intelligence to your ears. You, Mr. Chairman, can judge of this as well as I. You remember when Great Britain claimed theoretically supremacy over the colonies, what those thirteen slave-holding colonies did. Do you suppose that the enjoyment of liberty for more than sixty years has rendered us indifferent to is sweets; or, if you please, that domination for that period over our slaves has made us willing to change places with them? Though I will not attempt to tell you what the Southern States will do, yet, sir, it is my privilege, as a republican and a freeman, to disclose frankly my own purpose.

I am for maintaining our present Constitution of government as long as any amount of human exertion can uphold it. Whatever of courage and patriotism induces the hardy mountaineer of Switzerland or Circassia, to struggle for ages against the sword of the invader in defence of the snowy mountains which shelter him-whatever an Athenian felt due to liberty on the plain of Marathon, or the Spartan king owed to his country when he devoted himself to death at Thermopyla-this, and more than all this, I hold to be due from every American citizen to the Constitution of his country. But when a great organic change is made in that Constitution-a change which is to degrade those who have sent me to represent them here-then, sir, at whatever cost of feeling or of personal hazard, I will stand by the white race, the freemen of the South. Should we be forced away, we will control as we best can the inferior race which Providence has placed under our charge. We shall deal better by them than England does with her Irish or East Indian population. We may not find it safe to impart to them the highest degree of intellectual culture, even if they were capable of receiving it. Many of the Roman slaves were learned in physic and other sciences, but when it was proposed to distinguish the slaves by a peculiar dress, the sagacious Senate refused, fearing thus to teach them their great superiority of numbers. Nature has given our slaves a garb which distinguishes them from us, and places a barrier to social and political equality. Should they by these or other causes be driven to insurrections, we may be forced to destroy many of them, as Rome did in her servile wars. It is hardly possible that any contingency will render it necessary for the white race, in its own defence, to exterminate them, as the New Englanders did the Pequod and other Indian tribes, whom they found in their way on that territory. But, happen what may, we shall never be degraded to the level of such liberty and equality as prevails in Mexico, much less reduced to the condition of St. Domingo. The North, if she is not satisfied with the present Constitution, may go on in search of such a system as has never yet existed. She may go on with her progressive democracy, as Rome did after the days of the Gracchi; she may go on till she finds such equality as prevailed in France when Mirabeau was an orator, and Robespierre a magistrate. Whether she will then find a Cæsar or a Napoleon, or whether she will move on into some new Utopian fields of liberty, time only can disclose.

It would be vain, however, for us on either side to hope for such prosperity as we have hitherto enjoyed. If the stream of our national existence should be divided, each branch must roll a diminished volume, and would be able only to bear a lesser burden. Such a separation would be the saddest of all partings. We should feel that our way was

lonely, like that of Hagar in the desert-desolate as the wanderings of our first parents when crime had just begun. Like the exile of Bolingbroke, we should have the same revolution of the seasons, the same sun and moon, and azure vault and rolling planets above our heads, but not the same mind and the same feelings. The vast constitutional edifice reared by our ancestors, and which they fondly hoped would stand like those marvelous eastern pyramids, the monuments of forty centuries, would, like the fabled palace of Aladdin, have melted away in the mists of the morning. It would be difficult and most painful to realize our new situation. Our fleets and armies in other lands would find themselves suddenly divided into aliens, possibly enemies to each other. When the veteran Scott should chance to cross my path, am I, because he is a resident of a free State, to gaze on him only as I would on Wellington or Soult? If the gallant Worth should come in my way, shall I not take him by the hand as a countryman? If Taylor should go to the North, will he be regarded as an alien? And those that stood under him at Buena Vista-are Lincoln, and Hardin, to be separated from Clay, and McKee, and Yell, by whose sides they lived and died in defence of the banner of a common country?

Great, however, as are the perils which beset us, we have powerful allies to resist them. After the adjustment of the painful difficulty in the days of nullification was known in France, Lafayette, the friend of America, who had looked on with intense anxiety, on the first public occasion gave as a sentiment, "the good sense of the American people, which enabled them wisely to settle all domestic difficulties." We have abroad, among our people, a mass of strong, clear good sense, which in times of trial and danger has always sustained and controlled the action of the government. We have a community of interest, which it would seem that no party madness could break up. We have, too, recollections of the past, which to American feelings are stronger even than calculations of interest. Our immediate ancestors, in the establishment of our independence, and in the creation of this Constitution, performed such deeds as the world never saw; and we have fresh in our minds the recollections of their common counsels, common sufferings, common struggles, and common triumphs. There are Adams and Jefferson in counsel together; there are Bunker Hill and Yorktown; there the blood of Warren, and Montgomery, and Pulaski, and De Kalb; the genius of Franklin, and the great name of Washington; the daring of Paul Jones and Decatur, on the broad blue water, and the dying words of Lawrence. These recollections of the mighty dead stand, like giants of the olden time, to defend their Constitution. If, with all these proud recollections of the past, and such anticipations for the future as never a nation had, we can destroy this bond of Union, then we shall deserve a position as low as it may otherwise be high.

NOTE.

Though individuals might commend a speech like this, yet such was the state of feeling then existing in the country that neither appeal nor argument could produce any material change in the action of parties.

That portion of the Whig party in the North, which cherished the views of the old federalists, in favor of a strong central government, as a means

of obtaining pecuniary advantages over the Southern and Western States, saw that the anti-slavery agitation would give them great additional strength. The abolitionists were, of course, in favor of a consolidated government, in order that they might, through it, assail slavery in the States, and it was natural that those at the North, who wished to use the government as a great money-making machine for themselves, should seek an alliance with them.

The Northern Whigs, however, had to play a part which was attended with great risk, and required the most delicate management. If they went too far, they might show their hand to the Southern Whigs, and thus by losing the whole South, and the moderate men of the North, incur defeat. It was their purpose, if possible, to beat their opponents, the democrats, without driving off from them the freesoilers and other anti-slavery men. They were willing to take up General Taylor if he would avoid publicly committing himself, on the subject of slavery, in the Territories. His friends induced him so to act as to meet their views. He declared, in substance, that he would not veto a bill unless it was, in his view, unconstitutional. With him as a candidate they could take the position that, as the restriction of slavery or Wilmot Proviso had already been settled by repeated precedents, he would not fail to sign such a bill; and hence it was only necessary for the people of the North to be sure to elect men pledged to the proviso and other kindred measures. They relied on the fact of Taylor being a large slaveholder and his military popularity, to satisfy the Southern Whigs. But if any other candidate, among those prominent, had been nominated, a declaration of principles might have been required.

It was because I saw that Taylor's candidacy, in the attitude in which he then stood before the country, would be used to strengthen the anti-slavery movement, that I attempted to have General Scott nominated rather than Taylor. Immediately after the nomination of the latter, I was surprised to discover that Mr. Seward's special friends, though they had been ostensibly against General Taylor, were really gratified by his nomination.

To show how the desire to beat the Democratic party restrained the action of the Northern Whigs, in their anti-slavery movements, I republish a letter written for the following reason: Mr. Erastus Brooks, of the New York Express, had a controversy with Mr. Charles Francis Adams, then according to my recollection, publishing a newspaper of strong anti-slavery views, as to what would have been the course of the late ex-President John Quincy Adams, in the contest then in progress. Mr. Brooks, to sustain his position, called on me for a statement. What follows was published in the Express:

THE LATE JOHN QUINCY ADAMS AND GENERAL TAYLOR. [CORRESPONDENCE OF THE NEW YORK EXPRESS.]

WASHINGTON, July 31, 1848.

The Hon. D. P. King and Charles Hudson, of Massachussetts, have both written letters in answer to certain inquiries propounded to them as to the views of John Quincy Adams touching General Taylor and the Presidency In a previous letter I had occasion to speak of these opinions, but not until I saw an attempt to discredit what Mr. Adams had said. I send you now a further confirmatory letter from another member of Congress-one with whom Mr. Adams was in frequent communication, and who shared his confidence and friendship. The letter not only shows no hostility to General

Taylor, but an agreeable anticipation in his expected nomination and election. It shows, also, the far-reaching sagacity of the "old man eloquent" in predicting a result so soon to be ratified by the popular will:

Letter from Hon. T. L. Clingman, of North Carolina.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, July 31, 1848..

SIR: Your note has just been received, in which you state that you have learned from the Hon. Messrs. King and Hudson that I remembered a conversation with Mr. Adams on the subject of General Taylor's election as President, and express a desire that I would detail the substance of what he said as nearly as I can remember it.

The conversation to which I presume they referred occurred under the following circumstances: It so happened that Mr. Adams and myself were among the first members to arrive at this city, previous to the assembling of the present Congress. A few days before the commencement of the session he paid me a visit at my lodgings. As the day was cloudy and cold, while I assisted him in from his carriage, I could not forbear expressing my surprise at seeing him from home in such weather. He replied, that when the weather was bad, he always rode in his carriage; but that at other times he walked a good deal. His advanced age and apparent frailty made me deeply sensible that, by his visit, he was paying me a compliment that he would soon be unable to offer to any one.

He must have remained with me nearly an hour, and, notwithstanding his extreme debility, he expressed his views with a clearness and force that surprised me. It having been reported just previously that he had declared it his purpose to support the Administration in the conquest and acquisition of the whole of Mexico, I was the more desirous to hear his opinion on this and other topics connected with it; so, in the earlier parts of the conversation, I purposely avoided intimating any opinion which might in any manner tend to induce him to modify the expression of his views. I have no reason to doubt but that, in that conversation, frank and communicative as he was, he expressed his views fully and without reserve. Though it would be impossible for me to give from memory the whole of that conversation, yet I cannot be mistaken in relation to its general import and substance, while particular expressions are strongly impressed on my recollection.

Of the war and its authors he spoke in strong terms of condemnation. "They," he said, referring to the friends of the Administration, "expect me to speak on the war, but I am not a going to do it." This was said with peculiar emphasis. "If," he added, "I were to speak, I should have to discuss slavery, and that would do harm." He then went on to say that he was for peace, and that the proper way to obtain peace was to turn out of power the present Administration. He then spoke of the presidential election, and said that General Taylor would be the candidate of the Whigs. I suggested that some persons were waiting for a further expression of General Taylor's views. He instantly replied: "Oh, he is a Whig;" or "I have no doubt but that he is a Whig;" and, while speaking of the probable nomination, he said: "The South, I take it, will be for him, and part of the North," and he added that he had no doubt that he would be the nominee of the party. Though I do not recollect any particular expression of preference to General Taylor over the other Whigs spoken of as probable candidates, yet I cannot be mistaken in saying that he had a settled conviction that he would be the candidate of the party, and that he expressed a strong desire for its success.

In fact he seemed to be as strongly identified in his feelings and views with the Whig party, and as anxious for its triumph, as he used to be in 1844, when Mr. Clay was the candidate. I was even surprised to hear him express a determination to refrain from discussing the subject of slavery, in which he usually manifested so much interest, lest by speaking on it he should jeopard the success of the party. Subsequently, during the month of January, at his own house, he referred to the subject, and said: "I did not intend to speak upon it, but I owe you one for that speech the other day," alluding to my speech on the slave question. On my replying that I hoped he would leave that among his unpaid debts, he laughed and reiterated his determination not to speak upon the subject during the session.

In conclusion, allow me to say that I have not the slightest doubt but that, were he living at this day, he would be a cordial and earnest supporter of General Taylor's election.

Very respectfully, yours, &c.,

ERASTUS BROOKS, Esq.

T. L. CLINGMAN.

This shows that Mr. Adams was so strong a party man that, during that session, the last in which he served, he forebore to speak on the great slavery issue, lest he might jeopardize the success of his party. From frequent conversations with him at previous sessions, I was satisfied that there was not on the floor of the House a member more thoroughly hostile to the Democratic party than he was.

It may not be out of place for me here to refer to a circumstance, which occurred during the Spring of 1848, that ought to be stated as an act of justice to Mr. Calhoun. In common with many others, up to that time, I had believed that Mr. Calhoun's course had been influenced by a desire to dissolve the Union, but what then occurred satisfied me that I had done him injustice. As a means of settling the slavery agitation, what was known as the Clayton Compromise, was brought forward. It was not only fiercely assailed by the Northern Whigs, who desired no settlement, and who vehemently declared to the Southern members of the party, that if the measure should pass, it would secure the election of General Cass, but as it fell short of doing the South full justice, many Southern Whigs were disinclined to support it.

During its pendency in the Senate, General Waddy Thompson, an intimate personal friend, called one morning to see me. He said he wished to consult me about a matter of importance, and remarked, "I am just from Calhoun, with whom I have had a full conversation. He says, if you and Toombs and Stephens and Preston (of Virginia) and Cabell will unite with him and his friends, in an address to the people of the South, asking them to join, without distinction of party, in holding a convention, to insist on a proper recognition of their rights, he will, this morning, in the Senate, take ground against the Clayton Compromise, and defeat it, for he is satisfied that it does not do justice to the South; but, unless you are willing to do this, he is convinced that nothing better can be done at this time, and says this measure will, for the present, at least, settle the agitation, and, for a time, give peace to the country, and that we must trust to the future." Though this attempt was not made, and Mr. Calhoun assisted in passing the measure through the Senate, yet the proposition from him satisfied me that Mr. Calhoun was really a friend of the Union on the principles of the Constitution. To a man, desirous of disunion, agitation of course was desirable. The fact that he was willing to assist in passing a measure that fell short of doing justice to his section, because it would put an end to the agitation, and for a time, at