CHAPTER IV.

"Aggression" against the South in Active Operation at the North for Thirty Years before the War.-Resolutions of Congress, in 1836.-Action of the Legislature of Massachusetts upon the Resolutions of Five Southern States.-Conflict in Congress, in regard to Abolition Memorials, in 1837.-Its Resolution.-Remarks of Mr. Benton upon the Result.-The "Partisan Leader.”—Mr. Van Buren.-The "21st Rule."-The Whig Party. The Liberty Party.-The Shufflers among the Northern Democratic Leaders.

Ir thus appears that an active and alarming system of aggression against the South was in operation at the North, thirty years ago, threatening to excite servile insurrection, to imperil union, to stir up civil war. This fact rests upon testimony which cannot but be considered both impartial and conclusive. Few would think of questioning the patriotism of President Jackson, whatever they might think of many of the measures of his administration; no one ever doubted the exalted and all-embracing national spirit of Mr. Clay. Mr. Marcy was one of the ablest and most prominent leaders of the National Democratic party; Mr. Everett held an equal rank among the conspicuous members of the National Whig party. The danger apprehended by them, however, and by other persons of sound judgment, was in reference to the resentment of the South, provoked, as it could not but be, by these continuous missiles directed against its domestic relations from without, and not on account of the actual numbers of the antislavery agitators, or of any important influence which they could exert at home.

But it was generally thought, upon the whole, that the danger was rather a matter of speculative inquiry, than of a nature to excite present alarm for our institutions; and that

ACTION OF CONGRESS.

105

such a fearful contingency as truly patriotic citizens then never ventured to contemplate, except as remotely possible, under some new and terrible phase of affairs, would be, after all, averted by the good sense and sound feeling of the people. The state of sentiment in Congress, which had now been a good deal tried upon the subject, for several years, will ap pear by the following resolutions, unanimously reported to the House by a committee, consisting of Messrs. Pinckney of South Carolina, Hamer of Ohio, Pierce of New Hampshire, Hardin of Kentucky, Jarvis of Maine, Owens of Georgia, Dromgoole of Virginia, and Turrill of New York, to which the whole matter had been referred, and which were adopted May 25, 1836:

Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy. Yeas, 182; nays, 9.

Resolved, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia. Yeas, 132; nays, 45.

And whereas, It is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, for the purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public mind, your committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolution :

Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon. Yeas, 117; nays, 68.

On this occasion, Mr. J. Q. Adams attempted (out of order) to resist these resolutions, on general grounds, as a violation of the Constitution, so he alleged, and of the rules of the House and of the rights of his constituents; but the votes show the sense of the House.

In the Senate, during the same session of Congress, all papers relating to slavery were invariably laid upon the table.

At this point of time an interesting spectacle was presented by the Legislature of Massachusetts, which should be cited in illustration of the state of sentiment in a body,

which has subsequently undergone such a thorough revolution in character, but which was then composed, in general, of men representing the better sense and principle of the Commonwealth. At the opening of the session, the Governor, Mr. Everett, had transmitted to the legislature certain resolutions, which had been adopted by the several legislative assemblies of the States of Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Alabama, upon the subject of antislavery agitation. These embodied the idea contained in the preamble to the last resolution of the National House of Representatives, just cited. They had been sent to the Executives of all the Northern States, were couched in generally temperate and respectful language, called attention to the constitutional principles upon which the Union was formed, and appealed to the justice and patriotic sentiment of the North. In correspondence with the views of President Jackson, as expressed in the passage already quoted from his message to Congress, in some instances they requested that penal laws might be passed by the legislatures of the free States for the suppression of antislavery agitation.

The resolutions, in due course of time, were placed in the hands of a joint special committee of the two Houses. The President of the Senate was Mr. Horace Mann, who was then far from having become a political abolitionist, or from having any apparent sympathy with abolition at all. Indeed, the temper of a majority of the legislators, in both branches, was at that time altogether opposed to the antislavery movement. The abolitionists requested a hearing, and sought it in a spirit of apparent humility, quite in contrast with many of their more recent demonstrations. With considerable hesitation, since an exciting and disagreeable, as well as useless scene, might be the result, the committee finally determined to grant their request, upon the broad ground of allowing those who were struck at to be heard, at least, in their own defence. Accordingly, the meeting eventually took place in the hall of the House of Representatives,

A LEGISLATIVE INCIDENT.

107

and it at once appeared, from the numbers assembled, that the abolitionists had summoned their adherents from far and near. Among other conspicuous devotees of the cause appeared Miss Harriet Martineau, then on a visit to this country, whether in the interest of Stafford House or not, was not understood, or, indeed, thought of, at that time. The hearing proved to be any thing but agreeable. The demonstration in the streets of Boston, in which Mr. Garrison had played so prominent a part, had taken place during the preceding year. No opportunity had since been afforded for breaking a silence which must have been trying, and there was a great deal of pent-up matter boiling to be let out.

Doubtless, many took an interest in the proceedings, who thought the general liberty of speech was in danger of being infringed, in a State where freedom of this sort was as universal and untrammelled as it is possible for it to be in any civilized community. As evidence of it, the speakers on this occasion exercised a very unlimited degree of free utterance. Their speeches were in the usual antislavery strain. They addressed themselves to the passions of the assembly, instead of speaking to the committee, and were often checked for this irregular conduct. They exhibited the usual pictures of men, women, and children, in chains, and subjected to the most cruel hardships and sufferings. Much was said which was incredible to a rational mind, and revolting to a heart actuated by patriotic principles and emotions. If one thought that the liberation of negroes from bondage were the paramount duty of American citizens, all this might pass muster; but if he conceived himself to be under solemn obligations to the law of the land, imposing upon him duties with which the liberation of negroes by his own intervention was inconsistent, neither his conscience nor his feelings could find gratification in the fiery and irrational staple of such harangues.

The committee was placed in a somewhat embarrassing situation. On the one hand was the grand theory of free speech; on the other, that license which the more ardent

abolitionists mistook for it, and which they imagined it to allow. Regarding all men, under all circumstances, as standing on a perfect footing of personal equality, the radicals did not understand then, nor have they ever, that a principle so artificial in its application demanded the most entire concession to others of all which they claimed for themselves. They held free speech to mean the liberty, to them, of saying whatever they pleased, at all times and in every situation; and were not too mindful, therefore, of the ordinary rules of civility, or of the recognized deference due to constituted authorities.

In fact, it was the spirit of radicalism, in general, which had incited their zeal for the cause of the negro in particular. At the close of the sesssion of the committee, which had been devoted to this hearing, an adjournment to another day was requested and allowed, in order to permit another series of speakers to present their views. This second meeting took place on March 9th, 1836; and it was likely enough that neither the committee nor the remonstrants would come together in the very best humor with each other. The audience was much more numerous than upon the former occasion; in fact, the spacious hall of the House of Representatives was thronged with an eager crowd, a majority of whom were probably upon the abolition side. In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Garrison rose, in turn, to speak; and it may be important to state the incident which then occurred, since it shows the views entertained by him, and, it may be presumed, by his confidential associates, of that early period. It is believed that the following was very nearly his precise language, as derived from minutes taken on the spot:

"I feel myself, Mr. Chairman, like Paul in the presence of Agrippa. They tell us, sir, that if we proceed in our course we shall dissolve this Union. But what is the Union to me? I am a citizen of the world."

It may be, that the chairman of the committee felt too much reverence for the great apostle of the Gentiles to be particularly pleased with Mr. Garrison's assumption in this respect; and perhaps he did not much like the comparison