Speech Of Congressman Albert G. Brown in the Unites States House of Representatives on the Southern Movement and Mississippi Politics, March 14, 1852

It is not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to address the House at all in reference to the bill now before it. I propose, in the opening of my remarks, to take a brief retrospect of the rise, progress, and fall, of the southern movement. It is very well known, sir, not only to the members of Congress, but to the whole country, that the continued action of the northern people, and of the Northern States, upon the subject of the domestic relations existing in the South, between the master and the slave, had at one time wrought up the southern mind to a very high degree of exasperation. Apprehensions were freely expressed, and doubtless generally entertained, that some great disaster was likely to befall the country, growing out of this excitement. In this state of public feeling, during the Thirtieth Congress, a gentleman, then a representative from one of the districts in the state of New York [Mr. Gott], introduced a resolution, preceded by what the southern members believed to be a most insulting preamble. This preamble, insulting though it certainly was, did not propose any legislative action. The resolution directed a very simple, but a very important inquiry to be made. It directed the committee for the District of Columbia, to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the slave trade in this District. The passage of this resolution gave offence to the whole southern delegation, and they commenced, at once, manifesting their hostility to this movement in a manner not to be misunderstood.

A distinguished gentleman in the other branch of the legislature, from my own state, and now its governor, came, as the older members of Congress know very well, into this House and solicited members of Congress to sign their names to a call for a meeting of southern senators and representatives. In obedience to this call, a meeting assembled in the Senate Chamber, over which a venerable senator from the state of Kentucky [Governor Metcalfe] was called to preside. Here, sir, I date the rise of the southern movement. From this point it commenced its progress. But for this movement, I undertake to say, the southern Democracy was not responsible. That meeting was a joint assemblage of the southern Whigs and of the southern Democrats. There were Whigs who absented themselves; and there were Democrats who absented themselves; but the southern delegation in Congress generally, and without reference to party, was responsible for the meeting and for its proceedings. That meeting put forth an address to the southern people, written, as it is said, and I have no doubt correctly, by the late venerable and distinguished senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun]. It was such a paper as was intended to produce, as it certainly did produce, a most profound sensation upon the southern mind. Upon my return to Mississippi, I found a very high degree of excitement an excitement not confined to the Democrats, but pervading all parties, Whigs as well as Democrats. A proposition had already been made, and was then being actively urged, for a convention of our state—a popular convention to take into consideration the relations then subsisting between the North and the South, growing out of the institution of domestic slavery. A number of gentlemen, of both political parties, published a call to the people, inviting them to assemble in convention. This call was the first advance step of the southern movement, and for it, both Whigs and Democrats in my state were alike responsible. In obedience to it, the people, without reference to party, assembled in primary meetings and appointed delegates to a state convention, and, in every instance, the delegates to that convention were appointed of equal numbers, Whigs and Democrats. The convention assembled in the month of October, 1849.

This, sir, was the second step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this period neither party could claim the exclusive credit, and up to this time it was all credit—there was no debit. That convention put forth another address to the people of Mississippi, and from that address I propose just in this connection to read a very short extract. For this address, bear you in mind, both the Whig and the Democratic parties of Mississippi were responsible, so far as they could be made responsible by their delegates in convention. It bore the honored signatures of leading Democrats and leading Whigs. It was a document which bore the signature of a very distinguished member of the UNION party, now high in the confidence of the administration, and its representative as chief consul on the Island of Cuba—Judge Sharkey. After disclosing to the people what had been done and what was proposed for the future, Judge, now Consul, Sharkey and his associates said:—

“Besides and beyond a popular convention of the Southern States with the view and the hope of arresting the cause of aggression, and if not practicable, then to concentrate the South in will, understanding, and action, the convention of Mississippi suggested, as the possible ultimate resort, the call by the legislature of the assailed states, or still some more solemn conventions—such as should be regularly elected by the people of those states to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sovereign power of the people. Should, in the result, such conventions be called and meet, they may lead to a like regularly—constituted convention of all the assailed states, to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare by the formation of a compact and an union that will afford protection to their liberties and their rights.”

Now, that is the language for which I say all parties in Mississippi were responsible. It is the emanation of a convention composed equally of Whigs and of Democrats, or as they are now called of State-Rights men and Union men. The very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi, was the president of the convention, which put forth that address—the very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi attached his name to that sentiment and published it to the people of Mississippi—“to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare.” How could this be done else than by a separation from the Northern States? How could it could be done else than by secession or revolution—by breaking up the government? True, it was to be done in the last resort; and pray, have we ever spoken of secession except as the last resort—the final alternative? But now I find this language brought into the House of Representatives by my honorable colleague [Mr. Wilcox], and held up here with an attempt to hold the party to which I belong responsible for it. History, sir, must be known to him, at least the history of our own state, and if he has read that history, he knows that the Honorable William L. Sharkey, the appointee of Millard Fillmore as consul to the city of Havana, was among those who put forth this address—put his signature to this language, and endorsed it to the people of Mississippi. To this point the southern movement progressed. This Mississippi convention advised the convention of the Southern States. Virginia responded to that call, so did Georgia and Alabama, and Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Texas. Ay, even Tennessee came in, slowly and reluctantly, it is true, but still she comes

Mr. POLK. To save the republic.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, Tennessee went into the Nashville Convention to save the republic, and so did Mississippi.

Mr. SCURRY. If the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him.

Mr. BROWN. Very briefly.

Mr. SCURRY. The gentleman who attended from Texas did so against the large majority of the district which he represented. A majority of that district voted directly and flatly against the convention.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am not going to inquire how delegates came to be there. I speak of history as it is. Texas was represented in the convention, whether by her authority I do not know, and what is more, at this time I do not care. It is not material. The Nashville Convention, in obedience to this call, and in pursuance of these proceedings, assembled. This was another step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this time, if there was any strenuous objection to it anywhere, I, at least, was not aware of it. Here and there an exception may have been found—here and there a newspaper editor might be found to oppose it; but the great mass of the southern politicians—as far as I could judge of the southern people—Whigs and Democrats were for it. They were for it without distinction as to party. The convention assembled. It elected Honorable William L. Sharkey, of my own state—the head and front of Mississippi UNIONISM—to preside over its deliberations. He did preside. That convention put forth an address to the people, followed by a series of resolutions, asserting certain propositions upon which the southern people ought to insist. Still, sir, there was no formidable objection either to the convention, or to what it said or did. The progress of the movement still seemed to be onward. Soon afterwards the compromise measures began to attract attention in the country and in Congress. A feeling of trepidation seemed to steal over senators and representatives. Here and there an old advocate of the Nashville Convention—one who had looked to it as the source from which a panacea was to come for all wounds and bruises and putrifying sores, gradually fell off. I might call names, if I did not wish to avoid involving myself in a discussion with too many gentlemen at the same time. With the falling off of these early and sturdy advocates, commenced the decline of the southern movement and with the passage of the compromise, I mark the first distinct evidence of its decay.

In November, 1850, after the compromise measures had passed, a Union convention, the first ever held to my knowledge in the United States—certainly the first ever held in my own state—was assembled at the city of Jackson, the seat of government of Mississippi. It was not a Southern-Rights convention; it was not a State-Rights convention; it was not a Whig convention; it was not a Democratic convention; it was a UNION convention, so it was called, and so it assembled. It was in advance of any other political organization in the state of Mississippi, or any other state, growing, so far as I know, out of the compromise. It rose as if from the ashes of the southern movement in Mississippi. It was made up of the consistent few who opposed, and of the greater number who seceded from the southern movement. With the assemblage of this convention in Mississippi, I date the downfall of the southern movement in that state; a fall which was rapidly succeeded by its downfall elsewhere. Virginia determined to acquiesce in the measures of the compromise; Georgia acquiesced; Alabama and the other states in the South followed suit, or were silent. To the Union convention of Mississippi belongs the credit, if credit it be, of striking the first fatal blow at the southern movement. From this moment it rapidly declined. The movement I regard as dead. It died at the hands of its early friends—its fathers. It is now very dead; and if I were called upon to write its epitaph, I would inscribe upon the stone that marked its burial place, Requiescat in pace. I will not make merry over the tomb of an old friend. I loved this movement. I believed it was, in its day, full of patriotism, full of devotion to the best interests of the country, and eminently calculated to preserve the Union, because it was eminently calculated to preserve the rights of the states within the Union. But it has passed away. A witty friend, in speaking of its buoyant rise, its rapid progress, and its early decay, described it as being like Billy Pringle's pig:

"When it lived, it lived in clover,

And when it died, it died all over."

[Laughter.]

When those who had been chiefly instrumental in getting up this movement abandoned it, could we be made longer responsible for it? They brought it into being, and by their hands it fell; and now they turn upon us, denounce it as a monster, and charge its sole paternity on us. We assume our due share of the responsibility, and they shall take theirs.

The Southern movement was, I repeat, the joint work of both parties acting together. This is history. If there was any rivalry, it was as to which party was entitled to the most credit. There was in this movement a fusion of parties. But upon all the old issues each party maintained its separate organization. And when the Southern movement was abandoned, each was free to resume its original position.

The Whigs did not return to their position. They halted by the wayside, and, by the aid of a few Democrats, formed the Union party. It was a party not demanded by the exigencies of the hour; but called into existence to subserve the views of particular men. This brings me to consider the present organization of parties in my state.

My colleague [Mr. Wilcox] the other day, in what I considered rather bad taste—although I certainly shall not undertake to lecture him upon matters of taste—spoke of a bare minority—of almost a majority of the people of our state, as attempting to SNEAK BACK into the Democratic ranks. That was the language employed. In speaking of the State-Rights men of 1832, after their separation from General Jackson, he said:

“They stood aloof from the party, in armed neutrality, in the only state where they had a majority; and in states where they were in the minority, generally acted with the Whig party in opposition to the Democrats. They did not, after their defeat, attempt to sneak back into the Democratic party under the style of old-line Democrats, as the secessionists of the present day are attempting to do.”

Now I shall undertake to demonstrate that the State-Rights party of Mississippi were never out of the ranks of the Democratic party, and that by no act of theirs have they ever put themselves beyond the pale of that party; and therefore there was no occasion for them to march back, even with banners flying, and much less for them to "sneak back," in the language of my colleague. Who were they that put themselves first out of the pale of the Democratic party? It was my colleague and his associates. In November, 1850, they assembled together in what they certainly did not call a Democratic convention. They assembled in a Union convention, and passed what they were pleased to term Union resolutions. They formed a Union organization, independent of the Democratic party, and equally independent of the Whig party. They did more than that. They chose, as the especial organ of that party—the particular mouth—piece of that political organization, the leading Whig organ at the seat of government. I ask if it is not so? It is true they took down the name of the paper. It was called the "Southron." That title no longer suited their purpose, and they called it the "Flag of the Union." But they left the old Whig editor to conduct it. True it is that they associated with him a so—called Union Democrat. And it is equally true that the old-line Whig and the newline Democrat yet conduct that journal. From this point, the unhappy controversy which has continued in Mississippi, took its progress. The Democratic party became divided. But there can be no difficulty in deciding who kept up the old organization. The newspaper press of the state gives always a pretty clear indication as to how parties stand. If there is one single, solitary Whig paper in the state of Mississippi that has not kept the Union flag flying at its masthead from the opening of the contest down to this hour, I ask my colleague to say which one it is. If there was a Democratic paper in the state of one year's standing that did not take the State-Rights side, with but a single exception, the Columbus Democrat, and keep it, I do not know where it is to be found. Who seems from these facts to have been getting out of the Democratic party—my colleague, who is sustained by the Whig press, or I, who have been and am yet sustained by the Democratic press?

More than this. The Union party called a convention in April, 1851. It was to be, by the terms of the call, a Union convention—mark you, it was not a Democratic convention, it was not a Whig convention, but it was a Union convention. What did it do? Did it nominate Democrats for office? It made four nominations, and two of them were Democrats by name, and two of them were open and avowed Whigs. It did not assemble as a Democratic convention. It did not sit as a Democratic convention. It did not make Democratic nominations. It nominated two Whigs and two Democrats, and my colleague voted the ticket thus nominated. Who was it, let me ask, that, following after strange gods, thus put himself outside the Democratic party; and who is he that, in coming back, will have occasion to sneak into the ranks?

The State-Rights party, or the Democratic State-Rights party, as it is termed in our state, assembled in convention in June. What did they do? They made their nominations, and they selected their nominees from the old-line Democracy. General John A. Quitman was made our standard-bearer. I was surprised the other day to hear my colleague going back to 1824 and 1828, to find the evidence of Quitman's want of fidelity to true Democratic principles. Something has been said about a statute of limitation. Whether the late distinguished nominee of the Democracy of Mississippi requires a statute of limitation, I certainly do not know. If he voted for John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, and has since seen the error of his way, where is the Democrat who will not forgive him? Where is the Mississippi Democrat who has not forgiven him? But we have his own word for saying, that he did not vote for John Quincy Adams in 1824. He did not vote for him in 1828. He was always a State-Rights man of the strictest sect; and upon the issuing of General Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, he, like hundreds and thousands of others who had been always faithful to the standard of the old hero, abandoned him; and they returned to him in their own good time. But if it be so grave an offence in the Democrats of Mississippi to have nominated a gentleman who voted (allowing the charge of my friend to be true) for John Quincy Adams in 1824, and again in 1828, what shall my friend say of Governor Foote? He claims to be a better Democrat than anybody else; and yet he held the only office that he ever did hold at the hands of the people in Mississippi, until he was elected governor, from the Whigs of the county of Hinds, and that so late as 1838-'9. Yes; my friend forgot that, in 1838, Governor Foote run as a Whig, was elected as a Whig, and served as a Whig in our legislature. So upon the score of consistency, I think, allowing my friend's statements to be true, we stand quite as well as he does. And I submit to my colleague whether it is not a little too late for him, or for his friend, the governor of the I was going to say Union party, but he is governor of the state by the constitution—to complain of Governor Quitman's want of Democracy. Did not both you and Governor Foote vote for Quitman for governor in 1849? Did not Governor Foote put forth, or aid in putting forth, a pamphlet, in this city, urging the claims of this same John A. Quitman for the Vice-Presidency? Yes, sir, so late as 1848 he recommended him as a man worthy of trust, to the whole Democracy of the Union. Yet my friend lays charges against his political orthodoxy, dated as far back as 1824 and 1828—twenty years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Governor Foote and nearly one-third of the whole Democracy of the Union; twenty-one years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Mississippi for governor, and my friend's vote for the same office. If the endorsement of the National Democracy in 1848—if the endorsement of the Mississippi Democracy in 1849—if the endorsement of Governor Foote, and of my colleague also, may be relied on, I think Quitman can pass muster. He is sound.

Our nominees were all Democrats. We run them as Democrats—as State-Rights Democrats—against the Union ticket, composed of two Whigs and two Democrats. We were beaten. And what has happened since the election? Who is it that has gone out of the Democratic party? The legislature assembled the new governor was inaugurated. What was almost his first act? It was to appoint an adjutant-general. It was an important appointment—the most important in his gift. Did he appoint a Union Democrat? No, not he. Did he appoint a Secession Democrat, as my friend calls them? No, not at all; but he appointed a Whig. That was his first important appointment as governor, and he dismissed a Democrat to make it. What did his "faithful Union legislature" do? It did not send him back to the Senate, that is clear. I will tell you what it did. There was an old and venerable Democrat superintending the penitentiary. It was a mere ministerial office, filled by a man who had confessedly discharged his duties with ability and integrity, and to the entire satisfaction of everybody. He was turned out by the Union legislature, and a Whig put in his place. A gentleman who had discharged for a series of years the duties of clerk of the same establishment, with fidelity, and to the entire satisfaction of every one, was also dismissed, and a Whig put in his place. A Whig sergeant-at-arms was elected. Places were given to other Whigs over the heads of Democrats. The patronage of the state, so far as the governor and legislature could control it, has been given to the Whigs; and so far as the executive advertising has been concerned, it has, with scarcely an exception, been given to the Whig press. I ask if this looks like Democracy? Two vacancies existed in the United States Senate. How were they filled? With Democrats, did you say—old, long-tried, and consistent Democrats? Were they sent here to represent the Union men of Mississippi? No, sir. One Democrat and one Whig were returned. If these things show that my colleague, and his associates in Mississippi, have been faithful to the Democratic party, why, then, I must confess I have grown strangely wild in my opinions of political fidelity. What think our friends from other states ? "Can things like these o'ercome them like a summer cloud, and not excite their wonder?" Is it consistent with Democratic usage to organize under the style of the Union party? Is it compatible with party fidelity to nominate and elect bitter enemies of the party? Is it a part of the tactics of the Democratic party to dismiss Democrats and put Whigs in their places? Ought the patronage of a Democratic government to be given exclusively to the Whig press? And, finally, ought a Democratic legislature to elect a Whig United States senator? These are questions raised by my friend, and his party. I ask the National Democracy to answer them.

My colleague calls us constantly through his speech, the secessionists and disunionists of Mississippi. This is a kind of political slang used in a party canvass with effect, but it is entirely out of place here. A member of Congress ought to use terms that apply to a given state of facts—that have some relation to justice. My friend says what he, perhaps, said so often in the heat of the canvass, that he almost got to think it was true that we went into the contest with secession and disunion inscribed upon our banners. Why, no such thing is true. My friend must have seen that inscription through a distempered imagination—through some extraordinary perversion of his mental vision. There was no such inscription on our banner. The Democratic party of Mississippi asserted the abstract right of a state to secede from this Union. They entertain that opinion now; and at all proper times and upon all proper occasions, they will maintain it. We believe, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, "that where there is no common arbiter, each party to a compact is to judge of the infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress."

The state, we say, "is to be the judge of infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress." If, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, the state believed that the compact has been violated, she, and she alone, has the right to judge, so far as she herself is concerned, of that infraction, and the mode and measure of its redress. I desire to ask my colleague if he does not endorse the Kentucky resolutions, and whether the whole Union party of Mississippi does not endorse them? If he will say to us, by authority of his party, that they repudiate these resolutions, I will guaranty that they sink so low, as a political party, that, though you sounded for them with a hundred fathom lead line, a voice would still come booming up from this mighty deep, proclaiming, "no bottom here."

I desire to submit this proposition to my colleague. He says, that because we assert the right of secession, therefore we are secessionists. Non constat. He asserts the right of revolution. Let me ask my friend, Do you consider yourself as a revolutionist? If I am to be denounced as a secessionist because I assert the right to secede, may I not turn upon my assailant and say to him, You are not a revolutionist, because you assert the right of revolution?

But, sir, this new Union organization—this party which claims first to be the Whig party par excellence, and then to be the Democratic party par excellence—to what sort of sentiments does it hold? Ask my friend here [Mr. Wilcox], in the presence of our colleague of the Senate [Mr. Brooke], who has lately arrived in this city, "Gentlemen, what are your opinions on the subject of the currency?" My friend would doubtless say something about hard-money, and gold and silver; but our colleague in the Senate would tell us that he believes in paper money, and banks. Suppose the two gentlemen should be asked what they thought on the subject of protection? My friend here would commence lecturing you about free-trade; but his colleague in the Senate would begin to tell us how much protection we want. And it would be thus in regard to distribution, internal improvements by the federal government, the Sub-treasury, and upon all other party questions. If you ask them what they are for, they tell you they are for the Union. But as to what political measures they propose to carry out, they do not at all agree, even among themselves.

Why, sir, if I may be allowed, in this high council-place, to indulge in an anecdote, I think I can tell one illustrative of the position of this Union party, and especially the Union party of my own state. There was an old gentleman who kept what was called the "Union Hotel." A traveller rode up and inquired whether he could have breakfast. The landlord said, "What will you have?" "Well," said he, "I'll take broiled chicken and coffee. "I don't keep them." "Let me have beefsteak and boiled eggs, then." "I don't keep them." "Well," said the traveller, "never mind; give me something to eat." "I don't keep anything to eat." "Then," said the traveller, getting a little out of patience, "feed my horse; give him some oats." "I don't keep oats." "Then give him a little hay.' "I don't keep hay." "Well, give him something to eat." "I don't keep anything for horses to eat." [Laughter.] "Then what the devil do you keep?" "I keep the Union Hotel." [Renewed laughter.] So with this Union party. They are for the Union, and they are for nothing else. They are for that to which nobody is opposed. They are constantly trying to save the Union, and are making a great outcry about it, when, in fact, nobody has sought or is seeking to destroy it. They keep the Union Hotel, but they don't keep anything else.

Now, sir, to come a step further in the progress of Mississippi politics. As soon as the election in our state resulted adversely to my friends and to myself, we, as a matter of course, abandoned the issue upon which it had been conducted. We gave up a contest in which we had been beaten. But we did not change our opinions as to the soundness of the principle. It was a contest for the maintenance of a particular state principle, or state policy. We were overthrown by a majority of the people of our own state, and consequently we gave up the issue. Immediately afterwards, by the usual authority and in the usual way, there was a notice inserted in the leading Democratic papers of the state, calling upon the Democratic party, without reference to new state issues, and without reference to past disputes, to assemble in convention for the purpose of appointing delegates to attend the Baltimore National Democratic Convention. This was in November, 1851. Almost immediately afterwards, the Union party called a Union convention, which assembled on the first Monday in January last. It was represented by about thirty-six delegates, from twelve or fourteen counties. On the 8th of the same month, the Democratic Convention proper, assembled, represented by some two hundred or more delegates, from fifty-five counties. Our convention was called as a Democratic convention. It assembled as a Democratic convention. It deliberated as a Democratic convention. It appointed delegates to the Baltimore Convention as a Democratic convention. It appointed Democratic electors. It represented emphatically the Democracy of Mississippi. Having been beaten on the issues of state policy, I repeat, we gave them up. We so publicly announced; and when we met in convention on the 8th of January, it was as Democrats on the old issues.

How was it with the Union Convention? Was that a Democratic convention? Was there any such pretence? No, sir; it assembled as a Union convention—a Union meeting to appoint delegates to attend a Democratic National Convention. Why, what an idea! What right had such a meeting to appoint delegates to a Democratic National Convention? If the Union party, calling themselves Democrats, may appoint delegates to the National Democratic Convention, why may not the Free Democracy of Ohio, typified in the person of the gentleman across the way [Mr. Giddings], do the same thing? They claim to be Democrats and have organized the Free Democracy; and why may not they send their representation to the Democratic convention? Suppose the Free-Soil Democrats get up an organization, why may not they send delegates too? and why may not every other faction and political organization have its representatives there? No, sir; if there is to be a Union party, let there be a Union Convention. If certain gentlemen have become so etherealized that the Democratic organization does not suit them, let them stay out of the Democratic Convention. When they put on the proper badge—when they take down the Union flag, and run up the old Democratic banner, I am for hailing them as brothers for forgetting the past, and looking only to the future. They need not sneak back. We will open the door, and let them in. "To err, is human; to forgive, divine."

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). I wish to ask the gentleman from Mississippi if the platform of the Nashville Convention did not repudiate the idea of having anything to do with either of the national conventions—the Whig or the Democratic?

Mr. BROWN. For that convention, the Whig party and the Democratic party, as I said before, were alike responsible. The Union party, composed, as it is, of Whigs and Democrats, must take their part of the responsibility for it. Was not Judge Sharkey, a Whig and your President's appointee to Havana, responsible? Was he not president of the convention, and is he not a Union leader? Did not Governor Foote have a hand in it? Did not Mr. Clemens take his share of responsibility? Did not almost all the prominent, leading Union Democrats of the South have a part in that convention? I want to know if these gentlemen may slip out and leave us to hold the sack? The State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi, as such, never endorsed the recommendation to which the gentleman alludes; and, therefore, we no more than others are responsible for it. If the Union Whigs and Union Democrats will stand by the recommendation, they may fairly expect us to do so too; but it is a very pretty business for us to make a joint promise, and then allow them to break it, and require us to hold on to it. No, sir. "A contract broken on one side, is a contract broken on all sides."

Mr. MOORE of Louisiana (interrupting). The gentleman from Mississippi mentioned the state of Louisiana in connection with the Nashville Convention. I wish merely to state this fact, that a law was introduced into the legislature of Louisiana authorizing the people to send delegates to that convention, but it failed. I do not believe a single man went from the state of Louisiana to that convention who was authorized by the people to go there.

Mr. BROWN. I cannot stop for these interruptions, as I find that my time is fast running out. Now, what did the Democratic party of Mississippi mean when they assembled in convention and appointed delegates to the Baltimore National Convention? They meant, sir, to go into that convention in good faith, and to act in good faith. We do not believe the Democratic party is going to come up to our standard of State-Rights, but we know they will come nearer up to it than the Whig party; and we therefore intend to go into the Democratic Convention, with an honest purpose to support its nominees. We trust you to make us fair and just nominations; and if you do, we intend to support them. If I am asked who the State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi would sustain for the presidency, I will answer, they will sustain any good, honest, long-tried, and faithful member of the Democratic party, who has never practised a fraud upon them.

I can tell you this, that in going into that convention, the Democracy of Mississippi will not ask from it an endorsement of their peculiar notions—if, indeed, they be peculiar—on the subject of State-Rights.

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). Let me ask the gentleman if he would vote for Mr. Cass?

Mr. BROWN. If I were to answer that question, I might be asked by other gentlemen whether I would vote for this man or that man. I do not choose to engage in any controversy about men.

Sir, I was saying that we shall not ask at the hands of the Baltimore Convention an endorsement of our peculiar views on the subject of State-Rights—if, indeed, these views be peculiar. We shall ask in the name of the State-Rights party no place upon the national ticket—neither at its head nor at its tail. And when we have aided you on to victory, as we expect to do, we shall ask no part of the spoils, for we are not of the spoil-loving school.

What we ask is this: that when we have planted a great principle, which we intend to nourish, and, as far as we have the power, protect, you shall not put the heel of the National Democracy upon it to crush it. We ask that you shall not insult us in your convention, either by offering us as the nominee a man who has denounced us as traitors to our country, or by passing any resolutions which shall thus denounce us in words or by implication. Leave us free from taunt and insult; give us a fair Democratic nomination, and we will march up to it like men, and we will be, where we have always been in our Democratic struggles, not in the rear, but in the advance column. We will bear you on to victory; and when victory has been achieved, you may take the spoils and divide them among yourselves. We want no office. Will the Union party give this pledge? Of course they will not, for they are committed against your nominees in advance, unless certain demands of theirs shall be complied with—and among them is the ostracism of the State-Rights men. They propose to read out the great body of the Southern Democrats, and then I suppose make up the deficiency with Whigs. When the National Democracy relies on Whig votes to elect its President, it had better "hang its harp upon the willow."

The State-Rights Democrats will never be found sneaking into any party. We ask nothing of our national brethren. If we support the nominees, as we expect to do, it will be done, not for pay, but as a labor of love—love for old party associations; love of principles, which we hope are not yet quite extinct, and which, we are slow to believe, will be extinguished at Baltimore. If we fail to support the nominees, it will be because they are such as ought not to have been made.

We make no professions of love for the Union. Let our acts speak. We have stood by the Constitution and by the rights of the states, as defined by our fathers. If this be enmity to the Union, then have we been its enemies. We have not made constant proclamation of our devotion to the Union, because we have seen no attempt to destroy it, and have therefore seen no necessity for defending it. The danger is not that the states will secede from the Union, but rather that the Union will absorb the reserved rights of the states, and consolidate them as one state. Against this danger we have raised our warning voice. It has not been heeded; and if disaster befall us from this quarter, we at least are not to blame.

Laudation of the Union is a cheap commodity. It is found on the tongue of every demagogue in the country. I by no means say that all who laud the Union are demagogues; but I do say that there is not a demagogue in the Union who does not laud it. It is the bone and sinew, the soul and body of all their speeches. With them, empty shouts for the Union, the glorious Union, are a passport to favor; and beyond the point of carrying a popular election, they have no ideas of patriotism, and care not a fig for the ultimate triumph of our federative system.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other things to which I should have been very glad to make allusion, but I am admonished that my time is so nearly out, that I can have no opportunity to take up another point. I shall be happy, however, in the few moments that remain of my time, to answer any questions that gentlemen may desire to submit. I supposed, from the disposition manifested by gentlemen a few moments ago to interrogate me, that I should necessarily be compelled to answer some questions, or seem to shrink from the responsibility of doing so. I therefore hurried on to the conclusion of what I deemed it absolutely necessary to say, for the purpose of answering those questions. I am now ready.

After a moment's pause, Mr. B. continued: Gentlemen seem not disposed to press their inquiries, and my time being almost out, I resume my seat.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, pp. 261-72

Congressman Horace Mann to George Combe, January 6, 1851

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6, 1851.

MY DEAR MR. COMBE, — . . . I have nothing to write on political subjects that can afford any gratification to a humanity-loving man. In 1848, there was a great inflowing of the sentiment of liberty, both in Europe and in this country. You have already experienced the ebbing of that tide in Europe, and it has receded as much relatively in this hemisphere as in yours. Notwithstanding the inherent and radical wickedness of some of the compromise measures, as they were called, yet the most strenuous efforts are making by the Administration to force the Whig party to their adoption and support. It is a concerted movement between those who are ready to sacrifice liberty for office and those who are ready to make the same sacrifice for money. From the day of Mr. Webster's open treachery and apostasy (if indeed he had political virtue enough to be an apostate), he has been urging the idea upon New England Whigs, that, if they could give up freedom, they might have a tariff. This has wrought numberless conversions among those who think it a sin not to be rich. They say in their hearts, "The South wants cotton to sell, and must have negroes to produce it; we want cotton to manufacture, and so we must have negroes to raise it: slavery is equally indispensable to us both." So both are combining to uphold it. Before Texas was annexed, the whole Democratic party at the North denounced it. As soon as that was done, they wheeled round like a company of well-drilled soldiers at the word of command, and supported it. I fear the great body of the Whig party will do no better as regards these infamous proslavery measures. Party allegiance here has very much the effect of loyalty with you. It has the power to change the nature of right and wrong. I profess to belong to none of the parties. I have given in my adherence to certain great principles; and by them I stand, not only in independence, but in defiance of parties. I should like to send you a copy of my letters. I will do so as soon as I can find an opportunity. . . .

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 346

Daniel Webster to George G. Smith and Others, April 15, 1851

Marshfield, April 15, 1851.

GENTLEMEN,—I duly received your letter of the 11th of this month, and had fully made up my mind to comply with your invitation; for, although I have entertained no purpose of discussing further, at present, the political questions which have so much agitated the country, yet I could not deny myself the pleasure of meeting you and your fellow-citizens, for mutual congratulation upon our escape, so far, from dangers which, a year ago, seemed most seriously to threaten the very existence of our national institutions; and upon the prospect of an early return, in all parts of the country, of feelings of good-will and reciprocal regard.

But the newspapers of this afternoon inform me that the Board of Aldermen have refused your request for the use of Faneuil Hall. I care nothing for this, personally, except that it deprives me of the gratification of seeing you; although, if I supposed that the general voice of the people of Boston approved of this proceeding, it would, I confess, cause me the deepest regret. The resolution, denying you the Hall, has been adopted, if I mistake not, by the same Board which has practically refused to join with the other branch of the city government, in offering the hospitalities of the city to President Fillmore.

Gentlemen, for nearly thirty years I have been in the service of the country, by the choice of the people of Boston, and the appointment of the legislature of Massachusetts. My public conduct, through the whole of that long period, is not unknown, and I cheerfully leave it to the judgment of the country, now and hereafter.

Since the commencement of March of last year, I have done something, and hazarded much, to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and to maintain interests of the most vital importance to the citizens of Boston. And I shall do more and hazard more, whenever in my judgment it becomes necessary that more be done or more be hazarded. I shall perform with unflinching perseverance, and to the end, my duty to my whole country; nor do I in the slightest degree fear the result. Folly and fanaticism may have their hour. They may not only affect the minds of individuals, but they may also seize on public bodies, of greater or less dignity. But their reign is without doubt destined to be short, even where, for the moment, it seems most triumphant. We, of Massachusetts, are not doomed to a course of political conduct, such as would reproach our ancestors, destroy our own prosperity, and expose us to the derision of the civilized world. No such future is before us.

Far otherwise. Patriotism, the union of good men, fidelity to the Constitution in all its provisions, and that intelligence which has hitherto enabled the people of this State to discern and appreciate their own political blessings, as well as what is due to their own history and character, will bring them back to their accustomed feelings of love of country, and of respect and veneration for its institutions.

I am, gentlemen, with the most sincere regards, your obliged friend, and very obedient servant,

DANIEL WEBSTER.

To Messrs. GEORGE G. SMITH, CALEB EDDY, ASA SWALLOW, URIEL CROCKER, and others.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 429-31

Congressman Albert G. Brown: The True Issue Stated, September 15, 1851

THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE  STATED."

A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G. BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.

Two pamphlets, of thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated, by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself "A Union Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.

The author of these pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my acts and words.

1st. Reference is made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit, California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:

"All our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I never have, and never shall assent to the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights, peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous condition."

It suited the purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would have been to show the true temper of my speech—that I never would consent to give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and before, I was ready to occupy the territories jointly with the people of the North, and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the whole. "I never have, and never will, assent to the justice of this claim."

With amendments to Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have commanded my support.

"A Union Man" entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of "A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate doing so at any time.

I submit the following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them:

"Here is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and, what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. * * * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk, or what not. * * * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)

It will be seen from these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and since, a strong anxiety to see the question settled upon terms fair and just to all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.

2d. The second point made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial, and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the constitution of California was made by unauthorized persons—that among them were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and caring nothing for our rights.

3d. "A Union Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never was, one of the "compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not, and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things "A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did not mean to deceive the people?

The Fugitive Slave Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat, and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.

4th. The fourth point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in 1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker, without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.

In this, as in other cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls extracts from my speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose. Why were paragraphs like these left out:

Mr. Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character, he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution of the United States." And again, he did not believe that the strong party in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again: "In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District, which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."

These passages have been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people. Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave "should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District, "for the purpose of selling him?"

I extract again from the same speech:

Mr. Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence: therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure; cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do right."

Mr. Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest views—views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know, that if the South were let alone—if they were not positively ill-treated, the North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged, necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that enemy withdraw—let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the same sun that you look upon—where the air, the land, the water, everything could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common—and we should be ready to meet you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies, and we are yours.

These, and other kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South, in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.

This bill of 1849, which I did not introduce, did not in any way support, and for which I never would have voted, except (as stated at the time) in company with the great body of southern members, and not then, unless certain constitutional impediments had been first removed—this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering to sell, by the fine and imprisonment of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a law, by the Compromisers, punishes the "purpose" or intention to sell by setting the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at LIBERTY, because his master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage inflicted by this Compromise.

These are the material points made against me in pamphlet number ONE. The positions against me in the second number are:

1st. That I voted, on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress—first, on the Utah bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I deem it useless to repeat them at length. Let a very brief statement suffice. And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a territorial government to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 square miles of the territory south of 36° 30′, and pay her nothing; I was not willing to give up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay anything if it was taken; and hence, for very different reasons, we were brought together in voting against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory, and pay ten millions of dollars. And then, as regards Utah. This was the last of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in the other territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely above 36° 30′, and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I should not have contended against giving up the territory north of it. But if our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not voluntarily abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt willing to risk the Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill. Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, and they will remain so as long as the Mexican law has the EFFECT of excluding slavery, and whenever it fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that slavery was already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this understanding, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would not have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself a party to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted against these territorial bills.

Why was not this Mexican law repealed? I will show the reason; and I will show, moreover, that "A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when he charges it as a FAULT against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. Is not "A Union Man" the friend of General Foote?—and, if so, how does he excuse such votes as the following? Colonel Davis introduced an amendment, as follows, the design of which was to repeal the law of Mexico—abolishing slavery in the territories acquired from Mexico. Here is Davis's amendment:

"And that all laws and usages existing in said territory, at the date of its acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any citizen of the United States to remove to and reside in said territory with any species of property legally held in any of the states of this Union, be and are hereby declared null and void.”

The following is the vote:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee—22.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb—33.

It will be seen that twenty-two senators voted for this amendment—all of them from the South, and that thirty-three voted against itamong them CHASE, HALE, HAMLIN, SEWARD, and every other Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the Senate, and it will be further seen that GENERAL FOOTE voted in the same list with these Free-Soilers and Abolitionists.

Nor is this all. On the 28th of August, 1850, Mr. Atchison moved to lay the bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia on the table. GENERAL FOOTE voted with Hale, Chase, Baldwin, and other Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, against laying it on the table.

And again, on the 10th of September, 1850, the question being on striking out the first section of this same bill, GENERAL FOOTE again voted with Chase, Hamlin, Seward, and other Free-Soilers, against striking it out. Here is the first section of the bill:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other state or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into said district by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall, thereupon, become LIBERATED AND FREE."

The following is the vote on the motion to strike out this section:

YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood, Yulee—18.

NAYS-Messrs. Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Ewing, Felch, Foote, Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop—30.

It will be seen that all the ayes are from the South, and that "A Union Man's" favorite candidate for governor voted again with the Abolitionists.

My object in presenting these votes of General Foote, is not to criticise them, but to show the hypocrisy of "A Union Man," who holds up my votes, and invokes the condemnation of my constituents upon them, whilst he carefully avoids the like votes of his own favorite candidate. If it be a sin in me to have voted with Giddings and Tuck, is it any less a sin in Foote to have voted with SEWARD and HALE?

But to proceed to point No. 2. This pamphlet contains what purports to be extracts from my speeches, and in making them up to suit his purposes, "A Union Man" has been guilty of the grossest frauds. He not only suppresses material parts of my speeches, without which, he well knows, the other parts will not be understood, but he divides paragraphs, sticks the divided parts together, drops sentences, and leaves out whatever does not suit his purposes, and all with the intention, as he well knows, of misleading the public. In all my life, I have never seen truth so grossly perverted, or falsehood and slander more impudently suggested.

The intention of this writer is to show that I am a Disunionist. To this charge I give the LIE direct, and leave this masked calumniator to his farther proof. On this point I select, at random, the following paragraphs from my speeches, and ask an indulgent public why these things have been suppressed, if the intention of "A Union Man" was not fraudulent? If it was not his purpose to impose upon the public, why did he suppress the truth? From my speech on Preston's bill, February 10th, 1850, page 120, Appendix Congressional Globe:—

"Let it (the Union) fulfil the high purposes of its creation, and the people will preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood and treasure, and nowhere will these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South."

"The Union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation, lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the UNION itself. Let the Union dispense equal and exact justice to all-special favors to none, and not one murmur of complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the sunny South.' We despise injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished chieftain, 'we ask no favors and shrink from no responsibility.”

Why did "A Union Man" pass over these and other like expressions in that speech?

"A Union Man" commences one of his extracts with the words, "Have we any reason to fear a dissolution of the Union?" and then has the meanness to suppress these words, which are next after them, in the same paragraph, and in actual connection with them: "Look at the question dispassionately, and answer to yourselves the important question, can anything be expected from the fears of the southern people?" Why were these words left out? Simply, because to have shown them would have been to show that I had but warned the North not to calculate on the cowardice of the southern people.

And again, in the same paragraph, these words are left out: "We have not been slow in manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism-our money has gone freely, the lives of our people have been freely given up, their blood has washed many a blot from the national escutcheon, we have loved the Union, and we love it yet, but not for this, nor a thousand such Unions, will we suffer DISHONOR at your hands."

And again, these words are extracted, "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this," and with this "A Union Man" stops. Why did he not include the very next words, "Sooner than allow our SLAVES to become our MASTERS, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable graves." Why were the first words taken and the next left out? Because, if all had appeared, it would have been seen that it was bondage to our own slaves that I gave warning we would not submit to. It did not suit "A Union Man" to tell the truth, and so he LIED, by suppressing the truth.

Again, "A Union Man" extracts a part of a paragraph as follows:— "Whether the people will submit to this high-handed proceeding (the admission of California), I do not know; but for myself, I am for resistance," &c. Here I charge that this writer not only garbles my speech, but by inserting the words (the admission of California), he suggests a positive falsehood. These words were not used by me, do not appear in the printed copy of my speech, and were interlined by this writer for no other purpose than to suggest a falsehood. The "highhanded proceeding" alluded to by me, had no reference to the admission of California, but referred directly to the conduct of the President of the United States, as was stated at the time, in attempting "to make a new state without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the Constitution." This was the "high-handed proceeding" which I pledged myself to "resist," and that pledge I have redeemed to the utmost of my ability. This whole speech will be found on page 258 to 261 Cong. Globe, 1850.

In addition to the above, I beg leave to submit, from the same speech, the following extracts. Why did "A Union Man" omit them?—

"Oh! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will not, dare not submit to your demands. The consequences to her are terrible beyond description. To you forbearance would be a virtue-virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, patriotism. To some men I can make no appeal, * * * but to sound men, just men, patriotic men, I do make an earnest appeal, that they array themselves on the side of the Constitution, and save the Union. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the Union, come out from among the wicked, and array themselves on the side of justice-and here in this hall, erected by our fathers, and dedicated to liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and fight the demon of discord, until death shall summon us to another and a better world." * * * * *

"Before the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot relinquish, rights which it were better to die with than live without. The direct pecuniary interest involved is twenty hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this is the least of the calamities you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate, we are to be driven from our homes-the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of families and friends, we are to be sent like a people accursed of God to wander through the land, homeless, houseless and friendless, or what is ten thousand times worse than this, than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and our children, degraded to a social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you would entail upon us. I TELL YOU, SIR, SOONER THAN SUBMIT, WE WOULD DISSOLVE A THOUSAND SUCH UNIONS AS THIS-Sooner than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears, dig for ourselves honorable graves."

Is there a southern heart that does not throb a fervent response to these sentiments? and is there an honest eye that does not detect the baseness which prompted "A Union Man," when he tore from this paragraph the single sentence: "I tell you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this?" Did he not know that he was perpetrating a fraud? On the same page from which this extract is taken, the following may be found. Does any one suppose it escaped the eye of "A Union Man?"

“I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution-reverencing the Union-holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and illustrious ancestors, there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once go to that point and give us peace." And again

"I warn gentlemen if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on their heads, not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation, and-what to us is infinitely worse social degradation, we will resist you, and if in the conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more than justice." * * *

"Do not mistake me; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would of itself justify disunion. I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one, or two, nor all of these combined, would justify disunion. These are but initiatory steps, they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps."

I might show many other extracts from this same speech, but surely these may suffice. To those who would know more about it, I would say, "Look to the Congressional Globe, of January 30th, 1850, page 257, and read the whole speech. The book may be found in the office of the Probate Clerk, where I caused it to be placed for your inspection."

If more shall be desired in refutation of the slander, that I sought dissolution of the Union, allow me to present an extract from my speech of August 8, 1850, page 1550 Cong. Globe. And here let me remark that when these speeches were made, no murmur of complaint was heard against them. Then they were patriotic enough; now they are rank treason, according to my enemies.

“There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is to whistle us down the wind, as traitors and disunionists. It is not because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents, that I now speak. They have known me for many long years. I have served them here and elsewhere, and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist, or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who ating the South, while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power."

So I spoke on the 8th of August, 1850, and so I say now. It is by such reptiles as this "Union Man," that the South is stung; and when the South learns to plant her foot upon them and crush them, she may look for justice, and not till then.

A speech made by me at "Ellwood Springs," in November, 1850, has been the subject of extensive misrepresentation and slander. “A UnionMan" could not of course speak the truth in regard to it.

He leaves out sentences, and puts others together to suit his own false purposes. For instance, he makes me say "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills that passed Congress." "I am for resistance; I am for that sort of resistance which shall be effective and final." These two sentences are more than two entire pages apart in the speech as delivered by me, and have no relation to each other. The words "this justice was denied us in the adjustment bills which passed Congress," are immediately followed by the words, "But we are not to infer that the fault was either in the Union or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and if not wickedly diverted from its purposes, will secure us that domestic tranquillity which is our birthright. The Constitution is our shield and our buckler, and needs only to be fairly administered to dispense equal and exact justice to all parts of this great confederacy." Why were not the words extracted as they were spoken? Why put two sentences together taken from different pages, having no relation to one another, and leave out all that was said in connection with the one and with the other? Was there ever a more impudent attempt at fraud and imposition?

This writer says, I demanded justice for every state and for all sections, and that I added, "If the Union cannot yield to the demand, I am against the Union. If the Constitution does not secure it, I am against the Constitution." And he would, from his manner of stating what I said, leave the inference that I was against the Union and the Constitution, because they had not secured us justice. I said, in this precise connection, "We are not to infer that the fault is in the Union, or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and the Constitution is our shield and our buckler." But it did not suit the purposes of "A Union Man" to quote these words. He could not have seen the words that he did quote without seeing these also; they were, therefore, intentionally omitted.

It is asserted that I made certain demands of the federal government, and took the ground if these demands were not complied with, "all connection with the Northern States ought to be dissolved." The demands are not set forth, and the reader is left to infer that there was something monstrous and unreasonable in these demands. The truth is, that

I have demanded nothing, have proposed nothing, but what the southern friends of the compromise say we now have. All I ask is that they will join us in procuring from their northern friends, an acknowledg ment that their interpretation of the compromise is right. Here are the demands; is there anything unreasonable or unjust in them?—

"We should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas, in hæc verba, over the country which has been taken from her and added to New Mexico. In other words, we should demand the clear and undisputed right to carry our slave property to that country, and have it protected and secured to us after we get it there; and we should demand a continuation of this right and of this security and protection.

“We should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of property, and we should demand for our property the same protection that is given to the property of our northern brethren. No more, nor less.

“We should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or anywhere else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the same that is given to other property.

“We should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law, or some other law which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for the delivery of fugitive slaves.

"We should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union, because her constitution tolerated slavery."

Is there anything asked for in all this which the friends of the compromise are not constantly insisting we now have? And yet the writer of this pamphlet falsely asserts that I have demanded a repeal of the compromise, and the substitution of other legislation in its place. No such thing is true. I have only asked that the friends of the compromise at the North should execute it as its southern friends say they understand it; and why shall southern men shrink from this demand if they are sincere in their declarations? They know perfectly well that their interpretation is repudiated by their northern allies, and therefore it is that they shrink from the test of making the demand.

Mississippi has declined making any demands, and of course my proposition falls to the ground. No one could suspect me of the extreme folly of urging these or any other demands, after the state had decided that she would do nothing.

I present these extracts from the Ellwood Springs speech:

"I have great confidence that the government may be brought back to its original purity. I have great confidence that the government will again be administered in subordination to the Constitution; that we shall be restored to our equal position in the confederacy, and that our rights will again be respected as they were from 1787 to 1819. This being done, I shall be satisfied-nothing short of this will satisfy me. I can never consent to take a subordinate position. By no act or word of mine shall the South ever be reduced to a state of dependence on the North. I will cling to the Union, and utter its praise with my last breath, but it must be a Union of equals; it must be a Union in which my state and my section is equal in rights to any other section or state. I will not consent that the South shall become the Ireland of this country. Better, far, that we dissolve our political connection with the North than live connected with her as her slaves or vassals. The fathers of the republic counselled us to live together in peace and concord, but those venerable sages and patriots never counselled us to surrender our equal position in the Union.

Let me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow-citizens, that I am no disunionist. If I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the Union, than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we shall dissolve the Union, by a bold and manly vindication of our rights; but rather that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help me God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the Union."

Why was all this passed over in silence?

I might show how, in many other instances, I have been treated with the same gross injustice which has marked those that I have now pointed out; but to pursue the subject farther would be tedious and unprofitable.

"There are my speeches, and there my votes, I stand by and defend them. You say for these my country will repudiate me. I demand a trial of the issue." This was my language in the first speech made by me after my return from Washington. I repeat it now. I said then, as I say now, that the charge laid against me that I was, or ever had been, for disunion or secession, was and is FALSE and SLANDEROUS.

I stand by my votes as they were given, and by my speeches as they were made. I am not responsible for speeches made for me by others; nor will I consent to be tried on the motives which my enemies charge to have influenced my votes. It is easy to publish garbled extracts

from any man's speeches, and it is quite as easy to attribute to any man bad motives for his votes. I am not to be tried, thanks to a free government, in a STAR CHAMBER, before perjured judges, but at the ballot box, by a free people.

I am not surprised to find myself assailed with malignity, and least of all does it surprise me that these assaults come from Natchez. I was never a favorite with certain men in that city, and if it should ever fall out that they speak well of me, I shall indeed wonder what great sin I have committed against republican institutions.

When I heard that a large sum of money had been subscribed by my enemies, and that my defeat was one of the great ends to be obtained by it, I conjectured that the old Federalists were on their walk, and that a plentiful shower of slander and defamation might be expected. I have not been disappointed. These attacks will, no doubt, be kept up until after the election, and many of them will, necessarily, go unanswered. I cannot be everywhere in person, and I have not the means of publishing and circulating documents against this regular combination, controlling, as it does, its thousands and its tens of thousands of dollars.

It ought to be borne in mind how easy it is to misconstrue and misrepresent the acts and speeches of a public man. Taking into account the length of time that I have been in the public service, it is rather a matter of surprise with me that my enemies have found so little to carp at. The circumstances under which I have spoken or acted are, of course, very conveniently forgotten, and nothing is remembered but such words or acts as may be turned to my disadvantage. These are eagerly seized upon by my enemies, and held up to public gaze; and if the public indignation fails to rise, they then torture my words, and give them forced constructions, so as to make me say what, indeed, I never thought of saying. No man ever yet spoke so explicitly as to escape the misconceptions of the weak, or the misconstructions of the corrupt and designing. Not even the inspired writers have escaped this common fate. The Atheist proves, to his own satisfaction at least, that there is no God, and, taking the Bible for his text, he undertakes to prove that the Bible is a fiction. Volney, Voltaire, and Tom Paine, have each made his assault upon the divinity of the Saviour; each has had his proselytes; and each based his argument upon the words of inspired writers. These things being true, what folly it is for an ordinary man to hope for escape from false interpretations, misconstructions and misrepresentations! I know my own meaning better than any other man, and after sixteen years of public service, during all of which time I never practised a fraud or deception upon the public, I confront my enemies, and tell them they SLANDER me, when they charge that I am now, or ever have been, the SECRET or OPEN advocate of disunion or secession.

I am no more a secessionist, because I think a state has a right to secede, than are my enemies revolutionists, because they maintain the right of revolution.

In days gone by, I denounced the United States Bank, the protective tariff, and other acts of the general government, without incurring the charge of being a disunionist. I opposed and denounced the compromise, but I did not thereby make myself a disunionist. I thought, in the beginning, that it inflicted a positive injury upon the South, and I think so now. This opinion is well settled, and is not likely to undergo any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never obtrusively, as to the course which I thought our state should pursue. That advice has not been taken. Mississippi has decided that submission to, or acquiescence in, the compromise measures, is her true policy. As a citizen, I bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her judgment had been otherwise; but from her decision I ask no appeal. Neither as a citizen nor as a representative, would I disturb or agitate this or any other question after it had been settled by the deliberate judgment of the people.

I never have, and I never will introduce the subject of slavery into Congress. When it has been introduced by others, I have defended the rights of my constituents, and, if re-elected, I will do so again.

In the approaching election, I ask the judgment of my constituents on my past course. I claim no exemption from the frailties common to all mankind. That I have erred is possible, but that the interests of my constituents have suffered from my neglect, or that I have intentionally done any act or said anything to dishonor them in the eyes of the world, or to bring discredit upon our common country, is not true. In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor, the happiness, and the true glory of my state.

I opposed the compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed the admission of California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and I voted against the Utah bill. I need scarcely say that I voted for the Fugitive Slave bill, and aided, as far as I could, in its passage. I opposed the compromise.

I thought, with Mr. Clay, that "it gave almost everything to the North, and to the South nothing but her honor.'

I thought, with Mr. Webster, that the “South got what the North lost-and that was nothing at all.’

I thought, with Mr. Brooks, that the "North carried everything before her."

I thought, with Mr. Clemens, that "there was no equity to redeem the outrage.”

I thought, with Mr. Downs, that "it was no compromise at all." I thought, with Mr. Freeman, that "the North got the oyster and we got the shell."

I thought, at the last, what General Foote thought, at the first, that "it contained none of the features of a genuine compromise."

And finally, and lastly, I voted against it, and spoke against it, BECAUSE it unsettled the balance of power between the two sections of the Union, inflicted an injury upon the South, and struck a blow at that political equality of the states and of the people, on which the Union is founded, and without a maintenance of which the Union cannot be preserved.

I spoke against it, and voted against it, in all its forms. I was against it as an Omnibus, and I was against it in its details. I fought it through from Alpha to Omega, and I would do so again. I denounced it before the people, and down to the last hour I continued to oppose it. The people have decided that the state shall acquiesce, and with me that decision is final. I struggled for what I thought was the true interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think me

worthy of condemnation, I am ready for the sacrifice. For opposing the compromise, I have no apologies or excuses to offer; I did that which my conscience told me was right, and the only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing.

A. G. BROWN.

GALLATIN, September 15, 1851.

NOTE.—As the district will, no doubt, be flooded with all manner of publications, and traversed by all sorts of speakers, I must again remind my friends that the Congressional Globe, containing a perfect record of all my votes, speeches, motions and resolutions, may be found in the clerk's offices of each county. It was placed there by me for inspection, and by it, as the official record, I am willing to be tried. When my enemies are found peddling newspapers and pamphlets, without names, giving accounts of my actings and sayings, I hope my friends will appeal to this record, and insist that I shall be tried by that, and not by the statements of my enemies.  A. G. B.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 233-46