day of the session when we shook hands, I authorized him to say that I should not only take the field in my district against General Scott, but that my reasons should also be published a sufficient time before the election to enable everybody to understand them. I may add that my opposition to General Scott was so constantly and publicly stated in conversations, that I have no reason to suppose that any member of Congress was ignorant of it. I also had occasion, in answer to letters received, to write to that effect to many persons of both political parties in different parts of the State prior to our last August election.

But, fellow-citizens, I had still other objections to the support of General Scott. He declares in his letter of acceptance that he will "neither countenance nor tolerate any sedition, disorder faction or resistance to the law or the Union, on any pretext, in any part of the land." This declaration is so broad and so strange, that we might, per haps, regard it as a rhetorical flourish were it not part of a well-considered and carefully prepared paper. It is inconsistent with every notion of the limitations of our constitutional system of government, and at war with every principle of the old Republican party. Mr. Webster, formerly identified with the Federal party, and noted for his efforts to strengthen the Government, nevertheless declared in a public address within the last two years, that if the North should break the bargain on its side, and fail to deliver up fugitives, that theu the South would be released. Mr. Clay, whose "unionism" was never questioned, said in his speech to the Legislature of Kentucky, that if the government should attack the institution of slavery in the States, then he was for going out of the Union. The Union men of the South have everywhere gone much further than this, and have boldly proclaimed, that if the late Compromise was violated materially, or even if the fugitive slave law should be repealed, they would sever every tie that bound them to the Union. This, you know, was the doctrine of the men most opposed to me in the last contest. It was, in truth, the universal doctrine of the South. In fact, no party, standing on different ground, could have lived for a month in any one of the Southern States. And yet General Scott, in the most decided terms, repudiates everything like this principle. In substance he says to the Union party of the South, that even if the fugitive slave law should be repealed, and you resist in any mode that repealing law, you shall be put down by force.

To Mr. Webster he says, though the North should break the bargain on its part, yet I will compel the South to submit to that wrong, and hold you guilty of treason for advising differently. And when the majority of Congress have gone on and abolished slavery in the States, and put the negro on an equal footing with the white man, if Mr. Clay should call on his countrymen to protect their rights and liberty, he is to be executed as a traitor, because he resists the "law or the Union" upon such a "pretext." This declaration of General Scott's is but a repetition of the old doctrine of submission to the divinity of rulers and governments. It is a doctrine which perished on the American continent on the fourth of July, 1776. It is not even recog

nized in the limited monarchies of Europe, though it still maintains its sway under the despotisms of Asia. Why was General Scott induced to incorporate such sentiments in his letter, at war as they are with all the principles of the Republican party, and in fact with all just American notions? Those who advised him to it must have had a motive. There are, it is true, many persons scattered up and down the country, who, of extreme Federal opinions, are at all times struggling to have the present Constitution of the United States converted, practically, into an absolute government. More than their efforts, however, must have been at work. Is it not to be traced to the influence of the anti-slavery party of the North? These higher law men are struggling to obliterate all the limitations of the Constitution, and to absorb within the vortex of the Federal government all the rights of the States and the people. In this mode they hope to oppress the minority in the South, and carry out their purposes. Expecting themselves to have the control of the Government, they inculcate the doctrine of unconditional submission to whatever the majority of Congress may do. They have, with these objects, therefore, artfully contrived to have such a sentiment incorporated in this letter, so that if General Scott had been elected they might have declared that the American people had sanctioned it, and thus greatly contributed to give it currency and strength.

If, then, fellow-citizens, General Scott had been elected, what would have been the actual condition of things? In the first place, Messrs. Fillmore and Webster had been superseded in the convention, because of their support of the Compromise and the Fugitive Slave Law, and General Scott's election would have been regarded as evidence that the people approved the conduct of the Convention. It would also have been a condemnation of General Pierce, who had planted himself firmly on the same ground. The friends of the Compromise, of the Constitution, and of the South, would have been defeated, trodden under foot, and politically buried. The anti-slavery party, headed by Mr. Seward, would have been triumphant. They would then have been the men of the day, and in "high feather," flushed with conquest, they would have taken possession of the government. They would, too, have claimed that the people had endorsed their consolidation doctrines, and thereby agreed to submit to whatever the government might choose to do. If any man supposes that, under these circumstances, they would not soon have been able to do mischief, then he is ignorant of the occurrences of the last few years. With the experience which I have had here, if I had aided them, I should have been faithless to your interests.

It is my settled opinion, that if all the facts within my knowledge had been known to you generally, that General Scott would not have obtained five hundred votes in our district. But I attach no blame whatever to those who supported him. On the contrary, I have said that if I had been at home with no other means of information than the newspapers afforded, I might have been deceived possibly, and induced to sustain General Scott. So destitute of fairness and truth are a great many of the newspapers of the day, that it is impossible

frequently for men, however honest or intelligent, to ascertain the real condition of things. For example, suppose that during the last contest for Congress in our district, an individual living at a distance had had no other means of arriving at the facts than such as the reading of the Messenger, the organ of my opponents, afforded him, he would very naturally have supposed that I was not only the worst and most dangerous man in the whole country, but also that I was the most unpopular, and would be the worst beaten man ever seen. Such a person would have been utterly amazed to learn, after the election, that I had carried a majority of every county and of almost every voting precinct.

Similar misrepresentations have been made with reference to the late presidential contest, and it is no wonder that honest and intelligent men were everywhere misled. I took no part in misleading you, but on the contrary gave you all frankly my views not only in relation to the principles involved, but also as to the result. In my conversations and public speeches up to the very time of the election, I expressed the opinion that General Scott would not only be beaten by a larger vote than Van Buren was in 1840, but that he would only get three or four States. Some of his supporters, however, to break the overwhelming blow that has fallen on them, assert that General Pierce got all the Abolitionists of the North, and was thus so successful. The facts, however, do not bear out such an allegation. On the contrary, in those sections where the abolition feeling is strongest, General Scott made the best run. It was on the contrary where there is most conservative and liberal feeling, that Pierce made the greatest gains. He had a majority in the city of Boston, where the Whig candidates have usually carried the day by several thousands. This city was the residence of one of the three Northern Whigs who voted for the Fugitive Slave law, and it was here that Mr. Webster's influence was greatest. In like manner in the conservative cities of New York and Philadelphia there were gains of some ten or fifteen thousand votes to the Democratic candidate; and as a general fact it may be stated that in those sections of the country where there was least antislavery feeling, General Scott ran farthest behind the usual Whig strength. Why even in our congressional district, where there were twelve thousand votes cast in August last, he received only four thousand six hundred, or but little over one-third. In the preceding presidential contest, the Whig candidate obtained more than four thousand majority, nearly as much as General Scott's whole vote. And you will bear me witness that those who voted for him, with but few exceptions, did it reluctantly, and from a disposition to support their party nominee, against one of whom they knew little. That the great body of General Scott's supporters were actuated by the best and most patriotic motives no one can question, and a clearer understanding of his position would have induced them to abandon him. A few persons have shown a disposition to blame me because I did not, in opposition to my knowledge of the facts, fall in and support him out of deference to the general feeling of the party, that did not take the same view. As, however, I had been placed in a position to get a better knowledge of the

issues involved than many others, I should have been false to the trust reposed in me if I had so done. If a sentinel on the watch tower should perceive peril in the distance, which was unknown to his comrades in the camp, ought he to seem to be ignorant of its approach because his fellows were so; or is it not his duty to give them warning? Again, suppose you had employed me to manage an important law suit, to be tried in a distant court, and had advised me of your wishes as to the mode of the prosecution, and suppose that after reaching the place I should find upon a full understanding of all the facts of which in part you had not been apprised, that if I acted in accordance with your impressions, I should lose the case, but that I could gain it by taking a different course, ought I to pretend to be ignorant for the sake of acting in accordance with your suggestions, and thus lose the case, or gain it by taking such steps as you would yourself have directed if present, and acquainted with the facts? Ought I not to obtain a judgment for you? In the present instance, I stand upon this position. In the emergency just passed, the best result attainable has been reached. The defeat of General Scott, under the existing circumstances, accomplishes more to repress abolitionism, and advance sound republican principles, and a proper regard for the limitations of the Constitution, than any event in our time.

The subject of the tariff has occupied a good deal of the public attention within the last few years. In September of 1850, a proposition to raise the scale of duty was brought forward by Mr. Vinton, of Ohio. While the increase was large on all things, it would have been particularly onerous on Iron. The tax on railroad bar would have been more than doubled, and the cost of the iron for the roads. that North Carolina was then constructing would have been increased about five hundred thousand dollars. Nevertheless, the proposition came within a vote or two of being adopted. I opposed it with one other Whig member, viz: my colleague, the Hon. Joseph P. Caldwell. On that occasion we were denounced for going against the rest of our party, and the organ of the manufacturers in this city, and other papers of the same stamp, called upon the people of North Carolina to read us a lesson. Unfortunately, however, for their wishes, when the Legislature met the next winter, it passed, with unexpected unanimity, resolutions fully sustaining us, and protesting against any increase of protection to the mining and manufacturing interest. In the February following, on the floor of the House, while defending this line of policy, I went further and took ground for a repeal of the existing duty on railroad iron, and since then I have on all proper. occasions continued to offer arguments in support of that view. Instead of being censured by my constituents, as those interested in the continuance of the tax have desired, I have the satisfaction of knowing that our Legislature, at its session recently closed, has passed, without a dissenting voice, a resolution in favor of making all railroad iron free of duty. Such, too, has been the progress of public opinion in this direction, that a proposition has been introduced at the present session by a Northern Whig member, (Mr. Brooks, of New York,) in the following words:

"Except so much of the message as relates to the tariff and revenue from customs, which shall be referred to a select committee, with power to examine witnesses and to collect testimony here and elsewhere; and with instructions to report as soon as possible upon the same, with a bill reducing the duties on imports to such an amount as may be required for an economical administration of the government."

Here is a proposition to reduce the duties, thereby admitting that they are at present too high, and yet it received the sanction of my colleagues, and was even voted for by every Whig in the House, with the exception of some seven or eight. Upon this question, therefore, though denounced two years since for my course, I have been fully vindicated by the progress of events.

*

*

*

*

*

*

Respectfully, your friend and fellow-citizen,

T. L. CLINGMAN.

[After the overwhelming defeat of General Scott, there seemed to be quite a lull in the slavery agitation. The people of the North generally saw that their section had gained substantially what was most important by the compromise measures, and the politicians found that there was nothing to be made by further agitation at that time. The Abolitionists, however, did not relax their efforts to keep the country excited, and prosecuted industriously their efforts to carry away slaves, and to excite mob violence to prevent their return under the fugitive slave act.

The calm did not endure long, and, in fact, only needed some practical issue to revive the storm with increased violence. An occasion was soon presented by the "Nebraska bill." During the session of 1852 and 1853, a bill came up in the House to create a new Territory west of the State of Missouri. A running debate sprang up, chiefly with reference to its interfering with the rights of the Indians in that territory. In fact, however, some Southern members, feeling that their section had not been well treated in the compromise measures, were reluctant to admit additional free Territories, and thus increase the preponderance of the North in Congress. This feeling was felt rather than expressed in words. During the progress of the debate, the Hon. David K. Cartter, then a Democratic member from Ohio, came across to my seat and said, "It seems to me that we are likely to get up the old excitement of the former times, and I am sorry to see it, for we have of late been getting on pleasantly." I answered that I had seen the same tendency, and was looking for an opportunity to stop the debate. Immediately thereafter I wrote and offered an amendment to cover the case and protect the rights of the Indians, which was adopted, (it was the same clause precisely which afterwards appeared in the bill that passed at the next session). This amendment was immediately accepted, and the bill was passed. It was, however, defeated in the Senate by the efforts chiefly of Senator Atchison, of Missouri.

At the succeeding session of Congress, the proposition was brought up again by Mr. Douglass, in the Senate, he being then chairman of the committee on Territories.