Theodore Parker to Francis Jackson, November 24, 1859

Rome, November 24, 1859.

MY DEAR FRIEND: I see by a recent telegraph which the steamer of November 2d brought from Boston, that the Court found Captain Brown guilty, and passed sentence upon him. It is said Friday, December 2d, is fixed as the day for hanging him. So, long before this reaches you, my friend will have passed on to the reward of his magnanimous public services, and his pure, upright, private life. I am not well enough to be the minister to any Congregation, least of all to one like that which, for so many years, helped my soul, while it listened to my words. Surely, the Twenty-Eighth Congregational Society in Boston needs a minister, not half dead, but alive all over; and yet, while reading the accounts of the affair at Harper's Ferry, and of the sayings of certain men at Boston, whom you and I know only too well, I could not help wishing I was at home again, to use what poor remnant of power is left to me in defence of the True and the Right.

America is rich in able men, in skilful writers, in ready and accomplished speakers. But few men dare treat public affairs with reference to the great principles of justice, and the American Democracy; nay, few with reference to any remote future, or even with a comprehensive survey of the present. Our public writers ask what effect will this opinion have on the Democratic party, or the Republican party? how will it affect the next Presidential election? what will the great State of Pennsylvania, or Ohio, or New York say to it? This is very unfortunate for us all, especially when the people have to deal practically and that speedily with a question concerning the very existence of Democratic institutions in America; for it is not to be denied that we must give up Democracy if we keep Slavery or give up Slavery if we keep Democracy.

I greatly deplore this state of things. Our able men fail to perform their natural function to give valuable instruction and advice to the people; and, at the same time, they debase and degrade themselves. The hurrahs and the offices they get are poor compensation for falseness to their own consciences.

In my best estate, I do not pretend to much political wisdom, and still less now while sick; but I wish yet to set down a few thoughts for your private eye, and, it may be, for the ear of the Fraternity. They are, at least, the result of long meditation on the subject; besides, they are not at all new nor peculiar to me, but are a part of the Public Knowledge of all enlightened men.

1. A man, held against his will as a slave, has a natural right to kill every one who seeks to prevent his enjoyment of liberty. This has long been recognized as a self-evident proposition, coming so directly from the Primitive Instincts of Human Nature, that it neither required proofs nor admitted them.

2. It may be a natural duty of the slave to develop this natural right in a practical manner, and actually kill all those who seek to prevent his enjoyment of liberty. For, if he continue patiently in bondage: First, he entails the foulest of curses on his children; and, second, he encourages other men to commit the crime against nature which he allows his own master to commit. It is my duty to preserve my own body from starvation. If I fail thereof through sloth, I not only die, but incur the contempt and loathing of my acquaintances while I live. It is not less my duty to do all that is in my power to preserve my body and soul from Slavery; and if I submit to that through cowardice, I not only become a bondman, and suffer what thraldom inflicts, but I incur also the contempt and loathing of my acquaintance. Why do freemen scorn and despise a slave? Because they think his condition is a sign of his cowardice, and believe that he ought to prefer death to bondage. The Southerners hold the Africans in great contempt, though mothers of their children. Why? Simply because the Africans are slaves; that is, because the Africans fail to perform the natural duty of securing freedom by killing their oppressors.

3. The freeman has a natural right to help the slaves recover their liberty, and in that enterprise to do for them all which they have a right to do for themselves. This statement, I think, requires no argument or illustration.

4. It may be a natural duty for the freeman to help the slaves to the enjoyment of their liberty, and, as means to that end to aid them in killing all such as oppose their natural freedom. If you were attacked by a wolf, I should not only have a right to aid you in getting rid of that enemy, but it would be my duty to help you in proportion to my power. If it were a murderer, and not a wolf, who attacked you, the duty would be still the same. Suppose it is not a murderer who would kill you, but a kidnapper who would enslave, does that make it less my duty to help you out of the hands of your enemy? Suppose it is not a kidnapper who would make you a bondman, but a slaveholder who would keep you one, does that remove my obligation to help you?

5. The performance of this duty is to be controlled by the freeman's power and opportunity to help the slaves. (The Impossible is never the Obligatory.) I cannot help the slaves in Dahomey or Bornou, and am not bound to try. I can help those who escape to my own neighborhood, and I ought to do so. My duty is commensurate with my power; and, as my power increases, my duty enlarges along with it. If I could help the bondmen in Virginia to their freedom as easily and effectually as I can aid the runaway at my own door, then I ought to do so.

These five maxims have a direct application to America at this day, and the people of the Free States have a certain dim perception thereof, which, fortunately, is becoming clearer every year.

Thus, the people of Massachusetts feel that they ought to protect the fugitive slaves who come into our State. Hence come, first the irregular attempts to secure their liberty, and the declarations of noble men, like Timothy Gilbert, George W. Carnes, and others, that they will do so even at great personal risk; and, secondly the statute laws made by the legislature to accomplish that end.

Now, if Massachusetts had the power to do as much for the slaves in Virginia as for the runaways in her own territory, we should soon see those two sets of measures at work in that direction also.

I find it is said in the Democratic newspapers that "Captain Brown had many friends at the North, who sympathized with him in general, and in special approved of this particular scheme of his; they furnished him with some twelve or twenty thousand dollars, it would seem." I think much more than that is true of us. If he had succeeded in running off one or two thousand slaves to Canada, even at the expense of a little violence and bloodshed, the majority of men in New England would have rejoiced, not only in the End, but also in the Means. The first successful attempt of a considerable number of slaves to secure their freedom by violence will clearly show how deep is the sympathy of the people for them, and how strongly they embrace the five principles I mentioned above. A little success of that sort will serve as priming for the popular cannon; it is already loaded.

Of course, I was not astonished to hear that an attempt had been made to free the slaves in a certain part of Virginia, nor should I be astonished if another "insurrection" or "rebellion" took place in the State of ——, or a third in or a fourth in ——. Such things are to be expected; for they do not depend merely on the private will of men like Captain Brown and his associates, but on the great General Causes which move all human kind to hate Wrong and love Right. Such "insurrections" will continue as long as Slavery lasts, and will increase, both in frequency and in power, just as the people become intelligent and moral. Virginia may hang John Brown and all that family, but she cannot hang the Human Race; and, until that is done, noble men will rejoice in the motto of that once magnanimous State "Sic semper Tyrannis!" "Let such be the end of every oppressor."

It is a good Anti-Slavery picture on the Virginia shield: a man standing on a tyrant and chopping his head off with a sword; only I would paint the sword-holder black and the tyrant while, to show the immediate application of the principle. The American people will have to march to rather severe music, I think, and it is better for them to face it in season. A few years ago it did not seem difficult first to check Slavery, and then to end it without any bloodshed. I think this cannot be done now, nor ever in the future. All the great charters of Humanity have been writ in blood. I once hoped that of American Democracy would be engrossed in less costly ink; but it is plain, now, that our pilgrimage must lead through a Red Sea, wherein many a Pharaoh will go under and perish. Alas! that we are not wise enough to be just, or just enough to be wise, and so gain much at small cost!

Look, now, at a few notorious facts:

I. There are four million slaves in the United States violently withheld from their natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Now, they are our fellow countrymen yours and mine—just as much as any four million white men. Of course, you and I owe them the duty which one man owes another of his own nation the duty of instruction, advice, and protection of natural rights. If they are starving, we ought to help feed them. The color of their skins, their degraded social condition, their ignorance, abates nothing from their natural claim on us, or from our natural duty toward them.

There are men in all the Northern States who feel the obligation which citizenship imposes on them the duty to help those slaves. Hence arose the Anti-Slavery Society, which seeks simply to excite the white people to perform their natural duty to their dark fellow-countrymen. Hence comes CAPTAIN BROWN'S EXPEDITION an attempt to help his countrymen enjoy their natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

He sought by violence what the Anti-Slavery Society works for with other weapons. The two agree in the end, and differ only in the means. Men like Captain Brown will be continually rising up among the white people of the Free States, attempting to do their natural duty to their black countrymen that is, help them to freedom. Some of these efforts will be successful. Thus, last winter, Captain Brown himself escorted eleven of his countrymen from bondage in Missouri to freedom in Canada. He did not snap a gun, I think, although then, as more recently, he had his fighting tools at hand, and would have used them, if necessary. Even now, the Underground Railroad is in constant and beneficent operation. By-and-by it will be an Overground Railroad from Mason and Dixon's line clear to Canada: the only tunnelling will be in the Slave States. Northern men applaud the brave conductors of that Locomotive of Liberty.

When Thomas Garrett was introduced to a meeting of political Free-Soilers in Boston, as "the man who had helped eighteen hundred slaves to their natural liberty," even that meeting gave the righteous Quaker three times three. All honest Northern hearts beat with admiration of such men; nay, with love for them. Young lads say, "I wish that heaven would make me such a man." The wish will now and then be father to the fact. You and I have had opportunity enough, in twenty years, to see that this philanthropic patriotism is on the increase at the North, and the special direction it takes is toward the liberation of their countrymen in bondage.

Not many years ago, Boston sent money to help the Greeks in their struggle for political freedom, (they never quite lost their personal liberty,) but with the money, she sent what was more valuable and far more precious, one of her most valiant and heroic sons, who staid in Greece to fight the great battle of Humanity. Did your friend, Dr. Samuel G. Howe, lose the esteem of New England men by that act? He won the admiration of Europe, and holds it still.

Nay, still later, the same dear old Boston Hunkers have never been more than rats and mice in her house, which she suffers for a time and then drives out twelve hundred of them at once on a certain day of March, 1776,—that same dear old Boston sent the same Dr. Howe to carry aid and comfort to the Poles, then in deadly struggle for their political existence. Was he disgraced because he lay seven-and-forty days in a Prussian jail in Berlin? Not even in the eyes of the Prussian King, who afterwards sent him a gold medal, whose metal was worth as many dollars as that philanthropist lay days in the despot's jail. It is said, "Charity should begin at home." The American began a good ways off, but has been working homeward ever since. The Dr. Howe of to-day would and ought to be more ready to help an American to personal liberty, than a Pole or a Greek to mere political freedom, and would find more men to furnish aid and comfort to our own countrymen, even if they were black. It would not surprise me if there were other and well-planned attempts in other States to do what Captain Brown heroically, if not successfully, tried in Virginia. Nine out of ten may fail — the tenth will succeed. The victory over General Burgoyne more than made up for all the losses in many a previous defeat; it was the beginning of the end. Slavery will not die a dry death; it may have as many lives as a cat; at last, it will die like a mad dog in a village, with only the enemies of the human kind to lament its fate, and they too cowardly to appear as mourners.

II. But it is not merely white men who will fight for the liberty of Americans; the negroes will take their defence into their own hands, especially if they can find white men to lead them. No doubt the African race is greatly inferior to the Caucasian in general intellectual power, and also in that instinct for liberty which is so strong in the Teutonic family, and just now obvious in the Anglo-Saxons of Britain and America; besides, the African race have but little desire for vengeance the lowest form of the love of justice. Here is one example out of many: In Santa Cruz, the old slave laws were the most horrible, I think, I ever read of in modern times, unless those of the Carolinas be an exception. If a slave excited others to run away, for the first offence his right leg was to be cut off; for the second offence, his other leg. This mutilation was not to be done by a surgeon's hand; the poor wretch was laid down on a log, and his legs chopped off with a plantation axe, and the stumps plunged into boiling pitch, to stanch the blood, and so save the property from entire destruction; for the live Torso of a slave might serve as a warning. No action of a court was requisite to inflict this punishment; any master could thus mutilate his bondman. Even from 1830 to 1846, it was common for owners to beat their offending victims with "tamarind rods" six feet long and an inch in thickness at the bigger end — rods thick set with ugly thorns. When that process was over, the lacerated back was washed with a decoction of the Manchineel, a poison tree, which made the wounds fester and long remain open.

In 1846, the negroes were in "rebellion," and took possession of the island; they were 25,000, the whites 3000. But the blacks did not hurt the hair of a white man's head; they got their freedom, but they took no revenge! Suppose 25,000 Americans, held in bondage by 3000 Algerines on a little island, should get their masters into their hands, how many of the 3000 would see the next sun go down?

No doubt it is through the absence of this desire of natural vengeance, that the Africans have been reduced to bondage, and kept in it.

But there is a limit even to the negro's forbearance. San Domingo is not a great way off. The revolution which changed its black inhabitants from tame slaves into wild men, took place after you had ceased to call yourself a boy.

It shows what may be in America, with no white man to help. In the Slave States there is many a possible San Domingo, which may become actual any day; and, if not in 1860, then in some other "year of our Lord." Besides, America offers more than any other country to excite the slave to love of Liberty, and the effort for it. We are always talking about "Liberty," boasting that we are "the freest people in the world," declaring that "a man would die, rather than be a slave." We continually praise our Fathers "who fought the Revolution." We build monuments to commemorate even the humblest beginning of that great national work. Once a year, we stop all ordinary work, and give up a whole day to the noisiest kind of rejoicing for the War of Independence. How we praise the "champions of liberty!" How we point out the "infamy of the British oppressors!" "They would make our Fathers slaves," say we, "and we slew the oppressor Sic semper Tyrannis!"

Do you suppose this will fail to produce its effect on the black man, one day? The South must either give up keeping "Independence Day," or else keep it in a little more thorough fashion. Nor is this all: the Southerners are continually taunting the negroes with their miserable nature. "You are only half human," say they, "not capable of freedom." "Hay is good for horses, not for hogs," said the philosophic American who now represents the great Democracy" at the court of Turin. So, liberty is good for white men, not for negroes. Have they souls? I don't know that — non mi ricordo. Contempt," says the proverb, "will cut through the shell of the tortoise." And, one day, even the sluggish African will wake up under the threefold stimulus of the Fourth of July cannon, the whip of the slaveholder, and the sting of his heartless mockery. Then, if "oppression maketh wise men mad," what do you think it will do to African slaves, who are familiar with scenes of violence, and all manner of cruelty? Still more: if the negroes have not general power of mind, or instinctive love of liberty, equal to the whites, they are much our superiors in power of cunning, and in contempt for death — rather formidable qualities in a service war. There already have been several risings of slaves in this century; they spread fear and consternation. The future will be more terrible. Now, in case of an insurrection, not only is there, as Jefferson said, “no attribute of the Almighty" which can take sides with the master, but there will be many white men who will take part with the slave. Men like the Lafayettes of the last century, and the Dr. Howes of this, may give the insurgent negro as effectual aid as that once rendered to America and Greece; and the public opinion of an enlightened world will rank them among its heroes of noblest mark.

If I remember rightly, some of your fathers were in the battle of Lexington, and that at Bunker Hill. I believe, in the course of the war which followed, every able-bodied man in your town (Newton) was in actual service. Nowadays, their descendants are proud of the fact. One day it will be thought not less heroic for a negro to fight for his personal liberty, than for a white man to fight for political independence, and against a tax of three pence a pound on tea. Wait a little, and things will come round.

III. The existence of Slavery endangers all our Democratic institutions. It does this if only tolerated as an exceptional measure—a matter of present convenience, and still more when proclaimed as an instantial principle, a rule of political conduct for all time and every place. Look at this: In 1790, there were (say) 300,000 slaves; soon they make their first doubling, and are 600,000; then their second, 1,200,000; then their third, 2,400,000. They are now in the process of doubling the fourth time, and will soon be 4,800,000; then comes the fifth double, 9,600,000; then the sixth, 19,200,000. Before the year of our Lord nineteen hundred, there will be twenty million slaves!

An Anglo-Saxon with common sense does not like this Africanization of America; he wishes the superior race to multiply rather than the inferior. Besides, it is plain to a one-eyed man that Slavery is an irreconcilable enemy of the progressive development of Democracy; that, if allowed to exist, it must be allowed to spread, to gain political, social, and ecclesiastical power; and all that it gains for the slaveholders is just so much taken from the freemen.

Look at this!—there are twenty Southern representatives who represent nothing but property in man, and yet their vote counts as much in Congress as the twenty Northerners who stand for the will of 1,800,000 freemen. Slavery gives the South the same advantage in the choice of President; consequently the slaveholding South has long controlled the federal power of the Nation.

Look at the recent acts of the Slave Power! The Fugitive Slave bill, the Kansas-Nebraska bill, the Dred Scott decision, the fillibustering against Cuba, (till found too strong,) and now against Mexico and other feeble neighbors, and, to crown all, the actual re-opening of the African slave-trade!

The South has kidnapped men in Boston, and made the Judges of Massachusetts go under her symbolic chain to enter the Courts of Justice. (!) She has burned houses and butchered innocent men in Kansas, and the perpetrators of that wickedness were rewarded by the Federal Government with high office and great pay! Those things are notorious; they have stirred up some little indignation at the North, and freemen begin to think of defending their liberty. Hence came the Free-Soil party, and hence the Republican party; it contemplates no direct benefit to the slave, only the defence of the white man in his national rights, or his conventional privileges. It will grow stronger every year, and also bolder. It must lay down principles as a platform to work its measures on; the principles will be found to require much more than what was at first proposed, and, even from this platform, Republicans will promptly see that they cannot defend the natural rights of freemen without destroying that Slavery which takes away the natural rights of a negro. So, first, the wise and just men of the party will sympathize with such as seek to liberate the slaves, either peacefully or by violence; next, they will declare their opinions in public; and, finally, the whole body of the party will come to the same sympathy and the same opinion. Then, of course, they will encourage men like Captain Brown, give him money and all manner of help, and also encourage the slaves, whenever they shall rise, to take their liberty at all hazards. When called to help put down an insurrection of the slaves, they will go readily enough, and do the work by removing the cause of insurrection: that is by destroying Slavery itself.

An Anti-Slavery party, under one name or another, will before long control the Federal Government, and will exercise its constitutional rights, and perform its constitutional

duty, and "guarantee a republican form of government to every State in the Union." That is a work of time and peaceful legislation. But the short work of violence will be often tried, and each attempt will gain something for the cause of humanity, even by its dreadful process of blood.

IV. But there is yet another agency that will act against Slavery. There are many mischievous persons who are ready for any wicked work of violence. They abound in the City of New York, (a sort of sink where the villany of both hemispheres settles down, and genders that moral pestilence which steams up along the columns of The New York Herald and The New York Observer, the great escape-pipes of secular and ecclesiastical wickedness;) they commit the great crimes of violence and robbery at home, plunder emigrants, and engage in the slave-trade, or venture on fillibustering expeditions. This class of persons is common in all the South. One of the legitimate products of her "peculiar institution," they are familiar with violence, ready and able for murder. Public opinion sustains such men. Bully Brooks was but one of their representatives in Congress. Nowadays they are fond of Slavery, defend it, and seek to spread it. But the time must come one day it may come any time. when the lovers of mischief will do a little fillibustering at home, and rouse up the slaves to rob, burn, and kill. Prudent carpenters sweep up all the shavings in their shops at night, and remove this food of conflagration to a safe place, lest the spark of a candle, the end of a cigar, or a friction-match should swiftly end their wealth slowly gathered together. The South takes pains to strew her carpenter's shop with shavings, and fill it full thereof. She encourages men to walk abroad with naked candles in their hands and lighted cigars in their months; then they scatter friction-matches on the floor, and dance a fillibustering jig thereon. She cries," Well done! Hurrah for Walker!" "Hurrah for Brooks!" "Hurrah for the bark Wanderer and its cargo of slaves! Up with the bowie-knife!

“Down with justice and humanity!" The South must reap as she sows; where she scatters the wind the whirlwind will come up. It will be a pretty crop for her to reap. Within a few years the South has burned alive eight or ten negroes. Other black men looked on, and learned how to fasten the chain, how to pile the green wood, how to set this Hell-fire of Slavery agoing. The apprentice may be slow to learn, but he has had teaching enough by this time to know the art and mystery of torture; and, depend upon it, the negro will one day apply it to his old tormentors. The Fire of Vengeance may be waked up even in an African's heart, especially when it is fanned by the wickedness of a white man then it runs from man to man, from town to town. What shall put it out? The white man's blood!

Now, Slavery is a wickedness so vast and so old, so rich and so respectable, supported by the State, the Press, the Market, and the Church, that all those agencies are needed to oppose it with those and many more which I cannot speak of now. You and I prefer the peaceful method; but I, at least, shall welcome the violent if no other accomplish the end. So will the great mass of thoughtful and good men at the North: else why do we honor the Heroes of the Revolution, and build them monuments all over our blessed New England? I think you gave money for that of Bunker Hill: I once thought it a folly; now I recognize it as a great sermon in stone, which is worth not only all the money it cost to build it, but all the blood it took to lay its corner-stones. Trust me, its lesson will not be in vain — at the North, I mean; for the Logic of Slavery will keep the South on its lower course, and drive it on more swiftly than before. "Captain Brown's expedition was a failure," I hear it said. I am not quite sure of that. True, it kills fifteen men by sword and shot, and four or five men by the gallows. But it shows the weakness of the greatest Slave State in America, the worthlessness of her soldiery, and the utter fear which Slavery genders in the bosoms of the masters. Think of the condition of the City of Washington, while Brown was at work!

Brown will die, I think, like a martyr, and also like a saint. His noble demeanor, his unflinching bravery, his gentleness, his calm, religious trust in God, and his words of truth and soberness, cannot fail to make a profound impression on the hearts of Northern men; yes, and on Southern men. For "every human heart is human," &c. I do not think the money wasted, nor the lives thrown away. Many acorns must be sown to have one come up; even then the plant grows slow; but it is an Oak at last. None of the Christian martyrs died in vain; and from Stephen, who was stoned at Jerusalem, to Mary Dyer, whom our fathers hanged on a bough of "the great tree" on Boston Common, I think there have been few spirits more pure and devoted than John Brown's, and none that gave up their breath in a nobler cause. Let the American State hang his body, and the American Church damn his soul; still, the blessing of such as are ready to perish will fall on him, and the universal justice of the Infinitely Perfect God will take him welcome home. The road to heaven is as short from the gallows as from a throne; perhaps, also, as easy.

I suppose you would like to know something about myself. Rome has treated me to bad weather, which tells its story in my health, and certainly does not mend me. But I look for brighter days and happier nights. The sad tidings from America- my friends in peril, in exile, in jail, killed, or to be hung-have filled me with grief, and so I fall back a little, but hope to get forward again. God bless you and yours, and comfort you!

Ever affectionately yours,

THEODORE PARKER.

TO FRANCIS JACKSON, ESQ., Boston.

SOURCE: James Redpath, Editor, Echoes of Harper’s Ferry, p. 73-87

Robert C. Winthrop to John J. Crittenden, May 13, 1852

BOSTON, May 13, 1852.

MY DEAR MR. CRITTENDEN,—I received a welcome letter from you weeks ago, for which I have often thanked you in spirit, and now tender you my cordial acknowledgments in due form. I trust that we are going to meet you all again this summer. You must come to Newport and resume your red republican robes and bathe off the debilities of a long heat at Washington. I wish you could be here at Commencement, July 22. Between now and then the great question of candidacy will be settled. How? How? Who can say? However it be, this only I pray,—give us a chance in Massachusetts to support it effectively. I do believe that we can elect Webster, Fillmore, Scott, or Crittenden, if there shall not be an unnecessary forcing of mere shibboleths down our throats. There is not an agitator in the whole Whig party here—no one who cares to disturb anything that has been done. As to the fugitive slave law, though I never thought it a wise piece of legislation, nor ever believed that it would be very effective, I have not the slightest doubt that it will long survive the satisfaction of the South and stand on the statute-book after its efficiency has become about equal to that of '93. But tests and provisos are odious things, whether Wilmot or anti-Wilmot. Webster is here, and his arrival has been the signal for a grand rally among his friends. There is no doubt but Massachusetts would work hard for him if he were fairly in the field, and I think there will be a general consent that he shall have the votes of all our delegates; but, what are they among so many? Do not let anybody imagine, however, that we shall bolt from the regular nominee, whoever he be, unless some unimaginably foolish action should be adopted by the convention.

Believe me, my dear sir, always most cordially and faithfully your friend and servant,

R. C. WINTHROP.

J. J. CRITTENDEN.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 2, p. 36

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

Daniel Webster to a Committee of Gentlemen from New York, October 1850

[Franklin, N. H., October 1850]

I concur, gentlemen, in all the political principles contained in the resolutions, a copy of which has been sent to me; and I stand pledged to support those principles, publicly and privately, now and always, to the full extent of my influence, and by the exertion of every faculty which I possess.

Two of these resolutions were as follows:

Resolved, That we cordially approve of the recent measures of Congress for the adjustment of the dangerous questions arising out of the acquisition of territory under the treaty of Mexico, &c.

Resolved, That the Fugitive-slave Bill is in accordance with the express stipulations of the Constitution of the United States; . . . and that Congress, in passing a law which should be efficient for carrying out the stipulations, &c., acted in full accordance with the letter and spirit of that instrument; and that we will sustain this law and the execution of it by all lawful means.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 340-1