On the 13th of June,
1850, in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the bill admitting
California was rejected, to the effect that thereafter it should not constitute
an objection to the admission of a state lying south of the Missouri Compromise
line that her constitution tolerated slavery. Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, renewed
the amendment, pro forma, and said:
I LONG since made up my mind that I would
introduce no proposition of my own, nor vote for any other man's proposition,
which did not give ample justice to my section. My determination was not formed
without consideration. The whole ground had been duly examined, and my judgment
was based on a solemn conviction, that no proposition which did not inflict
positive injury on the South had the least chance of favor in this House. If I
had ever been brought to doubt the correctness of this judgment, the vote just
taken would have convinced me beyond all dispute that I was right.
Day by day our ears
are filled with the cry of "compromise!" "adjustment!!" We
have been invoked time and again to come forward and settle this angry dispute,
on terms equitable and just to all sections of the confederacy. We have been admonished,
in high-sounding phraseology, that to the people of the states, when forming
their constitutions, belonged the duty and the right of settling for themselves
the question of slavery or no slavery. Some, we have been told, fanatical and
violent, would repudiate this doctrine; but the great body of the moderate men
of the North, of all parties, we have been assured, had planted themselves on
this broad, republican platform. Now, sir, what have we seen? The question has
been taken on a proposition declaring that it shall hereafter be no objection
to the admission of a state lying south of 36° 30′ that her constitution
tolerated or prohibited slavery, and this proposition has been voted down-voted
down, sir, by a strictly sectional division-all the southern members voting for
it, and all the northern members, with but one honorable exception, voting
against it.
Mr. HARRIS, of
Illinois. Three or four.
Mr. BROWN. I saw but
one—Mr. McClernand. There may have been three or four. It may have been that
five or six threw up their hats and cried "God save the country!"
Mr. BISSELL. I was
not in my seat. I should have voted for it with great pleasure.
Mr. HARRIS, of
Illinois. I voted for it.
Mr. BROWN. It may be
that five or six voted for the proposition. But what of that? Where was the
great body of the northern members, Whigs and Democrats? They were just where I
have always predicted they would be when it came to voting. They were found
repudiating the very doctrine on which they ask us to admit California—the
doctrine of self-government in regard to slavery.
There could be no mistaking
the intention of this vote. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], in a
speech of marked emphasis, had called on the South to cease debating, and let
us have a vote—a vote which should test the question, whether northern members
were prepared to assert the doctrine, that under no circumstances should any
other slaveholding state enter this Union. The debate did cease in obedience to
that appeal, the vote was taken, and the result is before us. And now, sir, in
reference to that result I have a word to say. It explodes at one dash, the
hollow-hearted and hypocritical pretension that this question was to be left to
the people, when they came to form their respective constitutions. It verifies
what I have said here and elsewhere, that this doctrine was a miserable cheat,
an infamous imposition, a gross fraud upon the South. If the people, as in the
case of California, make an anti-slavery constitution, the doctrine is applied
and the state is admitted; but if any other state shall offer a pro-slavery
constitution, we are given by this vote distinctly to understand, that such
state, her constitution, and this doctrine, will all be trampled under foot
together.
I want my
constituents and the country to see to what end we are to come at last. The
bold stand is taken by this vote that not another slave state is to be
admitted, no odds what her constitution may say.
I take ground with
the eloquent gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and now declare, that if this
is to become the ruling principle of the North—if we are thus to crouch at the
footstool of power—if we are to be brought down from our high position as
equals to become your dependants-if we are to live for ever at your mercy,
rejoicing in your smiles and shrinking from your frown—if indeed, sir, it has
come to this, that the Union is to be used for these accursed purposes, then,
sir, by the God of my fathers, I am against the Union; and so help me Heaven, I
will dedicate the remnant of my life to its dissolution.
Men may talk of
adjustments, letters may be written, speeches may be made, newspapers printed
to glorify the Union—but, sir, if this is the Union you would glorify, it is
base-born slander to say the South is for it. If we are to have a Union of
equals, it will for ever rest upon all our hearts and all our hands—it will be
eternal. But if it is to be a Union of the tyrant and the serf, a Union of the
monarch and the menial, a Union of the vulture and the lamb, then, sir, I warn
gentlemen it will be a Union of perpetual strife. Say what you will, write what
you will, speak what you will, think what you will, the South will wage eternal
warfare upon such a Union. We will invoke with one voice the vengeance of
Heaven upon such a Union—we will pray unceasingly to the God of our deliverance
that he will send us a bolt from heaven to shiver the chain which thus binds us
to tyranny and oppression.
No comments:
Post a Comment