« PreviousContinue »
duct necessarily exasperating the South, and the natural | compact, to separate from us and to dissolve it? Why effect of whose teachings renders the Southern people inse- gentlemen, the greatness and glory of the American name cure in their property and their lives, making it a matter will then be a thing of yesterday. The glorious Revoof doubt each night whether they can safely retire to their lution of the thirteen States will be a Revolution not slumbers without sentries and guards to protect them achieved by us, but by a nation that has ceased to exist. against incursions from the North. I say the effect has The name of Washington will be, to us at least at the been to elevate, on the strength of this sentiment, such | North (cheers), but as the name of Julius Cæsar, or of men to power. And what is the result-the condition of some other great hero who has lived in times gone by, things at this day? Why, gentlemen, the occasion that whose nation has perished and exists no more. The calls us together is the occurrence of a raid upon the Declaration of Independence, what will that be? Why, State of Virginia by a few misguided fanatics-followers of the declaration of a State that no longer has place these doctrines, with arms in their hands, and bent upon among the nations. All these bright and glorious recolrapine and murder. I called them followers, but they lections of the past must cease to be our property, and should be deemed leaders. They were the best, the bravest, become mere memorials of a by-gone race and people. and the most virtuous of all the abolition party. (Ap- A line must divide the North from the South. What will plause.) On the Lord's day, at the hour of still repose, be the consequences? Will this mighty city-growing they armed the bondman with pikes brought from the as it now is, with wealth pouring into it from every porNorth, that he might slay his master, his master's wife, and tion of this mighty empire-will it continue to flourish as his master's little children. And immediately succeeding to it has done? (Cries of "No, no!") Will your marble It at this very instant-what is the political question pend- palaces that line Broadway, and raise their proud tops ing before Congress? toward the sky, continue to increase, until, as is now promised under the Union, it shall present the most glorious picture of wealth, prosperity, and happiness, that the world has ever seen? (Applause.) No! gentlemen, no! such things cannot be. I do not say that we will starve, that we will perish, as a people, if we separate from the South. I admit, that if the line be drawn between us, they will have their measure of prosperity, and we will have ours; but meagre, small in the extreme, compared with what is existing and promised under our Union, will be the prosperity of each.
A book substantially encouraging the same course of provocation toward the South which has been long pursued, is openly recommended to circulation by sixty-eight members of your Congress. (Cries of "Shame, on them," applause, and hisses.)-Recommended to circulation by sixty-eight members of your Congress, all elected in Northern States (hisses and applause)-every one, I say, elected from non-slaveholding States. And with the assistance of their associates, some of whom hold their offices by your votes, there is great danger that they will elect to the highest office in that body, where he will sit as a representative of the whole North, a man who united in causing that book to be distributed through the South, carrying poison and death in its polluted leaves. ("Hang him!" and applause.). Is it not fair to say that this great and glorious Union is menaced when such a state of things is found to exist? when such an act is attempted? Is it reasonable to expect that our brethren of the South will calmly sit down ("No") and submit quietly to such an outrage? (Cries of "No, no.") Why, gentlemen, we greatly exceed them in numbers. The non-slaveholding States are by far the more populous; they are increasing daily in numbers and in population, and we may soon overwhelm the Southern vote. If we continue to fill the halls of legislation with abolitionists, and permit to occupy the executive chair men who declare themselves to be enlisted in a crusade against Slavery, and against the provisions of the Constitution which secure that species of property, what can we reasonably expect from the people of the South but that they will pronounce the Constitution, with all its glorious associations, with all its sacred memories-this Uuion, with its manifold present and promised blessings-an unendurable evil, threatening to crush and to destroy their most vital interests-to make their country a wilderness. Why should we expect them to submit to such a line of conduct on our part, and recognize us as brethren, or unite with us in perpetuating the Union?
Truly has it been said here to-night, that we were made for each other; separate us, and although you may not destroy us, you reduce each to so low a scale that well might humanity deplore the evil courses that brought about the result. True, gentlemen, we would have left, to boast of, our share of the glories of the Revolution. The Northern States sent forth to the conflict their bands of heroes, and shed their blood as freely as those of the South. But the dividing line would take away from us the grave of Washington. It is in his own beloved Virginia. (Applause and cheers.) It is in the State and near the spot where this treason that has been growing up in the North, so lately culminated in violence and bloodshed. We would lose the grave-we would lose all connection with the name of Washington. But our philanthropic and pious friends who fain would lead us to this result, would, of course, comfort us with the consoling reflection that we had the glorious memory of John Brown in its place. (Great laughter and cheers.) Are you, gentlemen, prepared to make the exchange? (Cries of " No, no.") Shall the tomb of Washington, that rises upon the bank of the Potomac, receiving its tribute from every nation of the earth-shall that become the property of a foreign State-a State hostile to us in its feelings, and we to it in ours? Shall we erect a monument among the arid hills at North Elba, and deem the privilege of making pilgrimages thither a recompense for the loss of every glorious recollection of the past, and for our severance from the name of Washington? He who is recognized as the Father of his Country? (Cries of "No, no," and cheers.) No, gentlemen, we are not prepared, I trust, for this sad exchange, this fatal severance. We are not prepared, I trust, either to part with our glorious past or to give up the advantages of our present happy condition. We are not prepared to relinquish our affection for the South, nor to involve our section in the losses, the deprivation of blessings and advantages necessarily resulting to each from dis union. Gentlemen, we never would have attained the wealth and prosperity as a nation which is now ours, but for our connection with these very much reviled and injured slaveholders of the Southern States. And, gentlemen, if dissolution is to take place, we must part with the trade of the South, and thereby surrender our participation in the wealth of the South. Nay, more we are told from good authority that we must not only part with the slaveholding States, but that our younger sister with the golden crown-rich, teeming California, she who added the final requisite to our greatness as a nation-will not come with us. She will remain with the South.
For my part I do not see anything unjust or unreasonable in the declaration often made by Southern members on this subject. They tell us: "If you will thus assail us with incendiary pamphlets, if you will thus create a spirit in your country which leads to violence and bloodshed among us, if you will assail the institution upon which the prosperity of our country depends, and will elevate to office over us men who are pledged to aid in such transactions, and to oppress us by hostile legislation, we cannot-much as we revere the Constitution, greatly as we estimate the blessings which would flow from its faithful enforcement-we cannot longer depend on your compliance with its injunctions, or adhere to the Union." For my part, gentlemen, if the North continues to conduct itself in the selection of representatives to the Congress of the United States as, from, perhaps a certain degree of negligence and inattention, it has heretofore conducted itself, the South is not to be censured if it withdraws from the Union. (Hisses and applause. A voice-"that's so." Three cheers for the Fugitive Slave Law.) We are not, gentlemen, to hold a meeting to say that "We love this Union; we delight in it; we are proud of it; it blesses us, and we enjoy it; but we shall fill all its offices with men of our own choosing, and, our brethren of the South, you shall enjoy its glorious past; Gentlemen, if we allow this course of injustice, toward you shall enjoy its mighty recollections; but it shall the South to continue, these are to be the consequencestrample your institutions in the dust." We have no evil to us, evil also to them. Much of all that we are right to say it. We have no right to exact so much, most proud of; much of all that contributes to our pros and an opposite and entirely different course, fellow-perity and greatness as a nation, must pass away from citizens, must be ours-must be the course of the great us. North, if we would preserve this Union. (Applause, The question is-should we permit it to be continued, and cries of "Good.") and submit to all these evils? Is there any reason to justify such a course? There is a reason preached to us for permitting it. We are told that Slavery is unjust; we are told that it is a matter of conscience to put it down;
And, gentlemen, what is this glorious Union? What must we sacrifice if we exasperate our brethren of the South, and compel them, by injustice and breach of
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 judg. ment 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 negre badman 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-men who cannot be induced by considerations of imaginary benevo lence 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.
LETTER FROM CHARLES O'CONOR TO A COMMITTEE OF MERCHANTS.
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. 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,
LEITCH, BURNET & CO.,
DAVIS, NOBLE & CO.,
(Formerly FURMAN, DAVIS & Co.,) WESSON & COX,
CRONIN, HURXTHAL & SEARS,
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
drawn to the true issue, and steadily fixed upon it. To effect this object was the sole aim of my address.
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. is professed by all, where the mind is free, speech is free, Where mental enlightenment abounds, where morality
and the press is free, is it possible, in the nature of things, that a law which is admitted to conflict with natu ral 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 hu manely administered or judiciously regulated, be an institution which conflicts with natural justice and with God's law, surely the most vehement 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 justifia
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 Congresswould place some of them in high political stations, and occasionally let one into the executive chair.
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 Constitution whic held them in bondage, our Federal Union might be pre served; but if so holding them in bondage be a thing for bidden by God and Nature, we cannot lawfully so hok them, and the Union must perish.
This is the inevitable result of that conflict which ha 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,
HERSCHEL V. JOHNSON
ON SLAVERY IN THE
On the 7th of July, 1848, while the bill to | Hence Congress has, in all cases since the foundation of 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 remains now to consider the question involved in the amendment proposed by the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Davis). That question is, whether it is the 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 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 in its inhabitants, can they prohibit Slavery? Surely not; and for reasons similar to those which show that Congress cannot.
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 qualificaetc. 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.
For the purpose of this question, it matters not where the power of legislating for the Territory resides-tion to any office or public trust under the United States," whether 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 mo ment 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.
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
nla are ours by treaty; but for all the purposes of this argument, we have acquired them by conquest. To assert, 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.
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.
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. Mr. Mangum. This is a free Territory (New-Mexico) am now speaking about. Suppose a North Carolinian emi- There were only two minor differences; one grates 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-citizen 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 legislation 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 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."
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 preferred to see Douglas elected to a dissolution of the party, favoring that step; and the consequence was, that two reports were presented
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, who, after demanding their seats, withdrew their claims, and retired from the contest before the Convention had decided the question.
The following is the report presented to the regular Milledgeville Convention by Mr. Johnson:
with the following additional propositions:
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
destroy or impair the right to slave property in the common Territories, any more than the right to any other 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 Territories, stand upon the same equal and broad Constiand protection in the LEGISLATIVE, judicial and execu tive departments of the Government.
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.