosoms of some of the purest and wisest of our forefathers. Some thought they had an " awful squinting " at monarchy - they imagined that they could discern " the diadem sparkling on his brow, and the imperial purple flowing in his train." And how, sir, did the advocates of the constitution endeavor to lull these apprehensions ? Not, sir, as that honorable gentleman has done, by endeavoring to persuade the people that his powers were not great; bat that they were necessary to give proper consistency and strength to the system-that he was properly checked by the other departments - that he was elected for short periods, and liable to impeachment - but, above all, that he was dependent...