I propose to say a few things on the old theme of which, we have all heard so much—the subject of slavery and the threatened dissolution of the Union. These two seem to constitute a sort or equality—a “two in one” subject, as inseparable as the Siamese twins.
A part of what I
have to say, will be with the intention of calling the minds of gentlemen, to
the purer and better days of the republic—to contrast those days with the
present, and try if we can search out the old landmarks of constitutional
liberty, and from these, to determine how far we may have wandered into the
domains of despotism. At this day, and
under the perils to which liberty and union are exposed, I believe this to be
the most acceptable service which a patriot can render to his country.
I desire sir if it
be possible, to reproduced before the people of this day, the living realities
of those purer and better days, when the union and constitution had their
birth. For, sir, it is in the spirit
only in which the union and constitution were organized, that they can be
preserved, if preserved at all. If the
ethical principles in which the union and constitution were brought into being,
were the principles of despotism, of human bondage—if the spirit which presided
at their birth, was the cold and sunless spirit of a crushing despotism, then
in the perpetuity of that fell spirit, will rest their only peace and
permanency. But if, on the other hand,
the union and constitution were produced from the gentle, genial sprint of
liberty, and the changeless natural equality of human rights, then in the same
spirit, must they be administered, to be perpetuated. No self-evident axiom, no
demonstration in mathematics, is more convincing than this. Gentlemen may tell
us—they do tell us—that, in order to preserve the union we must yield to the
necessities or to the caprices of slavery. Sir, doing this, is a dissolution of the union. Its life
expires the moment we yield to this senseless clamor. Sir, in order to preserve
the union, necessity is laid upon us, to go back to the birth of the union
prior to the constitution, and to catch and hold the spirit which animated
those great and good men, and apply it now, and for all time, to the
administration of the government. In no other way, sir, is it possible to preserve
the government. It will bear no other
treatment more than man’s natural body can bear strychnine or arsenic.
Sir, if the
constitution and union are to be used merely as instruments for propagating and
making perpetual human bondage, they cannot be preserved—neither is it
desirable that they should. They were designed by their framers, to be
instruments of perpetual good; and to change them from this their original
design, into instruments of ceaseless evil, is in itself to destroy them; and the
obligation to obey them ceases, when their nature is changed by usurpation or
corruption.
I do not say these
things by way of menace, but as simple, fundamental truths, as necessary in the
science of government, as are axioms in mathematics. But, sir, the preservation
of this union and constitution, does not lie in force, but in the preparation
of the hearts of the people. There is no better preparation for these, than a
revival of that sentiment of veneration and affection for our fathers, which in
individuals, is the highest possible development of a great character.
Patriotism itself, that first duty of the citizen may be said to consist in the
sum of our individual affections and veneration for our fathers. That sum of
individual sentiments, constitutes the national sentiment of patriotism. To
that spirit I appeal for the adjustment of all our internal troubles, both
political and sectional. In that spirit, I shall endeavor to retrace our steps
to the period when our constitution and union were brought into existence, and
to persuade my fellow members to accompany me in the same spirit, to a short
communing with the mighty dead. In that spirit alone, can we calm the agitated
waters of political strife, either in this all or among our constituents.
To this end, I shall
exhibit the fruits of their toil and their patriotism, as precious relics,
worth of our ceaseless veneration and our ardent and devoted imitation. These
relics constitute the pure foundation of freedom, from which our constitutional
liberty flows, and will continue to flow through all time, unless fouled by the
tread of the slaveholder and his free-state confederate.
The first general
congress which ever assembled in the colonies of British America, convened in
Philadelphia in 1774. One of its earliest and most earnest efforts was, to put
an end to the African slave trade. This was attempted openly and boldly, and as
a necessary preliminary to the abolition of slavery itself. Sir, those glorious
old men, so deeply imbued with the spirit of the Bible, and at that time
discovered no divinity—no Bible
sanction to the wicked institution.
But hark! Let us
listen to the solemn and truthful voice of that first old continental congress.
Blessed old fathers of our institutions—gone to their graves, full of years,
and full of honors! But still they speak to all of us who have ears to hear, or
hearts to understand—men whose fame will only grow brighter with the lapse of ages;
and whom it were an everlasting joy to call OUR FATHERS, were it not that their
integrity to human liberty, has become the bitterest reproach upon our apostacy
from, and treachery to the holiest interests of our country and the human race.
But listen again to the voice of the fathers, oh, ye sham democrats! Hearken
also, ye republicans! for their instructions
are to all such as revere their memory, and follow in their footsteps.
The first general congress assembled in Philadelphia in September 1774 resolve that
“The abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object of desire in these colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude further importations from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to prohibition, have been heretofore defeated by his Majesty’s negative; thus preferring the immediate advantage of a few African corsairs, to the lasting interests of the American states, and the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by the infamous practice.” — American Archives, 4th series, vol. 1, p. 696.
So “his Majesty”—thick-skulled,
but mulish old King George III, was perversely bent on forcing slavery upon the
colonies, against their most earnest remonstrances—against reason, common
sense, and common humanity—and just so now, our modern dull-headed, dough-faced,
and sham democratic party, following in the perverse footsteps of its illustrious
prototypes, old King George and Lord North, is doing the same infamous and
ruinous work for the ill-fated and oppressed people of Kansas. In the eyes of
King George, the interests of a score or two of slave-trading pirates, was
sufficient to break down the interests, and to “crush out,” if possible, the
principles of three millions of his subjects; and so now, in the eyes of the sham democracy, the pretended, but not actual
right of a mere handful of slave-holders, to saddle their atrocious and ruinous
institution of slavery upon the free
people and free territory of Kansas, against the most earnest remonstrances of
that people, in breach of a solemn and time-honored compact, and at the hazard
of civil war, and the overthrowing of the union, completes the parallel; and I
leave it to the historian to say which should bear the palm, whether old King
George or modern democracy, in this rivalship in the wickedness and stupidity.
Again, sir, I revert with gratitude and pride, to those venerated men who, in view of perils which would have daunted the boldest not armed in a panoply of righteousness and truth, and quote to the confusion of the combined, but recreant democracy and slaveocracy, the bold, and yet holy resolves of the fathers whose memory they dishonor. I quote from the articles of association, formed by that first congress of 1774:
“We
do for ourselves and the inhabitants of the several colonies whom we represent,
firmly agree and associate under the sacred ties of virtue, honor, and love of
our country, as follows: * * *
2.
That we will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the first day
of November next, after which time we will wholly discontinue the slave trade,
and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels nor
sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it. * * *
[11].
That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by those who are
qualified to vote for representatives in the legislature, whose business it
shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this
association; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of a
majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their
appointment has violated this association, that such majority do forthwith
cause the truth of the case to be published in the Gazette, to the end that all such foes to the Rights of British
America may be publicly known, and universally contemned, as the enemies of
American liberty, and thenceforth we, respectively will break of all dealings
with him or her. * * *
14.
And we do further agree, and resolve that we will have no trade, commerce,
dealings, or intercourse whatever—with any colony, or province, in North
America, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate, this
association; but will hold them as unworthy of the rights of freemen, and as
inimical to the liberties of the country.
The
forgoing association, being determined upon by the congress, was ordered to be
subscribed by the several members thereof; and thereupon we have hereunto set
our respective names accordingly.
IN CONGRESS, PHILADELPHIA,
October 20, 1774.
PEYTON RANDOLPH, President.
(Archives, Ibid.)”
Mr. Chairman, that
was the bold, stern language in which our fathers denounced slavery—the “sum of
all villanies.” These were some of the incipient measures to which they
resorted, to rid themselves of the iniquitous and ruinous system of slavery.
Simultaneously with this association formed by the first congress, North
Carolina denounced the slave trade and slavery in language equally bold and
truthful. The colony of Georgia did the same in the following year; and, in
deed, the united voice of the colonies, during the agitations which immediately
preceded the revolutionary war, down to the crowning period of the declaration
of independence, was utterly condemnatory of slavery, MORALLY, SOCIALLY, AND
POLITICALLY.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. LUMPKIN] has assured us, that if the “black republicans” elect their president in the coming contest, the union will be dissolved, inasmuch as no southern man will take office under such an administration. This prediction however, is not original with that gentleman, nor to the section from which he comes, for even the north has at least, one man simple enough, to back his on pretensions to the presidency by a similar threat. But Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Fremont can induce no living southern statesman to accept the appointment, let him select the ghost of some one of their dead sages; for “though he be dead, he yet speaketh.” Hear the old Georgians speak from their honored graves!
COLONONY OF GEORGIA, January 12, 1775
“To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, but a general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of slavery in America—a practice founded in the injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties, (as well as lives,) debasing part of our fellow-creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest, and is of that liberty we contend for upon a very wrong foundation. We therefore, resolve, at all times, to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony upon the most safe and equitable footing for the master and themselves.”
In that day, Mr. Chairman, Virginia was not behind her sister colonies in condemnation of slavery. In November 1774, James City county endorsed the action of that first continental congress in the following language:
“The association entered into by congress being publicly read, the freeholders and other inhabitants of the county, that they might testify to the world their concurrence and hearty approbation of the measures adopted by that respectable body, very cordially acceded there to, and did bind and oblige themselves, by the sacred ties of virtue, honor and love to their country, strictly and inviolably to observe and keep the same in every particular.”—Ibid.
Woe is the day, Mr.
Chairman, that she ever receded from her blighted faith! Had she kept the faith
of her fathers, no note of discord would have ever marred the harmony of that
union, then so auspiciously inaugurated. But she has fallen, and her sons are
now heading that great conspiracy, the purpose of which is to blight the
continent with the endless curse of human bondage.
I know very well, Mr. Chairman, and I blush to own it, that Virginia and the south are not alone in this great apostacy. My own section had its full share in the original sin of African kidnapping; and fealty to truth compels me to admit, that in nothing is her case more hopefully than that of the south, but in that remission which may be expected to follow, the confession and repentance of sin. Still, sir, however much of injustice and cupidity prevailed in that day, both at the north and the south, there was yet an immense balance of justice, humanity, and love of human rights. Bad men and base actions were not then unknown; but the central force of public opinion was love of freedom and justice; and this drew our fathers to a union so close and cordial, that the result was the old confederation, the declaration of independence, revolutionary war, and the constitution of the United States. These all, were the sole fruits of the love of liberty and justice, and an intense and unremitting hostility to the existence—much more to the extension of slavery. But there is no end to the proofs, that the spirit of liberty, and not of slavery, was the spirit and bond of union, under the old confederation, and throughout the revolutionary war. Why, sir, under the guidance of that evil sp[i]rit of slavery propagandism, which not possesses the sham democracy of the slave and the free states, the war of independence would have been an impossibility. A cargo of African negroes, sir, would have transformed five regiments of these shams into “cow-boys” and tories. I will adduce but one proof more of my original proposition, and that shall be the declaration of independence itself. Here it is, O ye slavery-extending democrats, and blush that ever you dubbed yourselves followers of Jefferson!
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” &c.
I know sir, that a
democrat in the other end of the capitol, in the last congress, pronounced this
sacred charter of human rights “a self-evident lie;” and that democrat, so far
as I know, is still in full communion in the democratic church, and is probably
honored the more, for throwing the lie
in the faces of those whose blood purchased that freedom which enabled him, on
the floor of the American senate, to dishonor their memories and insult those
of their posterity, who revere their virtues and cherish their principles. But why marvel at such audacity of language?
Alas, sir! it but too well accords with the acts and records of the apostate
party of which he was a prominent member.
Mr. Chairman, if any
human records of the past can be
relied on as prove of any event of the past, then the proof, that the bond of our American union, prior to,
and during the revolutionary war, was an irrepressible love of personal
freedom, as one of the inherent, indestructible rights of all human beings
unconvicted of crime, is proved. And, sir, I declare it here, as the truth of
history that so long as this great truth was cherished, and practically
recognized by the federal government, in all matters within the legitimate
cognizance of its several departments, there was never manifested any dangerous
indication of disloyalty to the union. No, sir, disunion is the whelp of the
spirit of slavery propagandism; and since that evil spirit has possessed
southern politicians and their alliance has been perfected with our northern
slave democracy, there has been no peace for the union; and, in the providence
of God, there never can, and never ought to be any “peace to the Wicked,”
either in union or out of it.
But, Mr. Chairman, having proven the allied forces of the slavery propagandists of the south and the slave democracy of the free states to be hostile to the only enduring element of union, liberty! as received and understood by our fathers “in the times that tried men’s souls,” I proceed now to show, that the same allies are equally hostile to the same essential element of union under the constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I first call the attention of the committee to the preamble of the constitution. Here it:
“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America.”
There, Mr. Chairman,
whoever, after reading that declaration of the objects and purposes for which
the constitution of the United States, was framed and adopted by the people of
the United States, shall assert, that the extension and perpetuation of
slavery, or the exaltation of slavery into a “domestic institution,” to be
laced side by side with the institution of husband and wife, parent and child,
&c., as is attempted by the slave democracy in and by the Nebraska bill and as is asserted in every alternate
breath, by each slaveholder and slave democrat in congress and out of it—I say,
sir, every such person charges the men who framed, and the people who adopted
the constitution, with deliberate and
wicked LYING, or else with a stupidity so nearly absolute, as to relieve
them of moral responsibility for what they did assert.
Our fathers set this
preamble at the threshold of the constitution as a lamp, as well to dispel
darkness from the minds of those who should
attempt to enter this great edifice of FREE government, as to cast its cheering
light through all the compartments of that edifice. They did it, that whoever
might hope to find in the constitution a guarantee of slavery, or any form of
injustice, might, at the commencement of his search, meet only—“liberty and
justice.” It was done to take all excuse from that perverse ingenuity which,
from the infirmities of human language might attempt to use the constitution as
the slave democracy in congress, and out of it, are now using it, viz: as an
instrument for the extension of slavery into free territory, and as a
justification of their pretence, that the constitution proprio vigor, carries slavery into all the territories of the
United States; or that slavery and liberty are twin brethren, and must be
brought, as such, simultaneously into the union, or not be born at all; or that
other piece of stupidity or perverseness, that the territories are the common
property of the people of all the states, and therefore the slaveholder has the
right to enter all or any of the federal territories with his slaves—or that
other, and last for the present, assertion, that there exists a certain
equality among all the states, which authorizes the people of the slave states
to take their slaves, as property, into the territories, but does not authorize
the people of the free states to enter the territories and exclude slavery
therefrom—a sort of equality of states, which warrants the establishment of
nuisances and social curses in the territories, but takes from the people the
power to abate such nuisances.
Another design of
the preamble to the constitution was, to enable the people to detect that class
of demagogues who, under the cloak of devotion to the union, are trying to
force or cheat the people of the free states, into “carrying the flag and
keeping step to the music of the coffle gang,” as it pursues its dead march
from the old and slave-cursed states, to make its halt in the now free
territories, there to leave forever the mildew of its blighting nature.
But the preamble to
the constitution, is not the constitution. This must speak with its own voice,
but it must nevertheless speak in the spirit of its preamble, otherwise both
preamble and constitution are a hypocrisy and a delusion. The constitution as
framed by the convention, gave no power to any department of the government to
make a slave of a free man, nor to convert free territory into slave territory.
The federal government, under the constitution, prior to the amendments, was
utterly impotent, either to make or hold a slave, or to give authority to
others to make or hold slaves. The unamended constitution was precisely that,
neither more nor less than its authors made it; but they did not make a slave
constitution. They did not omit a
clause in that instrument, authorizing slaveholding by accident, but by design.
Mr. Madison, one of the chief artificers of the constitution, assures us that
they did not intend that the constitution should even disclose the shameful
act, that there existed such a crime and disgrace in the United State as
slavery.
But to “make
assurance doubly sure,” and as it were, “to take a bond of fate,”1
those great and good men, for the vindication of their own fame as the friends
of liberty and justice, and jealous least, through the degeneracy of after
times, and almost as if foreseeing the apostacy of the slave democracy of the
present day, immediately on the adoption of the constitution, as framed by the
convention, the first congress assembled under it, proposed divers[e]
amendments, the chief object of which were, to negative all power in congress, which bad men might claim to be
implied in the original constitution, to make oppressive laws, or to wrest from
men their inalienable rights.
First amendment.—“Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
Mr. Chairman, it is very true that this prohibition against violating the freedom of speech and the press by congress, does not affect the states as such, and consequently the freedom of speech and the press in the states, must depend on state laws; but there is not a slave state in the union, with the exception of perhaps Delaware, where this great fundamental element of civil liberty, either practically, by licensed mobbing or by state laws, is not utterly annihilated, The principle of slavery, Viz: property in man, will not bear discussion; neither dare it “come to the light, lest its deeds should be reproved.” But the discussion of the right to property in “the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air,” in the earth and the products of the earth, the air and the waters, are as freely discussed in slave states as in free states. The reason for this is too obvious to require illustration. But apropos of this, we have all heard of the celebrated laws of the bogus legislature of Kansas for the protection of property in slaves. If not, the masterly speech of my friend from Indiana, [Mr. COLFAX] will throw abundant light of these pandects of Atchison, Stringfellow, Shannon, and company. But super-fiendish are these infamous acts in the form of laws, against the great right of free speech and a free press, we have nevertheless, the assurance of a senator from Mississippi, [Mr. ADAMS,] that the Kansas laws are by no means peculiar; but are such as are usual and necessary in the slave states. In alluding to these Kansas laws, he says:
“They have passed just such laws—not perhaps exactly in the language, but substantially the same—as the states maintain the institution of slavery have found it necessary to pass to sustain their rights. In the state in which I have the honor to live, we prohibit the circulation of incendiary pamphlets, as they are called, which mean nothing more nor less than the language objected to and provided against in this act. Men are punished for it; so in nearly all the states where the institution of slavery exists. The mistake which is made here is in reference to the question which I have already called to the attention of the senate. These people have acted in conformity with the provisions of the act of congress.”
Now sir, admitting
that slave states, for the support of the barbarism of slavery, will within
their own limits, may enact laws thus cruel, unjust, and disgusting; still this
legislative assembly of Kansas, is but the CREATURE of which the congress of
the United States is the CREATOR—the mere instrument, made by congress, to make
and execute laws for Kansas, in the place of, and for congress. Therefore, it
can pass no law which congress, by the constitution of the United States is
prohibited from passing. Hence all these beastly, disgusting, and infamous
slave laws of Kansas, are a nullity and a nuisance, by the express provisions of the first article of the amendments to the
constitution of the United States. But what care this democracy, for the
constitution of the United States, where that stands in the way of the
extension of human slavery? Just nothing at all! And hence every nerve of this
mis-begotten administration, is strained to uphold these unconstitutional and
scandalous laws. The whole military force of the government, is put in
requisisition [sic] by the slave
democracy, to dragoon the people of Kansas, into submission to these laws; and
men, good, and wise, and just men are to be tried by slave democratic judges
and juries, and convicted and executed as traitors, for the resistance to these
laws, the forcible execution of which, is TREASON, and ought to subject the
president, his cabinet, and all advising to their execution, to the trial, and
sentence, and DOOM OF TRAITORS.
Second amendment.—“The right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.”
In this amendment
the same SPIRIT OF LIBERTY is developed, as was so apparent in the preceding.
“The right to “keep and bear arms,” is thus guarantied, in order that if the
liberties of the people should be assailed, the means for their defence should
be in their own hands.
But this right of
the people of the United States, of which the free-state settlers of Kansas are
a part, has been torn away from them by the treasonable violence of this
ill-starred administration, which is used as the mere pack-mule of the slave
democracy.
Fourth amendment.—“The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
In utter contempt of
this clause of the constitution, this guilty administration, by its less guilty
tools in Kansas, has been sacking cities, burning houses, and carrying
desolation, murder and rapine, over that fair territory.
Fifth amendment.—“No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
It should be always
borne in mind, that the constitution of the United States was intended, first,
to confer power on the government of the United States; second, to limit the
power thus conferred; and third, to withdraw certain powers from the individual
states.
Nowhere in the
constitution of the United States is the word “slave” used. Wherever in the
constitution slaves are alluded to, or rather, are suppose to be alluded to,
they are not named as slaves, but as persons, just as all the people,
individually, are included in the term “persons,” in the fifth amendment above
quoted. Mr. Madison, called the father of the constitution, informs us that the
banishment of the term “slave” from
the text of the constitution, was not the result of an accident, but was done purposely, and with the intention of
excluding the idea, that man can hold his fellow-man as property, the
affirmative of which, would be implied in the term “slave.”
Mr. Chairman, if the
framers of the constitution cast the word, “slave,” as a reprobate, out of the
constitution, because its definition is “a man held as property,” how dare our
bogus democrats and slaveholders interpolate what venerated instrument with the
execrable term? No, sir; the argument is irresistible, that wherever the
authority of the United Sates, in any of its departments, whether legislative,
executive, or judicial, is invoked to interfere against a “person” held as a
slave by the laws of any state, the United States must treat such slave as a
person; and if such person’s “life, liberty or property,” may be brought in
jeopardy by the authority of the United States, that “person,” however humble,
however bruised or trodden under foot by other states or other nations, is
entitled to “due process of law,” which by the common consent of all—whether
slave-holders, slave democrats, or republicans—is admitted to be a “trial by
jury, according to the course of the common law.” Thus, sir, the
thrice-execrable “fugitive slave law,” with its chatchpole bevy of
slave-hunting commissioners and deputy marshals, becomes a nullity and
nuisance—the villainous concoction of slaveholding usurpation and doughfaced
subserviency—and dissolves like stubble before the devouring fire.
Now, sir, I flatter
myself that I have vindicated the memory and the fame of our fathers who
bequeathed to us a constitution based on justice—a union knit and held together
by the gentle, genial humanizing spirit of God-given, and God-honoring freedom.
I have proven by facts and arguments which no sophistry can overthrow, that the
spirit which created the constitution and the union, was the love of personal
liberty under just and humane law. The
same spirit which created must preserve the constitution and the union; but the
spirit which has taken possession of the slaveholders, and their base tools,
the slave democracy of the free states, is the unclean spirit of slavery propagandism
and perpetuation; and just as sure as animal life perishes in mephitic gases,
so sure is it, that this constitution and union must perish, when smothered in the foul embraces of these allies of
human slavery.
Mr. Chairman, I
would respectfully ask of our union-saving physicians and craftsmen, whether in
their opinion, the health of the union is improving under the slavery-extension
nostrums which they have been administering to it now for some twenty years
past?—whether their last dose of Nebraska bitters, bids fair to improve the
health or prolong the life of their unhappy patient? To me, sir, though I am mo
political doctor, and my opinion is therefore, of little value, I confess that
the writhings and pantings of the patient, and the agitated and anxious
countenances of the doctors and nurses, do not look like a favorable working of
the medicines; and I would respectfully suggest a change of prescriptions. When
you took your patient in hand, some twenty years ago, it was blessed with a
robust constitution, seemingly calculated to outlive all the quacks and
granddames who had taken its cure in hand, and only needed to be wisely let
alone, to outlive the years of Methuselah himself. But you could not rest. You
pronounced the union in danger, and again commenced administering your doses of
pro-slavery agitation. In 1836 you “saved” the union by “Pinckney’s
Resolution.” That was by laying “anti-slavery petitions on the table without
reading or reference.” You pronounced your patient “cured”—still, to all but
the doctors, it was now evidently made sick by your medicine. You nevertheless
tired the same remedy in 1838, in another resolution of the same character. In
1842 you administered another pro-slavery dose, and in that attempt to expel
from the House, the venerable ex-president Adams, merely for presenting a
petition to congress. The union was thereby again saved, however; still,
strange to say, it grew more and more feeble under these repeated salvations;
and again in 1843, you saved it by expelling from the house, my venerable
friend and colleague, [Mr. GIDDINGS,] for offering a resolution in respect to
slave trading under the flag of the union. But, like all your past quackery,
this also, only made bad worse. But the union made out to keep above ground
until 1846, when it was again saved by the annexation of the slave state of Texas
and the Mexican war, and in 1848, by the new acquisition of the new slave
territories of New Mexico and Utah, and by the exertions of Colonel Fremont,
the free territory of California, making of slave territory 724,000 square
miles, and the free territory of California 188,000 square miles. At about the
same time, you commenced depleting your patient by a treaty with Great Britain,
and the cession to her majesty of [54]° 40’ of latitude and 26° of longitude,
equal to 774,000 square miles of free territory, to which your slave holding
president had declared the title of the United states [to] be “clear and
unquestioned.” Still the Union only grew worse, and in 1852, was again declared
by the pro-slavery and slaveholding doctors, to be “as good as dead.” So you
called in both whig and democratic doctors to a consultation over your old
patient, the union. The council of doctors were unanimously of the opinion, not
only that the patient was very sick but, in addition thereto, was badly
wounded—having “seven bleeding wounds” which were to be staunched at once, or
the case was hopeless. As usual on those occasions, more concessions to slavery
were prescribed; California was graciously permitted to come into the union as
a free state; Texas was consigned to the dissecting room, to be cut into only five slave states; and New Mexico
and Utah were to be slave or free at their option. With this came a withdrawal
of the slaveholders’ license to convert the District of Columbia into a slave
stable. But above all, this arrangement was declared final—was to be the very last dose of patent medicine to be
administered—the “all-healing ointment” for the convalescent union.
But did the union recover on taking this dose of “finality” physic? The doctors told us it was cured—that in this new ointment, of letting slaveholders have their own way in the territories, the union was restored—was “good as new.” But alas! Mr. Chairman, however will it might fare with the union, the case was different with the doctors. In curing their patient, they killed themselves—every mother’s son of them. But, again, alas for the poor union, and for the infallibility of political nostrum venders! In less than four years from this perfect, this “final recovery, the union was found again in hysterics. There was discovered a dreadful “tender spot” at the junction of the slave state of Missouri and the free territory of Kansas. The democratic faculty of political quacks was hurriedly summoned. What in the world could be the matter with the union now? Well it was found by them to be the dying of a poison called “Missouri compromise,” administered by the doctors in charge of her in 1820. This was the unanimous opinion of the doctors. The union, with that Missouri compromise, had taken an over dose of freedom, and it must be extracted from her system, as the only and the infallible remedy. Yes, sir; the slave democracy have, for all the diseases of the union, on, and only one, remedy; and that is to bleed her of every drop of freedom left in her veins. This, sir, is the course of surgery prescribed and administered by the democratic doctors for a union nursed in the lap, and nutured at the bosom of freedom! Feed her with more slavery, more slave states, more slave territory; and when you cease to have enough of these articles on hand, why, then, steal more from your neighbor nations, after the prescription of the Ostend conference of democratic doctors, of which Mr. Buchanan, the nominee of the slave democracy for the presidency, was the acknowledged head, and Mr. Soulé, of Louisiana, the fitting tail. Steal it, sir, with a relish. Go at it sir, wolf and lamb fashion. Says the wolf, drinking in the stream to the lamb, drinking in the same stream, below the wolf, “Sir, if your drinking in the stream below me does seriously endanger the riling of the water where I am drinking, then, by every law, human and divine, I shall be justified in wresting you from the brook;” and, so saying, seizes and devours the lamb. Go at it wolf fashion, O slave democracy, and take Cuba; it will be needed in a little while as medicine for the union sick of too much freedom and too little slavery. Here is the warrant, sir, under the hands of your slave democratic casuists and candidate.
“Does
Cuba in the possession of Spain seriously endanger our internal peace and the
existence of our cherished union? Should this question be answered in the
affirmative, then by every law, human and divine, we shall be justified in wresting it from Spain, if we possess
the power; and this upon the very same principle that would justify an
individual in tearing down the burning house of his neighbor, if there were no
other means of preventing the flames from destroying his own home. Under such
circumstances, we ought neither to count the cost nor regard the odds which
Spain might enlist against us. We forbear to enter into the question, whether
the present condition of the island would justify such a measure. We should,
however, be recreant to our duty, be unworthy of our gallant forefathers, and
commit base treason against our posterity, should we permit Cuba to be
Africanized, and become a second St. Domingo, with all its attendant horrors to
the white race, and suffer the flames to extend to our own neighboring shores,
seriously to endanger, or actually to consume, the fair fabric of our union. We
hear that the course and current of events are rapidly tending toward such a
catastrophe. * * *
JAMES BUCHANAN.
JOHN Y. MASON.
PIERRE SOULE.
Aix La Chappelle, October 18, 1854.”
Oh yes, we will need
Cuba; we do need it now; and Central America, why we shall need that by the
time we can get it, and that will be as soon as Walker and his filibusters
shall put slavery fairly under way there. Have it! why not have it when such a
doctor of divinity as “Old Buck” says were are entitled to it by divine law?
There, Mr. Chairman, is your president, who will be his own chaplain, and do
his own preying.
But, Mr. Chairman,
this is getting slightly, but no more than that, in advance of the “wagon.” Let
us return to the handiwork of the slave democracy for the advent of another dispensation of harmony—another “finality” to
succeed the old and worn out “finality” of 1850. The scriptures say, that the
“sinner an hundred years old shall be accursed;” but a slave democratic
“finality” is an as sad a plight, at four years old, as the sinner at “an
hundred.” So they cursed their old “finality” of 1850, and introduced another
in 1854, by the repeal of the Missouri compromise; which, in the short period
of two years, has deserved and received more cursing, by friends and foes, than
it of 1850, or all its predecessors put together. Indeed, this last seems to
have had a bad effect even according to the democratic doctors themselves,
inasmuch as it was a surfeit of slavery, which has resulted in the “black
(republican) vomit.”
But seriously, Mr.
Chairman, what I have spoken ironically is nevertheless, not an unfaithful
picture of our present condition as a nation under the wicked and imbecile
attempt of the slave holders and the slave democracy, to strengthen the
institutions of freedom, by nursing and feeding them on the garbage of human
bondage. God knows, Mr. Chairman, that I desire, as earnestly as human nature
can long for any earthly blessing, the perpetuity of the union in these states,
just so long as the union shall subserve the ends for which our fathers formed
it; but my convictions, that the accumulated perversions of those ends and
objects, will if repeated, at no distant period, subvert the union, are as
strong and earnest as my desires for its perpetuity. Sir, I have no faith in
the conservative efficacy of anything for states and nations, but the healing
virtues of justice, truth, and liberty.
Mr. Chairman, it was
my design, before resuming my seat, to say something on the causes which have
led to the disgraceful state of things in Kansas—a state so repugnant to every
sentiment of national pride nothing of justice, peace, or even common decency?
Sir, there is involved in these Kansas troubles, something low, vulgar, dirty,
savoring of the fish-market, on the part of the administration, mingled in the
causes and accomplishments of these shameful scenes—much, sir, of the low,
disgusting arrogance of the overseer, in his brutal efforts to subdue some
refractory slave. “We mean to subdue you,” is the ebullition of a vulgar
nature, elevated by means of some “villain service,” to an unexpected height;
and it is the mingling of this base spirit with executive power in Kansas,
which has been at the root of all these shameful scenes.
But before going
further on this subject, I wish to say a few words, sir, on this new-fangled
doctrine of squatter or popular sovereignty, as applicable to the promiscuous
settlement of new territories, by slaveholders and persons opposed, either on
the conscientious, economical, or any other grounds, to the holding of slaves.
As a simple question of statesmanship, waiving for the time, the moral question
involved in the extension and perpetuity of slavery, no congregation of
blockheads, ever committed a more egregious, or a more shallow blunder. Why,
popular sovereignty implies, not only the right,
but imposes the necessity for the
most absolutely free discussion by the press, and by the exercise of perfect
freedom of speech by the people. How can popular institutions be rightly
established, without the exercise of those fundamental rights? The negative of
this question, strikes at the root of democratic institutions. The FREE STATE
POPULAR sovereign must have the same right to discuss the slaveholder’s right
to his slave, as a moral, religions, and economical question, as he has to
discuss the policy of incorporating banks, granting city charters, or
establishing the legal height and strength of a division fence. The moment this
right is taken from him, that moment, he ceases to be a “popular sovereign.”
But slavery can bear no such discussion. The slave must not be told that he
has, by the law of nature, the right to seek his own well-being in his own way,
doing to harm to others—that he has a right to labor, and to receive, use and
dispose of the fruits of his labor—that his wife and children are his own, and
not another’s.
Sir, the single free
state squatter soverein, who is able to plant himself down in a territory, and
exercise these undoubted rights of squatter sovereignty, would by this simple
process of truth-telling, expel ever slave and slaveholder from 100,000 square
miles of territory. But the slaveholding squatter sovereign must be authorized
to silence all such “damnable heresies,” coming from his free state brother
sovereign; or slavery must slink away from the territories, like ghosts at the
dawn of morning. But the statesmanship of the Nebraska bill is, to set free
state squatter sovereign, against slave holder squatter sovereign, contending
for freedom against slavery and slavery against freedom, in the territories,
openly, with free speech and a free press.
The slaveholders
understand this perfectly; and hence, the inherent and fundamental right of
freedom of speech and the press, does not, and cannot exist in slaveholding
communities. This is a necessity of despotic governments, it is more than a
necessity of despotism, it is in itself, the essence of despotism. And, sir,
there is not a more morbidly suspicious, cruel, revengeful, or lawless
despotism on the face of the earth, than the nightmare of slavery, which has
settled down upon the people of the slaveholding states, with the exception of
perhaps two or three of these states. Why sir, there is more freedom of speech
and of the press to-day, and more personal safety in the exercise of such
freedom, and Vienna, St. Petersburg, Paris, or Rome, in an attack and exposure
of the despotism which reigns supreme over those cities, than there is at
Richmond, Charleston, Milledgeville, or Mobile, to attack and expose the
slaveholding despotisms which rule over these cities with a rod of iron. Sir, there are probably more citizens, born
and nurtured in the slave states, now in exile from their native states for the
exercise of freedom of speech and the press, against the despotism of
slaveholding, than there are from Austria, Russian, France, or the Two
Sicillies, for the exercise of the same rights, against the despotisms which
crush those nations.
Why, sir, free
speech and a free press, would in less than a decade, drive slavery from every
slave state in the union. It would exclude slavery from every territory belonging
to the United states, in half that time. This truth, the men of 1820 saw
clearly; and they saw that slavery and liberty could not dwell together on the
same soil, that these two must separate or fight. They therefore drew a line of
separation between them, and instantly their territorial dissensions ceased.
But the slave democracy of our times could not rest, while a foot of soil was
dedicated to freedom. So that they threw down the bars which our fathers had
raised between freedom and slavery, and instantly, those two mortal foes are at
each other’s throats, just as every sensible and honest man knew they must be.
This is the finale of the squatter-sovereignty humbug, and a stroke of
statesmanship; and it is but another illustration of the maxim, that a child or
a fool may destroy in an hour, what it required the wisdom and the labor of
ages to construct.
The great procuring
cause of these troubles, we all know to have been, the repeal of the Missouri
compromise; and the cause of this repeal was, the lust of slavery propagandism,
operating on mercenary northern politicians. But the efforts of the slave
democracy, are now directed to the finding of some pretext by which, they may
extricate themselves, by diverting the public attention to matters which may
seem to implicate others. To accomplish this unworthy object, this slave
democracy has made the Massachusetts emigrant aid society its “harp of a
thousand strings.” Venting execrations on this never-quieted ghost, constitutes
the staple of the presidential proclamations and messages, as well as of all
the harangues, tirades, speeches, and reports, of the slave democracy, in and
out of congress. The president also, expresses his regrets that Governor
Reeder, in his Reading speech, had not dwelt “a little more at large on the
emigrant aid societies.” All the outrages of the Missouri borderers, their
forays into Kansas, seizing ballot-boxes, expulsion of free-state voters from
the polls, and from the territory; the election of a bogus legislature of
Missourians by a Missouri mob; the sacking and burning of Lawrence; the
disarming and expulsion of peaceful free-state settlers by United States
troops, and the arrest, imprisonment, and nameless persecutions of innocent men
for treason; the army of bands of lawless, worthless vagabonds, from the slave
states, and enrolling them in the militia of the territory, thus, under color
of law, turning loose, to rob, murder, and ravish, without restraint—are all
justified and charged over to the account of the emigrant aid society, for its
audacity in presuming to grant free-state settlers facilities for entering the
territory of Kansas. This action of that society, is the sole justification set
up by all, from the president of the United States, and grave senators, down,
down, to the little “we-mean-to-subdue-you” scrub orator, commanding the
advance guard of the free-state slave democracy.
Sir, I make no apology for any exertions, however great, on the part of the people of the free states, or any one or more of them, to preoccupy Kansas with free-state settlers. Their fault or guilt in that regard, has not been excess, but the lack of exertion to that end. Why, sir, did the slaveholders and their sham democratic allies presume that all spirit, all devotion to the constitution and the union—nay, all—self respect, all manhood ever, had so forsaken that people, that they would give up Kansas a prey to slavery, through the treachery of those whose special duty it was, to guard the interests of freedom, without availing themselves of the poor and only chance left for liberty on that soil—the chance of out voting the tools of slavery, by bona fide settlers from the free states? Well, sir, if they did, it was their own folly. They had no reason to expect such pusillanimity, such degradation from the sturdy and intelligent yeomanry and mechanics of the free states, whatever they may have had reason to expect from such specimens of cringing sycophants and doughfaces as had wormed themselves into congress and the executive from those states. Nay, sir, they did not expect it. They anticipated competition from that quarter. They challenged and defied it. They reasoned in favor of their squatter-sovereignty humbug, by asserting the superior capabilities of the free states over the slave states, for the immediate occupancy of Kansas by free state settlers. They taunted those of us, who were unwilling to remove this Missouri restriction, with hypocrisy on this very ground, viz: that on their squatter and popular sovereignty theory, the free states had greatly the advantage in the settlement of the territory, over the slave states. Some of them declared that they expected no advantage for slavery by the repeal. Thus Judge Butler, of South Carolina, (Senate, March 22, 1854; Appendix to Congressional Globe, first session Thirty-third Congress, p. 292:)
“If
two states should come into the union from them, (Kansas and Nebraska,) it is
very certain that not more than one of them could in any possible event be a
slaveholding state; and I have not the least idea that even one would be.
As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect that this bill is to give us of the south anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the south.”
No, Mr. Chairman, it
was then, “not to make a slave state of Kansas,” but to “accommodate a southern
sentiment,” to which the Missouri restriction was offensive. Oh, how gentle
then! The velvet foot-falls of the cat before seizing her prey, were not more
soft and unalarming.
But, Mr. Chairman,
notwithstanding all this seeming or real disinterestedness (I do not undertake
to determine which) on the part of some of the southern men, there were others
who did not view it in that light at all.
Mr. BELL of Tennessee (May 24, 1854, Appendix, as above, page 939,) alluding to what had been states in a caucus of the advocates of the repeal of the Missouri compromise, as to the effect of such repeal upon the entrance of slavery into the territories, says:
“But
this broad principle of ‘Squatter sovereignty’ was not the idea on which the
repeal clause of this bill was inserted. I was assured then that the South and
some interest in it; that it would secure, practically, a slave territory west
of Missouri; that slavery would go into Kansas, when the restriction of 1820
was removed. It was not dwelt on the argument; by my honorable friend from
Missouri knows that that view was taken by him, [Atchison,] and I differed from
him in regard to it. I thought slavery could not go there; the honorable
Senator thought it could.
Mr. ATCHISON. And I think so still.”
This debate, slight
as are the glimpses it furnishes, still discloses enough to prove the eager
covetings of the slave holders for Kansas, and that they had already been “led
into temptation” in relation to the question, how the territories could be
appropriated to the uses of slavery? It was then already the “Naboth’s vineyard”
of the slave holding section of the sham democracy, and they were then, casting
about for the means of converting it to the use of slavery. “Atchison though it
could be done,” though Bell doubted. At this conclave he [BELL] “was assured
that the South had some interest in it; that it would secure, practically, a
slave territory west of Missouri; that slavery would go into Kansas, when the
restriction of 1820 was removed.”
Who that reads that,
can doubt that there had been, at that time, a matured conspiracy, of which
Atchison was the presiding genius, to repeal the restriction, and instantly to
inundate Kansas with slave-breeding emigrants from Missouri? No one can
entertain a reasonable doubt, that the sham democrats in congress from the free
states, were at the time, advertised of the existence of such a conspiracy, and
had been instructed by their leaders, the slaveholders, to attempt to convert
their constituents to the new faith, that opening the territory of Kansas to
the legal introduction to slaves, did not intend in the least, to make it a
slave state; that the grand discovery of squatter sovereignty, would set all
these things right, as by the power of magic.
For this conspiracy,
there was doubtless a programme, which subsequent developments indicate to have
been something after this wise: The Missouri restriction was to be repealed,
under pretence of “accommodating a southern sentiment.” Southern Gentlemen were
to affect, not to seem anxious for the entrance of slavery into the territory,
no to anticipate any such result. The people of the free states were to be
brought to jubilate over the new-born squatter-sovereignty faith, as a charm or
fetish which would thereafter forever, secure them against all further
political evil. In the mean time, Atchison was to organize the Cossacks of
Missouri borders and take possession in the name of slavery and squatter
sovereignty, before the free state laggards could draw on their boots.
It was probably in view of this programme, or something in substance the same, that their ablest debates in congress, were selected to open the fire upon the “abolitionists,” as the opponents of the repeal were called by its advocates. This was commenced in gallant style by Mr. Breckinridge, the now democratic candidate for vice president. In that speech, the “harp of a thousand strings,” “squatter or popular sovereignty,” was played on by the great musician to the following tune:
“But, again, cannot the North, with her overwhelming numbers, compete with us on these new theatres in the race of settlement and civilization, and must she not only violate the constitution by shutting out half the states, common property holds with her; but, in the name of liberty, outrage liberty by erecting a despotism over the territories?”
In the pamphlet edition of this speech, the question is put in this form:
“Cannot you, of the free states on this theory of ‘popular sovereignty,’ compete successfully with us of the slave states for supremacy in the territories—you, who have some fifteen millions of free population, while we, of the slave states, have less than one half of that number? If you cannot, then what becomes of your boasted superiority of free over slave institutions?”—Globe, Appendix, first session Thirty-third congress, p. 442.
This was the tune
pitched by the “chief musician,” and was responded to by the whole choir of
under-performers, as well in congress, and by the press, as on the stump. Sir,
it was an open challenge to the intelligent, enterprising, and industrious
people of the free states, to enter the lists with the slave states, in the
peaceful settlement of the territory, on the newly-discovered principle of
“squatter sovereignty.” By this it was implied, that there should be “fair
field and no favor.” It was a distinct invitation to set free-state emigration
against slave-state emigration, in which fair play was due from each party
towards the other, and when, at least on the part of the free states, no
unfairness was premeditated, and none anticipated from those who gave the
challenge. No treacherous senator was suspected as being on the ground, digging
pitfalls, laying ambushments and asserting armed bands to waylay, rob, murder,
and drive back free-state settlers, who had honorably entered the lists in
their own tournament of peaceful settlement. But the jamming proof is out
before the sun, that while gentlemen of the south, were giving out these
insidious challenges on this floor, their colaborers, or at least one of them,
in this sad work of breaking time-honored compacts, and he, at the time a
member of the other house of congress, was playing foul with the aver men who
were attracted to Kansas, by these challenges of open and fair competition. It
is sad indeed, to suspect that this challenge was given with a knowledge, that
successful competition in the peaceful settlement of Kansas, by free-state men,
would be defeated by fraud, or repelled by force; and yet the proof of the
affirmative is almost irresistible.
But the gentleman
from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] the “fiery Tybalt” of slavery propagandism, was
still more arrogant and defiant in the tone and temper of his challenges to
free-state men, to try the efficacy of “squatter sovereignty,” in the peaceful
settlement of Kansas.
Mr. STEPHENS, (February 27, 1854, pamphlet edition of speech printed at office of Sentinel, Washington, District of Columbia, p. 11,) speaking of the prospect of a free state being made out of Kansas says:
“Why
should you not be willing to remove this question forever from Congress, and
leave it to the people of the Territories, according to the compromise of 1850?
You have greatly the advantage of us in population. The white population of the
United States is now over twenty millions. Of this number, the free states have
over two to one, compared with the south. There are only a little over three
million slaves.
If the immigration into the territories, therefore should be assumed to go on in the ratio of population, we must suppose that there would be near seven white persons to one slave at least, and of the seven two from the free states to one from the south. With such an advantage, are you afraid to trust this question with your own people—men reared under the influence of your own boasted superior institutions? With all the prejudices of birth and education against us, are you afraid to let them judge for themselves? Are your ‘free-born sons, who never breathed the tainted air of slavery,’ such nincompoops, that they cannot be trusted out, without their mothers’ leave?”
Mr. Chairman, this
is not only a challenge to the people of the free states, to enter the lists
with the slave states, in the settlement of Kansas, but it is a challenge
couched in the language of contempt and defiance. Its tone and manner were a
warning to all free state men, that the repeal of the Missouri compromise, was
then, a foregone conclusion; and that if Kansas was rescued from the doom of
slavery, it must be by take up the glove thus insolently thrown into their
faces. Comparing the achievements, hitherto, of the two sections of the
country—the slave and the free—in the successful settlement of new states, it
was as rash as it was insolent.
The haughty,
confident, and even defiant tone assumed by the south towards free-state men,
in relation to the settlement of Kansas, was then a mystery. It seemed at the
time, wholly gratuitous; but in the disclosures of the organization of secret
associations by the slaveholders on the borders of the territory, in connection
with the machinations of the then vice president in the same quarter,
constitute more than a suspicion, they amount to a strong presumptive evidence
that the purpose of repeating the compromise, and of making Kansas a slave state,
were conceived simultaneously, as events inseparably connected, and to be
accomplished at every hazard. The prove further, that the shallow and delusive
notion of “squatter sovereignty,” was held up merely to gull a set of shallow,
bigoted, and reckless partisans in the free states, as mackerel are caught with
red rags.
In this view of the
case, I ask honest men, north and south, were not these challenges, these taunts,
this contempt and insolence, sufficient provocation to put the people of the
free states to their mettle—those of them, I mean, who prefer freedom to
slavery? Was it wrong in them—nay, was it not right—nay, was it not a duty
which they owed to their principles, (if they had any,) to prove themselves no
“nincompoops,” to use the select phrase of the gentleman from Georgia; but to
show themselves equal at least in intelligence, energy, enterprise and wealth,
to the slaveholders who had thus insultingly challenged them to the trial? Why,
sir, emigrant aid societies, as agencies for the colonization of new and
distant countries, are as natural a
result of superior wealth, intelligence, and enterprise, as railroads and
steamboats are to evidence of enterprise, wealth, and skill, superior to those
which had only advanced to the invention of the hand-barrow, horse-cart, and
flat-boat. Sir, the slave democracy, northern or southern, might as reasonably
denounce free-state emigrants to Kansas, for not making their journeys thither,
in mule-drawn wagons or scow-boats, instead of journeying by steamboats and
railways, as for availing themselves of the superior advantages offered by
emigrant aid societies.
Nevertheless, there
has not been an utterance from those hostile to freedom in Kansas, from the
leviathans and pigmy giants of the
slave democracy in the other end of the capitol, to the president and his
cabinet, and the other end of the avenue; or from the guests of the grog-shops,
or even the street loafers, the purpose of which has not been to conceal or
justify their breach of the nation’s plighted faith, and to shelter themselves
from the storm of public odium and contempt, for their treason to the
constitution and laws of their country, as well as to their own professed
principles of “squatter sovereignty,” by cursing the “New England emigrant aid
society,” by “bell, book and candle.” The slave democratic press, at the four
cardinal and all intermediate points of the compass, has groaned with these
execrations.
But when thus
insultingly challenged to prove their superiority in wealth, intelligence, and
enterprise, (if they possessed them,) by taking an even change with the slave
states in the peaceful colonization of Kansas; and when fairly beaten in the
trial, as the slave states have been, it is not only unreasonable but it is infamous
to turn upon their successful competitors, and charge them with foul play; and
not only so, but to resort themselves to the foulest, most infamous, and
treasonable measures to recover what they had lost in the field of open and
fair competition. And, sir, I charge the slave democracy with all the mischiefs
(and God knows they are but too numerous) which have already resulted, and
which, in the dark and stormy future, may result, from this shameless breach of
the public faith, in the repeal of the Missouri compromise, in order to force
the institution of slavery on territory dedicated to freedom from more than the
third of a century. Sir, to talk of the acquiescence now, in this breach of
plighted faith; and this still more aggravated offence of expelling, by the
army of the United States, peaceable and innocent emigrants to a territory to
which the slave democracy had invited them, is a manifestation of weakness and
cowardice which must and will, only invite renewed aggressions. In point of
morals, it is as culpable, and in point of policy, more imbecile if possible,
than that which thew open the territories to the influx of slavery.
A few words in
conclusion, Mr. Chairman, to those political adventurers, patriots, doughfaces,
or what not, from the free states, who at this day attach themselves to the
fortunes of the slave democracy, or to slavery propagandists of any
school. I would very respectfully ask of
those gentlemen, whether, as a political investment, barring wear and tear of
conscience, the business of extending human slavery, and cribbing and confining
human liberty, has not, of late been rather overdone by the rush of political
adventurers into this field of speculation?—whether the compensation is
adequate to the excessive labor required in this kind of service? Formerly
before slavery extension because the main business of the holders of office in
the government, the president and his cabinet might hold out sound and strong
for at least eight years, and subordinate officers indefinitely. But now, since
the extension of slavery into free territory, has become almost the sole
business of the officers of the federal government, from the president
downwards, so excessive and exhausting is the service exacted of its servants
by the slave democracy, that in one or two years at the longest, these officers
become so worn down and fagged out, that the people are as anxious to be rid of
them, as a gang of strolling beggars, infected with measles, small-pox, or
vermin.
Mr. Chairman,
mankind in general intuitively despises traitors. They do this, even though
they my love the treason, or its fruits. This, sir, is a law of our moral
nature, all pervading, and indispensable in the present condition of
humanity. This law of our moral being,
addressing itself to one of the most powerful affections of our nature, the
love of approbation, serves as one of the strongest checks from universal
treachery to those, to whom we are under moral obligations alone. So strong is
the hold which this law takes of men, controlled by no “higher law,” that when
the traitor returns to receive applause from those who reap the fruits of his
treason, the applause he covets, is often turned into loathing and unsuppressed
disgust. Milton, sir, with his luxuriant imagination, has described the force
of this sentiment, in is description of the reception of Satan by his subject
fiends, on his return from the ruin of our first parents.
Satan is described as addressing, with regal pomp, the infernal sanhedrim, and giving them a narration of his adventures in paradise, and his triumph, and its consequents at some unset future period:
————————
I am to bruise his heel;
His
seed, when is not set, shall bruise my head:
A
world who would not purchase with a bruise,
Or
much more grievous pain? Ye have the account
Of
my performance: what remains, ye gods,—
But
up, and enter now into full bliss?
So
having said, a while he stood, expecting
Their
universal shout, and high applause,
To
fill his ear; when, contrary, he hears
On
all sides, from innumerable tongues,
A
dismal universal hiss, the sound
Of
public scorn.”
————————
“Thus was the applause they
meant
Turn'd to exploding hiss, triumph to shame
Cast on themselves from their own mouths.”
It seems to me, sir,
that if gentlemen from the free states, who have been candidates or aspirants
for the presidency, or who may become such hereafter, would reflect a little
upon the fortunes of those who have tired the experiment, cannot but be
convinced, that to eager subserviency to the interests of the slavery
extensionists, is not the surest guarantee of success. Such subservience is
treachery to the interests of the people of the free states, and, the people of
those states see and understand this much more clearly than those time-servers
and tricksters imagine. No man at the north, however great is administrative
talent, or however triumphant his popularity for the time, can be guilty of an
open betrayal of the interest of freedom on any pretence however plausible,
without a ruinous blow to his popularity with his free-state constituency.
There are too many common schools, too many newspapers read, and too many
intelligent and well-read men among the laboring masses, not to render a
double-dealing and ruinous policy on the question of slavery extension, fatal
to the aspirations of such politicians. The living wrecks of such navigators
are too numerously strewed along the beach of the political sea, not to be a
warning to the whole crew, officers as well as mariners. It would be
discourteous in me to name them; but I would invite you to run over, in your
mind the number of such unfortunates since 1844, inclusive. The task of
Sisyphus was a hard one; but the task of a dough-face, seeking the presidency
is little, if any less onerous. If he makes shift to roll his stone up the
slave-sates side of the hill, down it rolls on the free-state side; and so vice versa.
If his truckling to
the slave power, has fitted him for the uses of the slavery propagandists, he
is ruined with the friends of freedom; and if ruined with these, the
slaveholders cannot use him, however much they may desire to do so. This is now
the cause with the present incumbent of presidential office. It is the case
with every prominent free-state aspirant to that office in the ranks of the
slave democracy, or of the national Americans, as they ironically style
themselves; and “killed by an over dose of slavery propagandism,” may be justly
written over the political grave of each of them, as a most truthful and
appropriate epitaph. Let all politicians of uncracked reputation in the free
states, be warned by these examples, and remember the reception of Satan, even
among his own fallen crew; for the reception of the of the pro-slavery
politician of the free states, with his slaveholding friends, is as real an
ordination of Providence, in the course of nature, as are the hisses with which
Satan was received by his fallen crew, according to the paintings of the poet’s
imagination, in the special awards of Devine justice.
_______________
1 William Shakespeare, “Macbeth,” Act IV,
Scene 1, lines 83 & 84.
SOURCE: “Speech of
Hon. Edward Wade,” National Era,
Washington, D. C., Thursday, September 11, 1856, p. 4, columns 1-8.
