Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

lowed by three cheers for Mr. O'Conor, and a tiger.) But a word more, gentlemen, and I have done. (Cries of" Go on.") I have no doubt at all that what I have said to you this evening will be greatly misrepresented. It is very certain that I have not had time enough properly to enlarge upon and fully to explain the interesting topics on which I have ventured to express myself thus boldly and distinctly, taking upon myself the consequences, be they what they may. (Applause.) But I will say a few words by way of explanation. I have maintained the justice of Slavery; I have maintained it, because I hold that the negro is decreed by nature to a state of pupilage under the dominion of the wiser white man, in every clime where God and nature meant the negro should live at all. (Applause.) I say a state of pupilage; and, that I may be rightly understood, I say that it is the duty of the white man to treat him kindly; that is the interest of the white man to treat him kindly. (Applause.) And further, it is my belief that if the white man, in the States where Slavery exists, is not interfered with by the fanatics who are now creating these disturbances, whatever laws, whatever improvements, whatever variations in the conduct of society are necessary for the purpose of enforcing in every instance the dictates of interest and humanity, as between the white man and the black, will be faith fully and fairly carried out in the progress of that improvement in all these things in which we are engaged. It is not pretended that the master has a right to slay his slave; it is not pretended that he has a right to be guilty of harshness and inhumanity to his slave. The laws of all the Southern States forbid that; we have not the right here at the North to be guilty of cruelty toward a horse. It is an indictable offence to commit such cruelty. The same laws exist in the South, and if there is any failure in enforcing them to the fullest extent, it is due to this external force, which is pressing upon the Southern States, and compels them to abstain perhaps from many acts beneficent toward the negro which otherwise would be performed. (Applause.) In truth, in fact, in deed, the white man in the slaveholding States has no more authority by law of the land over his slave than our laws allow to a father over his minor children. He can no more violate humanity with respect to them, than a father in any of the free States of this Union can exercise acts violative of humanity toward his own son under the age of twenty-one. So far as the law is concerned, you own your boys, and have a right to their services until they are twenty-one. You can make them work for you; you have the right to hire out their services and take their earnings; you have the right to chastise them with judgment and reason if they violate your commands; and they are entirely without political rights. Not one of them at the age of twenty years and eleven months even, can go to the polls and and give a vote. Therefore, gentlemen, before the law, there is but one difference between the free white man of twenty years of age in the Northern

States, and the negro beadman in the Southern States. The white man is to be emancipated at twenty-one. because his God-given intellect entitles him to emancipation and fits him for the duties to devolve upon him. The negro, to be sure, is a bondman for life. He may be sold from one master to another, but where is the ill in that ?-one may be as good as another. If there be laws with respect to the mode of sale, which by separating man and wife do occasionally lead to that which shocks humanity, and may be said to violate all propriety and all conscience-if such things are done, let the South alone and they will correct the evil. Let our brethren of the South take care of their own domestic institutions and they will do it. (Applause.) They will so govern themselves as to suppress acts of this description, if they are occasionally committed, as perhaps they are, and we must all admit that they are contrary to just conceptions of right and humanity. I have never yet heard of a nation conquered from evil practices, brought to the light of civilization, brought to the light of religion or the knowledge of the Gospel by the bayonet, by the penal laws, or by external persecutions of any kind. It is not by declamation and outcry against a people from those abroad and outside of their territory that you can improve their manners or their morals in any respect. No; if, standing outside of their territory, you attack the errors of a people, you make them cling to their faults. From a sentiment somewhat excusable-somewhat akin to selfrespect and patriotism-they will resist their nation's enemy. Let our brethren of the South alone, gentlemen, and if there be any errors of this kind, they will correct them.

There is but one way in which you can thus leave them to the guidance of their own judgment-by which you can retain them in this Union as our brethren, and perpetuate this glorious Union; and that is, by resolving-without reference to the political party or faction to which any one of you may belong, without reference to the name, political or otherwise, which you may please to bearresolving that the man, be he who he may, who advocates the doctrine that negro Slavery is unjust, and ought to be assailed or legislated against, or who agitates the subject of extinguishing negro Slavery in any of its forms as a political hobby, that that, man shall be denied your suffrages, and not only denied your suffrages, but that you will select from the ranks of the opposite party, or your own, if necessary, the man you like least, who entertains opposite sentiments, but through whose instrumentality you may be enabled to defeat his election, and to secure in the councils of the nation men who are true to the Constitution, who are lovers of the Union-inen who cannot be induced by considerations of imaginary benevolence for a people who really do not desire their aid, to sacrifice or to jeopard in any degree the blessings we enjoy under this Union. May it be perpetual. (Great and continued cheering.)

THE REAL QUESTION STATED.

LEITCH, BURNET & CO.,
GEO. W. & JEHIAL READ,
BRUFF, BROTHER & SEAVER,
C. B. HATCH & CO.,
DAVIS, NOBLE & CO.,

(Formerly FURMAN, DAVIS & Co.,)
WESSON & COX,

CRONIN, HURXTHAL & SEARS,
ATWATER, MULFORD CO.

GENTLEMEN: The measure you propose meets my entire
approval.
I have long thought that our disputes concerning negro
Slavery would soon terminate, if the public mind could be

LETTER FROM CHARLES O'CONOR TO A COMMITTEE OF MERCHANTS.

drawn to the true issue, and steadily fixed upon it. To effect this object was the sole aim of my address.

NEW YORK, Dec. 20, 1859. CHAS. O'CONOR, ESQ. The undersigned, being desirous of circulating as widely as possible, both at the North and at the South, the proceedings of the Union Meeting held at the Academy of Music last evening, intend publishing in pamphlet form, for distribution, a correct copy of the same.

Though its ministers can never permit the law of the land to be questioned by private judgment, there is, nevertheless, such a thing as natural justice. Natural justice has the Divine sanction; and it is impossible that any human law which conflicts with it should long endure.

Will you be so kind as to inform us whether this step meets your approval; and if so, furnish us with a corrected report of your speech delivered by you on that occasion. Yours respectfully,

Where mental enlightenment abounds, where morality is professed by all, where the mind is free, speech is free, and the press is free, is it possible, in the nature of things, that a law which is admitted to conflict with natural justice, and with God's own mandate, should long endure?

You all will admit that, within certain limits, at least, our Constitution does contain positive guaranties for the preservation of negro Slavery in the old States through all time, unless the local legislatures shall think fit to abolish it. And, consequently, if negro Slavery, however humanely administered or judiciously regulated, be an institution which conflicts with natural justice and with God's law, surely the most veliement and extreme admirers of

John Brown's sentiments are right; and their denunciations against the Constitution, and against the most hallowed names connected with it, are perfectly justifiable.

The friends of truth-the patriotic Americans who would sustain their country's honor against foreign rivalry, and defend their country's interests against all assailants, err greatly when they contend with these men on any point but one. Their general principles cannot be refuted; their logic is irresistible; the error, if any there be, is in their premises. They assert that negro Slavery is unjust. This, and this alone, of all they say, is capable of being fairly argued against.

If this proposition cannot be refuted, our Union cannot endure, and it ought not to endure.

Our negro bondmen can neither be exterminated nor transported to Africa. They are too numerous for either process, and either, if practicable, would involve a violation of humanity. If they were emancipated, they would relapse into barbarism, or a set of negro States would arise in our midst, possessing political equality, and entitled to social equality. The division of parties would soon make the negro members a powerful body in Congress would place some of them in high political stations, and occasionally let one into the executive chair.

On the 7th of July, 1848, while the bill to establish the Territorial Government of Oregon was under consideration in the United States Senate, the Hon. Herschel V. Johnson, then a member of the Senate, from Georgia, and now a candidate for Vice-President on the ticket with Mr. Douglas, made a lengthy speech from which we extract the following:

It is in vain to say that this could be endured; it is sim ply impossible.

What, then, remains to be discussed?

The negro race is upon us. With a Constitution which held them in bondage, our Federal Union might be preserved; but if so holding them in bondage be a thing forbidden by God and Nature, we cannot lawfully so hold them, and the Union must perish.

This is the inevitable result of that conflict which has now reached its climax.

Among us at the north, the sole question for reflection, study, and friendly interchange of thought should be-Is negro Slavery unjust? The rational and dispassionate inquirer will find no difficulty in arriving at my conclusion. It is fit and proper; it is, in its own nature, as an institution, beneficial to both races; and the effect of this assertion is not diminished by our admitting that many faults are practised under it. Is not such the fact in respect to all human laws and institutions?

I am, gentlemen, with great respect, yours truly,
CHARLES O'CONOR.

HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON

ON SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORIES.

For the purpose of this question, it matters not where the power of legislating for the Territory resideswhether exclusively in Congress, or jointly in Congress and the inhabitants, or exclusively in the inhabitants of the Territory; the power is precisely the same-no greater in the hands of one than the other. In no event, can the slaveholder of the South be excluded from settling in such Territory with his property of every description. If the right of exclusive legislation for the Territories belongs to Congress, then I have shown that they have no Constitutional power, either expressed or implied, to prohibit Slavery therein. But suppose that Congress have the right to establish a Territorial Government only, and that then, all further governmental control ceases; can the Territorial Legislature pass an act prohibiting Slavery? Surely not. For the moment you admit the right to organize a Territorial Government to exist in Congress, you admit, necessarily he subordination of the people of the Territory-their lependence on this Government for an organic law to give them political existence. Hence all their legislation must be in conformity with the organic law; they can pass no act in violation of it-none but such as permits. Since, therefore, Congress has no power, as I have shown, to prohibit Slavery, they cannot delegate such a power to the inhabitants of the Territory; they cannot authorize the Territorial Legislature to do that which they have no power to do. The stream cannot rise higher than its source. This is as true in governments as in physics.

It is idle, however, to discuss this question in this form. For if Congress possess the power to organize temporary governments, it must then possess the power to legislate for the Territories. If they may perform the greater, they may the less; the major includes the minor proposition.

To Messrs. Leitch, Burnet & Co.; Geo. W. & Jehial Read; Bruff,
Brother & Seaver; C. B. Hatch & Co.; Davis, Noble & Co.;
Wesson & Cox; Cronin, Hurxthal & Sears; Atwater, Mulford
& Co.

Hence Congress has, in all cases since the foundation of the territorial governments; it is absolutely necessary, our government, reserved a veto upon the legislation of in order to restrain them from violations of the Constitution and infringements of the rights of the States, as joint Territorial Government, prohibiting Slavery, should be sent owners of the public lands. If, therefore, the act of the up to Congress for approval, they would be bound to withhold it, upon the ground of its being an act which Congress themselves could not pass.

But suppose the right of legislation for the Territory be It remains now to consider the question involved in in its inhabitants, can they prohibit Slavery? Surely not; the amendment proposed by the Senator from Missis- and for reasons similar to those which show that Congress sippi (Mr. Davis). That question is, whether it is the cannot. duty of Congress to guarantee to the slaveholder, who shall remove with his salves into the territory of the [ United States, the undisputed enjoyment of his property in them, so long as it continues to be a Territory. Or, in other words, whether the inhabitants of a Territory, during their Territorial condition, have the right to prohibit Slavery therein.

The Territories are not independent of, but subordinate to, the United States; and therefore their legislation must be subordinate. Let us look at some of the limitations which this condition imposes. Under the Constitution, "No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States;" "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or pertaining to the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States," etc. It is true, these restrictions do not apply in terms to the Territories; but will it be contended for a moment that they would have the right by legislation to lay these impositions upon citizens of the States who emigrate thither for settlement?

Sovereignty follows the ownership of the domain, and therefore the sovereignty over the Territories is in the States in their confederated capacity; hence the reason that the legislation of Congress, as the agent of the States respecting the Territories, must be limited by the object of the trust, the situation and nature of the property to be administered, and the respective rights of the proper owners. Now, if the sovereignty over the Territories is in the States, and the right of legislation not in Congress, but in the inhabitants of the Territories, it is evident that they can have no higher right of legislation than Congress could have; they must be bound by limitations just mentioned; and if the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories by Congress be inconsistent with these limitations, its prohibition by the territorial legislature would be so likewise. If possessing the right of legislation, the inhabitants of the Territories are bound by the limitations to which I have alluded, it may be asked, who holds the check upon their action? I reply, that it is indispensable for Congress to exercise the veto upon their legislation. Who else shall prevent their passing laws in violation of the equal rights of the States in the Territory, which is the common property of all? Without the retention of a veto upon the legislation of the Territorial Governments, it would make the inhabitants of the Territory independent of Congress; aye, it would establish the proposition, that the moment you conquer a people they rise superior to the government that conquers. New-Mexico and Califor

nia are ours by treaty; but for all the purposes of this argument, we have acquired them by conquest. To assert,

a majority one by twenty members of the Committee, and a minority one by four members. which latter division included Herschel V. Johnson who, as chairman, introduced the minority report.

therefore, that they have the right to legislate over all subjects to prohibit Slavery, despite the consent of the United States-is to say that, by our conquest of them, they become invested with rights superior to those of Congress. The institution of Slavery is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and it has the same protection thrown around it which guards our citizens against the granting of titles of nobility or the establishment of religion; therefore Congress would be as much bound to veto an act of Territorial legislation prohibiting it, as an act violating these rights of every citizen of the Republic.

The two reports were discussed by various persons, Mr. Johnson defending his, and Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, acting as pacificator. The latter gentleman stated that there was "no difference in the principles enunciated in both the majority and minority reports. There were only two minor differences; one

Mr. Mangum. This is a free Territory (New-Mexico) I am now speaking about. Suppose a North Carolinian emigrates to New-Mexico with his slaves? they must either be was, that the majority report indorsed the recognized as property, or not; who has the right to deter-secession from the Charleston Conventionmine that question?

Mr. Johnson.—I think that question has already been while the minority neither indorsed nor comdecided by the late treaty (with Mexico). Now, is not mended the action of the Georgia delegates Slavery in the United States a political as well as a muni- there." cipal institution? It is municipal, in that its entire control and continuance belong to the State in which it exists; and

it is political, because it is recognized by the organic law of the Confederacy, and cannot be changed or altered by Congress, without an amendment to the Constitution; and because it is a fundamental law, that three-fifths of the slaves are represented in the National Legislature. Being political, upon the execution of the Treaty of Cession with Mexico, it extended eo instanti, over the Territories of New-Mexico and California. Then, I say, if a fellow-citi

zen of the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Mangum)

were to remove with his slaves into New-Mexico, his right
to their use and service is guaranteed by the Constitution
of the United States, and no power on earth can deprive
him of them, It is a misapplication of terms to speak
of prohibiting Slavery in the territory of the United States.
It already exists in contemplation of law, and the legisla-with the following additional propositions:
tion proposed (prohibition) amounts to abolition.

But suppose, Mr. President, you have the right to prohibit Slavery in the Territories of the United States, what high political consideration requires you to exercise it? All must see, that it cannot be effected without producing a popular convulsion which will probably dissolve this Union.

"CAPITAL SHOULD OWN LABOR."

Mr. Herschel V. Johnson made a speech at a Democratic meeting in Philadelphia on the 17th of September, 1856, in which the newspapers report him as having said, among other things:

"We believe that capital should own labor; is there any doubt that there must be a laboring class everywhere? In all countries and under every form of social organization there must be a laboring class-a class of men who get their living by the sweat of their brow; and then there must be another class that controls and directs the capital of the country."

The result was, that the majority report was adopted by a vote of 299 to 41, when the minority, under the lead of Mr. Johnson, seceded, organized another Convention and appointed a full delegation to Baltimore, onehalf of whom were admitted to seats by the Convention, together with one-half of the other delegation.

The following is the report presented to the regular Convention by Mr. Johnson :

MR. JOHNSON'S VIEWS ON POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.

After the adjournment of the Democratic National Convention from Charleston to Baltimore a Democratic State Convention met at Milledgeville, Ga., on the 4th of June, to take action in regard to the secession of most of the Georgia delegates at Charleston. It seems that a Business Committee of 24 was appointed, of which Herschel V. Johnson was one. This Committee disagreed as to the propriety of appointing new delegates to Baltimore, the friends of the Seceders opposing and a few who ferred to see Douglas elected to a dissolution of the party, favoring that step; and the consequence was, that two reports were presented

MINORITY REPORT.
Resolved, That we reaffirm the Cincinnati Platform,

1st. That the citizens of the United States have an equal right to settle with their property of any kind, in the organized Territories of the United States, and that under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Dred Scott, which we recognize as the correct exposition of the Constitution in this particular, slave property stands upon the same footing as all other descriptions of property, and that neither the General Government, NOR ANY TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENT, can common Territories, any more than the right to any other destroy or impair the right to slave property in the description of property; that property of all kinds, slaves as well as any other species of property, in the tutional basis, and subject to like principles of recognition and protection in the LEGISLATIVE, judicial and execu tive departments of the Government.

Territories, stand upon the same equal and broad Consti

2d. That we will support any man who may be nominated by the Baltimore Convention, for the Presidency, who holds the principles set forth in the foregoing proposition, and who will give them his indorsement, and that we will not hold ourselves bound to support any man, who may be the nominee, who entertains principles inconsistent with those set forth in the above proposition, or who denies that slave property in the Territories does stand on an equal footing, and on the same Consti tutional basis of other descriptions of property.

In view of the fact that a large majority of the delegates from Georgia felt it to be their duty to withdraw from the late Democratic Convention at Charleston, thereby depriving this State of her vote therein, according to the

decision of said Convention.

Resolved, That this Convention will appoint twenty delegates-four from the State at large, and two from each Congressional District-to represent the Democratic party of Georgia, in the adjourned Convention at Baltimore, on the 18th inst., and that said delegates be and they are hereby instructed to present the foregoing propre-Democratic Convention. positions, and ask their adoption by the National HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON, THOS. P. SAFFOLD, H. K. MCCAY,

A. COLVARD.

TREASON AND DISUNION AVOWED.

IN 1856, as now, many of the leading Statesmen and editors of the Democratic party in the Southern States uttered predictions of Disunion, made arguments for Disunion and very solemn threats of Disunion in case they should be beaten in the Presidential Election. Mr. Slidell, Upon the policy of dissolving the Union, of separat Senator from Louisiana, and the particular ing the South from her northern enemies, and estab lishing a southern Confederacy, parties, presses, polifriend and champion of Mr. Buchanan, declared ticians, and people, are a unit. There is not a single in 1856 that "if Fremont should be elected, public man in her limits, not one of her present repre the Union would be dissolved." Mr. Toombs, sentatives or senators in Congress who is not pledged to the lips in favor of disunior. Indeed, we well rememof Georgia, said "that in such an event the ber that one of the most prominent leaders of the coope Union would be dissolved, and ought to be dis- ration party, when taunted with submission, rebuked the solved." Mr. Butler, of S. C., a leading mem-thought by saying, "that in opposing secession, he only ber of the U. S. Senate and chairman of the took a step backward to strike a blow more deadly against the Union." Judiciary Committee in 1856, said:

[blocks in formation]

We have the issue upon us now; and how are we to meet it? I tell you, fellow-citizens, from the bottom of my heart, that the only mode which I think available for meeting it is just to tear the Constitution of the United States, trample it under foot, and form a Southern Confederacy every State of which will be a slavehold ing State. (Loud and prolonged cheers.) I believe it, as I stand in the face of my Maker; I believe it on my responsibility to you as your honored representative, that the only hope of the South is in the South, and that the only available means of making that hope effective is to cut asunder the bonds that tie us together, and take our separate position in the family of nations. These are my opinions. They have always been my opinions. I have been a disunionist from the time I could think.

Now, fellow-citizens, I have told you very frankly and undisguisedly, that I believe the only hope of the South is in dissolving the bonds which connect us with the Government-in separating the living body from the dead carcass. If I was the commander of an army, I never would post a sentinel who would not swear that Slavery is right."

arm of southern freemen upon the Treasury and ar-
chives of the Government. (Applause.)

I speak on my individual responsibility: If Fremont be elected President of the United States, I am for the people in their majesty rising above the law and leaders, taking the power into their own hands, going by concert or not by concert, and laying the strong

The Charleston " Mercury," the recognized organ of the South Carolina Democracy, in a recent article says:

In the autumn of 1856, Henry A. Wise, then
Governor of Virginia, told the people of that
State that--

The South could not, without degradation, submit to
the election of a Black Republican President. To tell
me we should submit to the election of a Black Republi-
can, under circumstances like these, is to tell me that
Virginia and the fourteen Slave States are already subju-
gated and degraded, [cheers ;] that the southern people
are without spirit, and without purpose to defend the
rights they know and dare not maintain. [Cheers ] If
you submit to the election of Fremont, you will prove

what Seward and Burlingame said to be true-that the
South cannot be kicked out of the Union.

[ocr errors]

During the Presidential campaign of 1856, the
Washington correspondent of the "New Orleans
Delta," a journal high in the confidence of the
Pierce administration, wrote:

It is already arranged, in the event of Fremont's
election, or a failure to elect by the people, to call the
concert measures to withdraw from the Union before
Legislatures of Virginia, South Carolina and Georgia 'to
Fremont can get possession of the Army and navy and
the purse-strings of government. Governor Wise is ac-
The South can
tively at work already in the matter.
rely on the President in the emergency contemplated.
The question now is, whether the people of the South will
sustain their leaders.

At a Union meeting recently held at Knoxville, Tenn., Judge Daily, formerly of Georgia, made a violent southern speech, in the course of which he said:

During the Presidential contest, Governor Wise had addressed letters to all the southern governors, and that the one to the Governor of Florida had been shown him, in which Gov. Wise said he had an army in readed, and asking the coöperation of those to whom he iness to prevent Fremont from taking his seat if electwrote:

Charles J. Faulkner, formerly a Representative in Congress from Virginia, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Committee, in 1856, and now Minister to France, at a recent Democratic meeting held in Virginia, over which ho presided, said:

When that noble and gallant son of Virginia, Henry A.
Wise, declared, as was said he did in October, 1856, that
if Fremont should be elected, HE WOULD SEIZE THE NA-
TIONAL Aarsenal at harpER'S FERRY, how few would, at
that time, have justified so bold and decided a measure?
It is the fortune of some great and gifted minds to see
far in advance of their contemporaries.
liam H. Seward be elected in 1860, where is the man now
in our midst, who could not call for the impeachment
of a Governor of Virginia who would silently suffer

Should Wil

[ocr errors]

f

[ocr errors][merged small]

The Richmond Enquirer, long one of the leading exponents of the Southern Democracy, in commenting on the murderous assault on Senator Sumner, said:

Whether we can obtain the Territory while the Union lasts, I do not know; I fear we cannot. But I would make an honest effort, and if we failed, I would go out of the Union, and try it there. I speak plainly-I would make a si-refusal to acquire territory, because it was to be slave territory, a cause for disunion, just as I would make the refusal to admit a new State, because it was to be a Slave State, a cause for disunion.

Sumner, and Sumner's friends, must be punished and lenced. Either such wretches must be hung or put in the penitentiary, or the South should prepare at once to quit the Union.

If Fremont is elected, the Union will not last an hour after Mr. Pierce's term expires.

If Fremont is elected, it will be the duty of the South to dissolve the Union and form a Southern Confederacy. Let the South present a compact and undivided front. Let her, if possible, detach Pennsylvania and southern Ohio, southern Indiana, and southern Illinois, from the North, and make the highlands between the Ohio and the lakes the dividing line. Let the South treat with California; and, if necessary, ally herself with Russia, with Cuba,

and Brazil.

Senator Iverson, of Georgia, in a speech made to his constituents previous to the assembling of the second session of the 36th Congress, said:

Slavery must be maintained-in the Union, if possible; out of it, if necessary; peaceably, if we may, forcibly if we must.

In a confederated government of their own, the South

ern States would enjoy sources of wealth, prosperity, and
power, unsurpassed by any nation on earth. No neutra-
lity laws would restrain our adventurous sons. Our ex-
panding policy would stretch far beyond present limits.
Central America would join her destiny to ours, and so
would Cuba, now withheld from us by the voice and votes
of Abolition enemies.

During the late memorable contest for Speaker, the same Senator remarked, as follows:

Sir, I will tell you what I would do, if I had the control
of the southern members of this House and the other, when
you elect John Sherman. If I had control of the public
sentiment, the very moment you elect John Sherman,
thus giving to the South the example of insult as well as

injury, I would walk, every one of us, out of the Halls of
this Capitol, and consult our constituents; and I would
never enter again until I was bade to do so by those who
had the right to control me. Sir, I go further than that.
I would counsel my constituents instantly to dissolve all
political ties with a party and a people who thus trample
on our rights. That is what I would do.

the blessings of Slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth; and, rebel

lious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even

extend it to them.

In an elaborate speech delivered later in the session by the same Senator, he said:

Senator Brown, of Mississippi, in a recent peech to his constituents, said:

I want Cuba; I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason-for the plinting and spreading of Slavery. And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other States. Yes; I want these countries for the spread of Slavery. I would spread

The election of Mr. Seward, or any other man of his party, is not, per se, justifiable ground for dissolving the Union. But the act of putting the Government in the hands of men who mean to use it for our subjugation, ought to be resisted, even to the disruption of every tie that binds us to the Union.

Jefferson Davis, U. S. Senator from Mississippi, in an address to the people of his State, July 6, 1859, said:

the contingency of the election of a President on the For myself, I say, as I said on a former occasion, in platform of Mr. Seward's Rochester speech, let the Union be dissolved. Let the "great, but not the greatest of evils," come.

When Mr. Clay had taken his seat, Mr. Gwin, of California, made a speech in which he declared it as "the inevitable result that the South would prepare for resistance in the event of the election of a Republican President."

Sir, there is but one path of safety to the South; but

On the 24th of January, 1860, the Hon.
Robert Toombs, of Georgia, made a violent
speech in the Senate, on Mr. Douglas' Resolu-
tion directing the Judiciary Committee to re-
port a bill for the protection of each State and
Territory against invasion from any other State
or Territory. Mr. Toombs commenced his
speech by the announcement that the country
stitutions. Under such a confederated Republic, with a
Constitution which should shut out the approach and en-
was in the midst of civil war, adding, “I feel
trance of all incongruous and conflicting elements, which and know that a large body of these Senators
should protect the institution from change, and keep the are enemies of my country.'
Mr. Toombs pro
whole nation ever bound to its preservation, by an un-ceeded in an elaborate and vituperative speech
changeable fundamental law, the fifteen Slave States, with
their power of expansion, would present to the world the to prove that the people of the North had vio-
most free, prosperous, and happy nation on the face of the lated the Constitution, by refusing to capture

one mode of preserving her institution of domestic Slavery;
and that is a confederacy of States having no incongruous
and opposing elements-a confederacy of Slave States
alone, with homogeneous language, laws, interests, and in-

wide earth.

Sir, with these views, and with the firm conviction which and return fugitive slaves to their masters in I have entertained for many years, and which recent events the South. have only seemed to confirm, that the "irrepressible conSir, I have but little more to add-nothing for myself. flict" between the two sections must and will go on, and I feel that I have no need to pledge my poor services to with accumulated speed, and must end, in the Union, with this great cause-to my country. My State has spoken the total extinction of African Slavery in the southern for herself. Nine years ago a convention of her people States, that I have announced my determination to ap-met and declared that her connection with this governprove and urge the southern States to dissolve the Union ment depended upon the faithful execution of this fugitive upon the election of a Black Republican to the Presidency slave law, and her full enjoyment of equal rights in the of the United States, by a sectional northern party, and common Territories. I have shown that the one continupon a platform of opposition and hostility to southern gency has already arrived; the other waits only the success of the Republican party in the approaching Presidential election. I was a member of that convention, and stood then and now pledged to its action. I have faithfully labored to avert these calamities. I will yet labor until this last contingency happens, faithfully, honestly, and to the best of my poor abilities. When that time comes, freemen of Georgia redeem your pledge; I am ready to redeem mine. Your honor is involved-your faith is plighted. I know you feel a stain as a wound; your peace, your social system, your firesides are in

Slavery.

Mr. Clay, of Alabama, in a recent speech in the Senate, contemplating the possible defeat of his party in the coming Presidential contest, said:

I make no predictions, no promise for my State; but, in conclusion, will only say, that if she is faithful to the pledges she has made and principles she has professed-if she is true to her own interest and her own honor-if she is not recreant to all that State pride, in

tegrity and duty demand-she will never submit to your

authority. I will add, that unless she and all the southern States of this Union, with perhaps but two, or, at most, three exceptions, are not faithless to the pledges they have given, they will never submit to the govern ment of a President professing yor political faith and elected by your sectional majority.

« AnteriorContinuar »