« PreviousContinue »
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 faithfully 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 twenty-one. You can make them work for you; you ave 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 bendman 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 bear— resolving 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 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.
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, 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
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.
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 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 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 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 simply impossible.
What, then, remains to be discussed?
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.
To Messrs. Leitch, Burnet & Co.; Geo. W. & Jehial Read; Bruff, Brother & Seaver; C. B. Hatch & Co.; Davis, Noble & Co. Wesson & Cox; Cronin, Hursthal & Sears; Atwater, Mulford & Co.
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.
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.
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 owners of the public lands. If, therefore, the act of the Territorial Government, prohibiting Slavery, should be sent 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 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, 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.
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 recognized as property, or not; who has the right to determine that question?
Mr. Johnson.—I think that question has already been decided by the late treaty (with Mexico), Now, is not Slavery in the United States a political as well as a municipal 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 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."
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. 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
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. There were only two minor differences; one was, that the majority report indorsed the secession from the Charleston Convention
while the minority neither indorsed nor commended the action of the Georgia delegates there."
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 :
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 Constitutional 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.
TREASON AND DISUNION AVOWED.
IN 1856, as now, many of the leading States- | men 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, Senator from Louisiana, and the particular friend and champion of Mr. Buchanan, declared in 1856 that "if Fremont should be elected, the Union would be dissolved." Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, said "that in such an event the Union would be dissolved, and ought to be dissolved." Mr. Butler, of S. C., a leading member of the U. S. Senate and chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1856, said:
When Fremont is elected, we must rely upon what we have a good State Government. Every Governor of the South should call the Legislature of his State together, and have measures of the South decided upon. If they did not, and submit to the degradation, they would deserve the fate of slaves. I should advise my Legislature to go at the tap of the drum.
Mr. Keitt, of S. C., made a fiery speech at Lynchburgh, Va., in 1856 and in view of the apprehended election of Col. Fremont, ex
I tell you now, that if Fremont is elected, adherence to the Union is treason to liberty. (Loud cheers.) tell you now, that the southern man who will submit to his election is a traitor and a coward. (Enthusiastic cheers.)
This speech was indorsed as "sound doctrine" by the Hon. John B. Floyd, of Va., now Mr. Buchanan's Secretary of War.
Mr. Preston S. Brooks was complimented for his attempted (and nearly successful) assassination of Senator Sumner, by an ovation at the hands of his constituents at which Senators Butler, S. C., and Toombs, of Georgia, assisted. The hero of the day, Mr. Brooks, made a speech on the occasion from which the following is an extract;
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."
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
arm of southern freemen upon the Treasury and archives of the Government. (Applause.)
The Charleston " Mercury," the recognized organ of the South Carolina Democracy, in a recent article says:
Upon the policy of dissolving the Union, of separat ing the South from her northern enemies, and establishing a southern Confederacy, parties, presses, politicians, and people, are a unit. There is not a single public man in her limits, not one of her present representatives or senators in Congress who is not piedged to the lips in favor of disunior. Indeed, we well remember that one of the most prominent leaders of the cooperation party, when taunted with submission, rebuked the thought by saying, "that in opposing secession, he only took a step backward to strike a blow more deadly against the Union."
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. me we should submit to the election of a Black Republican, under circumstances like these, is to tell me that Virginia and the fourteen Slave States are already subjugated 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.
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 acThe 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 iness to prevent Fremont from taking his seat if electhim, in which Gov. Wise said he had an army in readed, and asking the cooperation of those to whom he wrote:
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 NATIONAL ARSENAL 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. Should Wil 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
that armory to pass under the control of such an Executive head?
The Richmond Enquirer, long one of the leading exponents of the Southern Democracy, in commenting on the murderous assault on Senator Sumner, said:
Sumner, and Sumner's friends, must be punished and silenced. 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 pos
sible; out of it, if necessary: peaceably, if we may, forcibly if we must.
In a confederated government of their own, the Southern States would enjoy sources of wealth, prosperity, and power, unsurpassed by any nation on earth. No neutrality laws would restrain our adventurous sons. Our expanding 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.
In an elaborate speech delivered later in the session by the same Senator, he said:
Sir, there is but one path of safety to the South; but 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 institutions. Under such a confederated Republic, with a Constitution which should shut out the approach and entrance of all incongruous and conflicting elements, which should protect the institution from change, and keep the whole nation ever bound to its preservation, by an unchangeable fundamental law, the fifteen Slave States, with their power of expansion, would present to the world the most free, prosperous, and happy nation on the face of the Sir, with these views, and with the firm conviction which I have entertained for many years, and which recent events have only seemed to confirm, that the "irrepressible conflict" between the two sections must and will go on, and with accumulated speed, and must end, in the Union, with the total extinction of African Slavery in the southern States, that I have announced my determination to approve and urge the southern States to dissolve the Union upon the election of a Black Republican to the Presidency of the United States, by a sectional northern party, and upon a platform of opposition and hostility to southern Slavery.
Senator Brown, of Mississippi, in a recent speech 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 planting 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 blessings of Slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth; and, rebelextend it to them.
lious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even
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 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.
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.
the Senate, contemplating the possible defeat of Mr. Clay, of Alabama, in a recent speech in his party in the coming Presidential contest,
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 government of a President professing your political faith and elected by your sectional majority.
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."
On the 24th of January, 1860, the Hon. Robert Toombs, of Georgia, made a violent speech in the Senate, on Mr. Douglas' Resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to report 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 was in the midst of civil war, adding, "I feel and know that a large body of these Senators are enemies of my country.' Mr. Toombs pro ceeded in an elaborate and vituperative speech to prove that the people of the North had violated the Constitution, by refusing to capture and return fugitive slaves to their masters in the South.
Sir, I have but little more to add-nothing for myself. I feel that I have no need to pledge my poor services to this great cause-to my country. My State has spoken for herself. Nine years ago a convention of her people met and declared that her connection with this government depended upon the faithful execution of this fugitive slave law, and her full enjoyment of equal rights in the common Territories. I have shown that the one contingency 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