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

Jefferson Davis to John A. Quitman,* December 11, 1844

S. B. Ambassador        

11th Dec. 1844

Dear Sir,

Herewith I send you the paper on currency of which I spoke to you when I last had the pleasure to see you—valuable only as one of the branches of the besiegers against which we should be prepared to countermine.¹—

Please offer my respectful regards to your family and believe me very sincerely yrs. &c

Jeffn. Davis

Gen. J. A. Quitman
        Natches
    Endorsed: Jef Davis Decr 1845

_______________

* Quitman, John Anthony (1799-1858), an American soldier and political leader, was born in Rhinebeck, N. Y., September 1, 1799; graduated from Hartwick seminary in 1816; was instructor in Mount Airy college, Penn., 1818-1819; studied law in Chillicothe, Ohio, and in 1821 was practicing law at Natches, Miss. He was a member of the Mississippi House of Representatives 1826-1827; Chancellor of the State 1828-1834; State Senator 1834-1836, serving as president of the Senate and acting governor 1835-1836; served with distinction as brigadier general and as major general in the Mexican war; was Governor of Mississippi 1850-1851; and a member of the national House of Representatives from March 4, 1855, until his death in Natchez, Miss., July 17, 1858. While governor he engaged in negotiations with General Lopez relative to a filibustering expedition to capture Cuba. He was indicted, resigned office, and was tried. The jury disagreed. He was arrested on a similar charge in 1854 but was not tried. Consult J. F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, 2 vols., 792 pp., New York, 1860.

¹ During the presidential campaign of 1844 Jefferson Davis was one of the candidates for elector on the Democratic ticket.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 12-13

John A. Quitman to His Brother, July 23, 1832

Monmouth, July 23d, 1832.

By the last mail I received the truly afflicting intelligence of the death of our poor old father. Your last letter had prepared me, and I expected to hear of it by every mail. We should not grieve. He had long since been deprived of every enjoyment which a participation in the affairs of this world can give. Death to him must have been a relief from the burden of existence. His very useful career had long since terminated. When we have performed the part which Providence has assigned us, and when the faculty of enjoying even the few pleasures of old age has ceased, it can not be considered a misfortune to die. I have felt a melancholy gratification in learning from Dr. Wackerhagen's letter that the last hours of our venerable father were free from pain. There will be many in another world to bear witness to the good he has done in this. The time of each of us is to come, but while we are here let us act well our part.

SOURCES: John F. H. Claiborne, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 131-2

John A. Quitman to James K. Cook, August 28, 1832

Monmouth, August 28th, 1832.

On my return from the eastern section of the state, I read in your paper of the 10th inst. an editorial suggestion of the names of several citizens as electors for President and Vice-president of the United States, who are known to be in favor of a renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States, with a request that the individuals named should signify to you their acceptance or rejection of the proposed nomination. My name having been suggested, I conceive it a duty to state that, although I have long considered the Bank of the United States a valuable institution, well calculated to promote the general good by its tendency to lessen the price of exchange, and to produce and preserve a uniform and sound paper currency throughout the Union, and would be pleased to see its charter renewed for a limited period, with such modifications as would prevent an abuse of its powers, yet, without wishing to underrate its consequence, I do not consider the question of rechartering it the only or most important one which is likely to be involved in the election of the first and second officers of the government.

In the present important crisis there are, in my opinion, several great questions of constitutional construction and national policy, much more vitally interesting to the people of the United States, and particularly to the citizens of the South, than any which can arise out of the bank question. I can not, therefore, consistently with these views, agree to become a candidate for elector for President and Vice-president, solely with reference to their opinion on the renewal of the charter of the Bank of the United States.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 131

John A. Quitman to James Fenwick Brent, March 22, 1845

New Orleans, March 22d, 1845.

dear Sir,—I have received your letter of the 19th instant, requesting my views upon the operation in the State of Mississippi of the system adopted there of electing judges by the direct votes of the people, and asking my attention particularly to the objections urged against the system, that such elections would generally, if not always, turn upon party or political questions.

Having no objections to the public avowal of either my former opinions or present views upon this interesting subject, I will cheerfully comply with your request.

At the time of the adoption of this system in Mississippi, in 1832, I opposed it as a new and hazardous experiment; not that I doubted the capacity or intelligence of the people, but that I feared that the judiciary would be too much influenced by sudden popular excitement. As a member of the convention that revised the Constitution I used my best influence against it, or, rather, to confine the experiment to the selection of the judges of the inferior courts by a direct vote of the people. The experience and observation of twelve years have, however, convinced me and many others who were opposed to the experiment, that our fears were not well founded; and, so far, our system has not been attended with any of the serious evils which were apprehended. I have looked upon its operation in our state for twelve years with peculiar interest, and, from my former opposition to the measure, without any bias; and candor compels me to say that I now regard it as the best mode of selecting judicial officers.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127-8

James Fenwick Brent to John A. Quitman, March 19, 1845

New Orleans, March 19th, 1845.

Dear Sir, — As the question of an elective judiciary will shortly engage the attention of the Louisiana Convention, now in session in this city, and as it is important that correct information should be obtained relative to the operation of that system in Mississippi, the only state in the Union where the experiment has been fairly tried, I trust that you will pardon the liberty I take in requesting that you will furnish your views, in writing, upon that subject, based upon your experience and observation as a practicing attorney in the courts of that state. The chief objection urged against the system here is, that if the election of judges be intrusted to the people their choice will be generally, if not universally, determined by mere party and political considerations; and I beg leave to call your attention particularly to this point, as connected with the working of that system in Mississippi.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 127

John A. Quitman: To the Electors of Adams County, a few days after July 20, 1832

To the Electors of Adams County.

fellow-citizens, — It is known to you generally that I have been nominated, by a public meeting of citizens of this county, one of the candidates to represent you in the convention. I believed that a long residence among you, together with the public stations I have held, had made my character and political principles so well known to most of you, as to render a public communication of this kind unnecessary! I was anxious that the people should be left to the quiet exercise of their own good sense and judgment in the selection of members of the convention, and had determined to confine my agency to verbal discussions and arguments.

Some recent occurrences, the example of most of the candidates, and misrepresentations of my opinions, have induced me to change my course, and to appear, at this late period, before the public in a circular, for the imperfection of which I must ask all the indulgence to which great haste and limited time may entitle me.

A most important crisis is near at hand. We are about to remodel our organic law. The people of this state are called upon to appoint representatives to alter, revise, and amend their frame of government. This work will require the wisest and most experienced heads, for upon it will depend mainly, not only the character of our state, both political and moral, but the happiness and prosperity of our citizens.

The slightest defect in this work will create discontent, and may produce incalculable misery. Upon its provisions must rest our most sacred rights, the free enjoyment of our lives, our personal security and private property. It is not, therefore, surprising that the objects of the proposed convention should be matters of the deepest interest to every citizen.

The organization of the judiciary, and the mode of appointing judges, are prominent subjects of inquiry. There are those among us who are disposed to try a new experiment in this department. Believing as I do, that this experiment would be dangerous in the extreme, would tend to corruption, and strike a fatal blow at the independence of the judiciary, I will stop and examine it briefly.

Every argument that I have seen or heard, in favor of the election of judges by the people, has been commenced with old and stale maxims, such as, “The people are the source of all political power;” “We should not delegate any power which we can conveniently exercise ourselves.” Maxims which nobody now denies, which are so generally acknowledged that the repetition of them can only be intended to create the impression that others dispute them. A disposition is, also, evinced by some aspiring men to flatter and tickle our ears with praises of our virtue and intelligence. We are represented as the most perfect people on earth — all of us saints and philosophers! Do you suppose our flatterers believe what they assert? If they did, fellow-citizens, they would not dare to utter such fulsome adulations in our ears. When a man flatters us we should take it for granted he has an indifferent opinion of our sense and judgment. We are treated like spoiled children, who must be bribed by sweetmeats to love the giver. I have too good an opinion of those among whom my lot is cast to court your favor by flattery and praise. I will address myself to you as men — full grown — sensible men, who will act from judgment and principle, and will approbate candor though it may appear in a rough dress.

We all agree that we have the right and are capable of electing our judges if we think fit. The question is solely one of policy, whether it will be to our interest that we should choose them by popular suffrage; if not, it would be madness to exercise the right. We have a right to burn down our houses, but surely, before we do so, we will reckon the advantage to be derived from such an act. If we direct any of our public servants to appoint judges, we exercise as much power as if we chose them ourselves. Be not deceived, then, with the idea that a right which you possess is in danger. Allow your reason and your judgment, with the aid of your experience, coolly and calmly to investigate the subject. If you then find that popular elections would not be so likely to place upon the bench upright, talented, and independent judges, do not permit the false idea of a contest for rights to prejudice your interests. A constitution is intended not merely to establish a frame of government, but also principally to define and limit the powers of the several departments, and to protect the private citizen in his reserved rights. It is thus intended for the benefit of the minority, to protect them against the action of the majority; to protect the weak against the strong, the poor and infirm against the rich and powerful. The judicial department is to apply these restraints. Is it not therefore improper, in the very threshold, to place this department strictly and immediately under the influence and control of those who are to be restrained? If the judicial department is to be completely under the influence and control of the mere majority, that majority might as well govern without any restrictions, and a limitation of powers would be absurd. Let it not be said that the majority will never do wrong. I admit that in times of quiet, when men's minds are left to the influence of sober reflection, it is not probable that the many will unjustly oppress the few. I grant farther, that, when this does occur, they will eventually correct their errors. But the history of nations, of our sister states, of our own infant state, shows that, in times of violent excitement, the many have abused their powers, and attempted to oppress and tyrannize over the minority. I refer you to the excitements in Kentucky, which produced the occupying claimant-laws and the relief projects. Look to the intense feeling produced in Georgia by the Yazoo claims, to the agitation which pervaded Alabama on the subject of usurious interest. Majorities were, in all these cases, ready to break down all constitutional restrictions, and invade the sacred rights of their fellow-citizens. A firm, intelligent, and independent judiciary was found to check the mad career of grasping interest and ambition. Suppose, in these cases, that the judicial departments had been placed directly under the influence and control of the interested majority, constitutional restrictions would have been but ropes of sand, and the judges would have lent their aid to trample under foot the lives, liberties, and property of the weak and defenseless. But not so. A well-organized judiciary has always been found the friend of the poor and the ark of safety to the oppressed. We should, then, as we regard our liberties as citizens, sustain and support an independent judiciary. By independent, I do not mean irresponsible. No. I would make them most rigidly amenable to some impartial tribunal for a proper and virtuous discharge of their important duties. I know, too, that the constitutional expression of the will of the majority is, and must be, the rule of action. Constitutional restrictions are not intended to defeat that will, but to restrain it until it can be ascertained to be the result of solemn and mature reflection. Every man of observation must have perceived that all our public officers, however appointed, feel their dependence upon public sentiment. Most men, from a principle of timidity, are actuated more by that feeling than by their own judgment. I am, therefore, inclined to think that there is no necessity for increasing this sense of dependence. A greater portion of it would not make our public servants more honest, but might have a tendency to render them, like the courtiers of a despot, more subservient and sycophantic.

My time admonishes me to pass rapidly over the many strong arguments against popular elections. I will briefly touch upon some, and leave the good sense and experience of my readers to supply what is wanting. We all admit that no human tribunal and no mode of appointment can be perfect. If we could call down from heaven superior intelligences to apply the laws, and to decide controversies between man and man, we might expect perfection. We are compelled to place upon the bench human nature with all its infirmities. It is all-important, then, that we should remove it, as far as practicable, from all influences that can operate upon the weakness to which all men are liable. Partiality is not neces sarily the result of a corrupt heart. It may arise from weakness or timidity. Its possessor may be ignorant of its existence. Impartiality rarely exists where the feelings are excited. Can we, then, expect this quality in a man who has just come from a hot electioneering canvass, in which he has succeeded, after a hard-fought battle, who sees before him, on the one side, friends who have risked every thing for his promotion, and, on the other hand, opponents who have waged a war against his public and private character, propagated calumnies against his reputation, and now sullenly mutter threats of revenge? These friends and opponents have controversies before this judge involving their fortunes or their characters. I leave the answer to every man's breast, whether strict impartiality can be expected from a judge under such circumstances. But, suppose the judge should rise superior to frail human nature and should even decide impartially, will the suitors be satisfied? If the decision be in favor of his friend, will no voice be raised to impugn his motives? I fear that the whispers of suspicion would drive every honest man, jealous of his reputation, from a station of such difficulty and danger.

The advocates of popular elections of judges have reversed the rules of logic, and attempted to place the burden of proof upon us. Firmly convinced of the truth of our cause, we have made no opposition to this course, though unfair in principle. They propose a new experiment. Let them prove its advantages. Have they shown that one benefit would result from it? Have they shown that objections to the present mode may not be remedied without resorting to untried theories?

I appeal to the candor of every man to justify me, when I say that their addresses have been more directed to the feelings and prejudices than to the judgment. We are accused of holding doctrines absurd in the extreme. You have been told that we, who are opposed to popular elections of judges, assert that the people are not to be “trusted” with the election of their judges; that “guardians should be appointed over them; that they are incapable of forming a correct opinion of the qualifications of a judge;' that the community in which we live 'is weak or dishonest enough to vote for a partial judge;” I need scarcely say that such nonsense has never dropped from my lips, nor have I ever heard such arguments from a sensible man. Is it, then, fair — is it candid for our opponents to attempt to prejudice the public mind by such misrepresentations of our opinions? The weakness of a position is always displayed when its friends attempt to warp the judgment by appeals to the passions. We have no objections to fair arguments. Though we honestly believe that our principles are best calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the people, we may be wrong, and our opponents may be right. We are disposed to submit to the discrimination and good sense of our fellow-citizens, without exciting their prejudices or their partialities.

An argument has been used in favor of popular elections, which, I am free to confess, appears plausible, but will not bear the test of close scrutiny. It is this, that as public sentiment will be likely to fix upon the individual best qualified for the station, popular elections will afford the best indications of that public sentiment. I am perfectly aware that some of the arguments which I may make use of may be said to be equally applicable to elections for political stations. This would only show that there is perfection in no system. The action of a judge is private, and not general; his duties are essentially and radically different from those of political officers who act upon the community as a mass. Upon this distinction arc, in fact, founded the principal reasons for appointing them differently from most other officers. I may, therefore, be permitted to apply an argument to this case which might not be justified in the case of other public servants. Besides, the reasoning of our opponents is calculated to mislead, unless we apply the practical test of experience. Admitting that, where there was a unanimity, or even a majority of votes in the selection of a judge, it would be the strongest evidence of public sentiment and of his fitness for the station, I say, without the fear of contradiction, that, in nine cases out of ten, the opinion of the people of the qualifications of a candidate for judge can not be obtained by any mode of popular election which is practicable. If a majority of the whole number of votes be required, we would be for check of the Senate. The governor will seek to comply with the wishes of the people. It is his interest so to do. He is responsible to them for the propriety of the appointment, whereas the voter is responsible to no human power. I have never known an executive appointment of a judge in this state which was not acceptable to the people over whom he was to act. An obnoxious appointment will never be made. The powerful principle of self-interest, and the elevated station of the executive forbid such an idea.

Now, fellow-citizens, one word more upon this subject. We are a new state; most of our citizens are recent immigrants. We have many men of talents, but few who, from their capacity, age, and experience, stand preeminent and distinguished. Let us not be the first, upon slight grounds, to try a rash experiment. There is no state in the Union, no country upon earth, in which the judges are elected by votes of the people. The southern sun, that warms the blood and quickens the pulse, while it produces the most generous emotions of the heart, has the same tendency to excite the fancy and to stimulate the passions, and renders us less fit to make an experiment of this new-fangled political theory. Prudence dictates that we should leave it to be tried by others first. If it should succeed well, we will follow the example. The moment I am persuaded that it is for the good of the country, for the protection and happiness of the private and humble citizen, I too will become one of its warmest advocates and supporters. An anxious desire to preserve the judicial department in its purity, to protect the equal rights of all, has brought my mind to the conclusion that the appointment of judges by the governor, by and with the consent of the Senate, for a limited period of time, is the best and most democratic mode. This is not an experiment; it has been practiced upon and approved by some of the oldest of our sister states, and has given birth to the most distinguished judges. The tenure of office should be such as to avoid too great a sense of dependence on the part of the judge, and at the same time to protect the public from the possible effects of weakness, imbecility, and decay of mind. When nominating a judge for the Supreme Court, the governor represents the whole state. When acting for a district, he is the representative of that district alone. Biennial elections of that officer will insure the most rigid responsibility on his part. To secure the integrity of the judge, having full confidence in the trial by jury, I am quite willing that for corruption in office he should also be liable to presentment, trial, and conviction, before the regular courts of the country.

A misrepresentation of my sentiments upon some subjects appears to require from me a formal contradiction. It has been said, ignorantly or designedly I know not, that I am opposed to universal suffrage, that I favor a representation of property, and that I had declared, in a speech at Washington, that mechanics had no concern with politics. The last is so absurd as scarcely to deserve serious notice. Many of those who heard my remarks at Washington were of that respectable class of citizens, and I know will do me the justice to give this ridiculous report a flat contradiction. I have ever considered entire indifference to the political concerns of the country blamable in any man, whatever his situation and circumstances might be.

The right of universal suffrage is inseparably connected with our republican institutions. Restrictions of this right must eventually end in discontent and revolution. I consider it the sheet-anchor of a free government, and would be the last man to surrender it. Its abandonment would be a virtual recognition of the principle that we can not govern ourselves. Positive political power should be distributed as equally as possible throughout the state. An attempt on our part to obtain an undue advantage, by taking more than we ought to possess, would certainly be visited upon us at some future period. Principles and policy both demand that we should be content with our just proportion. Men should be represented, and not property or territory. I am, therefore, in favor of that basis which will secure equal rights and equal representation throughout the state. While, however, we admit the right of equal representation, it is no less important that we should protect ourselves against partial and unequal taxation. Because we live within twenty miles of the Mississippi River, we should not be required to pay more taxes in proportion to the clear value of our property than our fellow-citizens in other sections of the state. One district of country or one set of men should not be compelled to bear a greater portion of the public burdens than another quite as wealthy. It is, therefore, all important that the rights of the minority should be protected, and that some constitutional provisions should be adopted to prevent partial and unjust taxation. This, in my opinion, may be readily effected by placing some restrictions on the taxing power, or by requiring that all revenue bills should be based upon the ad valorem principle of taxing every citizen according to the value of his property. The tax upon sales of merchandise is, in my opinion, partial and unjust, and the exercise of such a power should be restrained.

The leading principle of my political creed is, that a state should not control its citizens in their opinions, their conduct, their labor, their property, any farther than is necessary to preserve the social tie, to punish offenses against society, and to sustain the powers of government.

I am opposed to all property qualifications whatever for members of either house of the General Assembly. Experience has shown that they are entirely useless.

A recent attempt has been made to affect my public standing by the charge of entertaining obnoxious political principles. I have met these charges publicly, and in the spirit of candor. The result is known to the public. I desire of those who would judge me but a candid investigation. Believing that I have as much confidence in the virtue and intelligence of my fellow-citizens as those who flatter them more, I will cheerfully submit to their verdict.

John A. Quitman.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 116-26

Public Meeting, published July 20, 1832

A meeting of a portion of the citizens of Adams County was held at the court-house in Natchez on the 19th hist., pursuant to public notice in a hand-bill signed "Many Citizens,” calling a meeting of citizens adverse to the election of judges by the people and opposed to nullification, for the purpose of bringing out, if reconciliation should be found impracticable, another candidate for the convention in the place of Chancellor Quitman.

Fountain Winston, Esq., was called to the chair, and R. M. Gaines appointed secretary.

Judge Quitman explained his reason for appearing at the meeting, after having declined to do so in his handbill of the 17th inst., by stating that he had been since requested to attend by many of his known friends. He then addressed the meeting at considerable length on the subject of the respective rights of the general and state governments, after which Dr. Duncan, in a spirit of conciliation, submitted a resolution which, being modified on the motion of John T. McMurran, Esq., was unanimously adopted by the meeting in the following form, to wit:

Resolved, As the sense of this meeting, that we are opposed to the doctrine of nullification, and believe that its propagation would endanger our dearest and best interests; that John A. Quitman having at this meeting made a distinct exposition of his views upon the subject of the relation which the state and federal governments bear to each other, said views do not amount to nullification, according to the usual acceptation of the term, and that said John A. Quitman ought to be supported for the convention on the ticket as originally selected at a general meeting of the citizens of this county, in this place, in May last.

Fountain Winston, Chairman.

R. M. Gaines, Secretary.

SOURCES: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 114; “Public Meeting,” The Natchez Weekly Courier, Natchez Mississippi, Friday, July 20, 1832, p. 2

John A. Quitman to the Citizens of Adams County, Mississippi, July 17, 1832

To the Citizens of Adams County.

I have just learned that there has been industriously circulated a notice, anonymously signed “Many Citizens,” calling a public meeting of the citizens of Adams County adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to nullification, for the purpose “of bringing out, if reconciliation should be found impracticable, another candidate in my place, and desiring me to attend.” Such a desire coming from friends I would cheerfully comply with, but I can not recognize the authors of such a course as “friends” nor can I permit myself to be made the football of political opponents. I have protested, and do again solemnly protest, against making my private political or religious opinions the test of my qualification for the convention. The former have been brought before the public without my consent or agency. They are now branded by terms odious and unmeaning to the public ear, and party excitement is brought to bear upon me. To the calm and deliberate expression of the public will I will most cheerfully submit. I can not, in justice to my friends, accept the invitation of those whom I must consider political opponents, and the time is too short to give this notice full circulation before the contemplated meeting. I therefore respectfully request that those of my fellow-citizens who feel interested in this matter will assemble at the court-house in Natchez on Friday next, at 11 o'clock, when I will candidly express my views of the relation which the states and general government bear to each other, and endeavor to show that the doctrines which I entertain were not “invented by Mr. Calhoun and first propagated by Mr. Hayne,” but were propagated by Mr. Jefferson in 1798, and have ever since been the true test of Republican and ultra Federal doctrines, and continue to be the grand landmarks of distinction between the advocates of a constitutional government and the arbitrary despotism of an oligarchy.

John A. Quitman.

Monmouth, July 17th, 1832.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 113-4

“Public Meeting” Handbill, before July 10, 1832

Public Meeting.

The citizens of Adams County, adverse to the election of judges by the people, and opposed to Nullification, are requested to meet at the court-house, in the city of Natchez, on Thursday next, the 10th instant, at 11 o'clock.

The necessity for calling this meeting is deeply regretted; not the more so, that it has occurred at a period so close upon the election, than as affecting the political standing of a gentleman who has been placed before the people of Adams, by the spontaneous act of a large portion of its citizens, as a candidate for one of their highest gifts. It is believed by a large body of those of Judge Quitman's friends who sustained his nomination, and who intended by their votes to have contributed to his election, that he is a Nullifier in principle! That his opinions, frequently of late expressed upon the subject of nullification, are the same as Mr. Calhoun's and Mr. Hayne's; the ono its author, the other its first public propagator. Judge Quitman's friends in this county believe that nullification is unsound in theory, and contrary to the Constitution; that its tendency is anarchy, and that the effect of its practical application to any given case is disunion! They look to the indications in South Carolina, and despair of its permanency, while she asserts her right and intention to nullify a law of the United States. They look to the threats of her governor that, before the year is out, her citizens will be in arms; to the declarations of a portion of her delegation in Congress, who wish to go home and prepare for war. They are also well aware of the disposition of the leaders of the party to form a great Southern league to crusade against the Union. Under these circumstances, and at such a crisis, a large portion of Judge Quitman's friends can not sustain him, without sustaining nullification, and putting at issue in this state the question of union or disunion.

It is therefore thought proper that this meeting be called, with the view of endeavoring to produce such reconciliation as will prevent any serious division in the ranks of those opposed to the election of judges by the people, or, if that is found to be impracticable, to bring out another candidate in place of Judge Quitman. It is expected and desired that Judge Quitman will attend; and, if his opinions have been misrepresented, that his friends may be undeceived and again united.

many Citizens.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 112-3

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, August 6, 1831

Continued from: John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, July 31, 1831

Aug. 6th.  Since writing the above I have been in motion about the country, and will now gallop over a few of the many political observations collected during my long journey from Natchez, reserving particulars until my return. A very fierce struggle is going on in Kentucky. In no part of the Union have I seen so much excitement. In Virginia, which I traversed from west to east, there is evidently an important change working in sectional politics. They are growing lukewarm in support of the (Jackson's) administration, and I have no doubt the dissensions in the cabinet, and the developments that have been made, will ferment the leaven now generally diffused. My opinion is that Virginia is in favor of Calhoun, and, if so, Jackson can only be supported upon the principle of being the least of two evils. At Charlottesville I had the pleasure of an hour's interview with our senator, Mr. Poindexter. I found his political opinions so nearly my own, you may conceive I enjoyed a great treat in his conversation. He is more pungent and tart than ever, and his tone is something like a sneer. He is awfully severe on Jackson and his advisers, and no less bitter against some of our folks at home. Ho tells me he has written you at length upon the politics of the day. I found him walking among the people in the court-yard, without assistance and without crutches. He is a man of extraordinary intellectual powers. You knew him from your childhood, and I do not now wonder at your risking your popularity to support him. He has fascinated me. How is it that his private character is so bad? Why do we hear so much said against him in Adams County? His intemperance, his gambling, his libertinism, and his dishonesty. He gives no indications of these defects, and he is here, where he once resided, taken by the hand by the first people and followed by the crowd. By the way, have you ever met with the pamphlet published by Dr. Brown against Poindexter? I met with it in Kentucky. It charges him with base cowardice in several personal difficulties in Mississippi and at the battle of New Orleans. Can so bold a politician be deficient in personal courage? Can a public speaker who so fiercely arraigns so many influential citizens be himself a knave? The testimony in this pamphlet is very strong. The witnesses are Dr. Brown, Colonel Percy, Dr. Hogg, Dr. Stephen Duncan, Elisha Smith, and others whom we well know. I send the pamphlet to you.¹ Mr. P. is quite decided in his opposition to the administration, and thinks our congressional delegation will act with him. Will his opposition to General Jackson affect your relations to him? He is for Calhoun.

Here in New York I can plainly perceive among the Jackson party an alienation of feeling. The Democratic anti-tariff men, the free-trade and state-rights men, who were all under the banner of Jackson, begin to feel uneasy, but, as yet, have not determined on their course. The anti-masons, the no-Sunday-mail party, the manufacturers, the working interest, and the latitudinarians and so-called philanthropists all incline to Clay. The free-trade and state-rights portion of the Jackson party may well open their eyes when leading papers like the New York Courier and Enquirer are evidently shifting over to the tariff side, to prepare the way for Mr. Van Buren. I lately dined with a large party of intelligent men, who all along had supported the administration. Being asked about the impression which the late cabinet explosion had made in Mississippi, I ventured the opinion that a great majority of our politicians were disposed to side with Mr. Calhoun. One of them replied, “We have the same feeling. The President is abandoning the principles which raised him to office.”

For my part, I hope Mr. Calhoun, or some decided anti-tariff man, will become a candidate. We must know the opinion of presidential candidates on this tariff question. An idea has frequently occurred to me of proposing to the Southern Republicans to run an independent or unpledged ticket for electors. How would this do? I wish you would reflect upon it, and give me your advice. In the mean time mention it to no one. If Mr. Van Buren is a decided tariff and internal-improvement man, I have no notion of smoothing his road to the presidency by a compromising course of policy.

Among the masses in the Northern States, every other feeling is now swallowed up by a religious enthusiasm which is pervading the country. Wherever I have traveled in the free states, I have found preachers holding three, four, six, and eight days' meeting, provoking revivals, and begging contributions for the Indians, the negroes, the Sunday-schools, foreign missions, home missions, the Colonization Society, temperance societies, societies for the education of pious young men, distressed sisters, superannuated ministers, reclaimed penitents, church edifices, church debts, religious libraries, etc., etc.: clamorously exacting the last penny from the poor enthusiast, demanding the widow's mite, the orphan's pittance, and denouncing the vengeance of Heaven on those who feel unable to give, or who question the propriety of these contributions, whether wholesale or specific. They are not only extortionate, but absolutely insulting in their demands; and my observations lead me to believe that there is a vast deal of robbery and roguery under this stupendous organization of religious societies. That there is misapplication of funds, and extravagance, and a purse-proud and arrogant priesthood supported by these eleemosynary appeals, there can be no doubt. When in the city of New York, I lodged at the Clinton Hotel. From my window I saw several splendid edifices, which could not be valued at less than $100,000, belonging to the American Tract and other societies! Thus is the industry of remote parts of the Union taxed to build palaces in the Northern cities, and to support herds of lazy cattle. Here are clerks by the hundred, salaried liberally out of contributions wrung from pious and frugal persons in the South; and these officials, like the majority of their theologians and divines, are inimical to our institutions, and use our own money to defame and damage us! Respect for the proposed object of these societies, and the fear of their power, have deterred even the bold from exposing their abuses. But such thraldom must not be submitted to.² I am heartily tired of the North, and, except parting from my relations, shall feel happy when I set my face homeward.

Your elections are now over. I look forward to hear that you and Bingaman are elected representatives, and Gridley sheriff. Write me again at Lexington, Ky. Your description of Plummer's visit to Natchez, and of the intrigues it occasioned, amused me much. I know he has the ready talent and tact to carry him through, if he has prudence. What is the editor of the “Clarion” about, in his severe strictures on Ingham, and Branch, and Berrien, who very properly retired in disgust from Jackson's cabinet?

_______________

¹ All this will be explained in a biography of the Hon. George Poindexter, based on his own correspondence and manuscripts, which I am now writing. — J. F. H. C.

² I find these opinions, uttered near thirty years ago, singularly confirmed by the Rev. Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, in a speech delivered by him in the General Assembly of the Old School Presbyterian Church, May, 1860. The subject was the policy of the Church in regard to mission and other boards. The quotation is from the Cincinnati Commercial:

"Dr. Thornwell, of South Carolina, who addressed the Assembly at Nashville, in 1855, on the same subject, most certainly made an able effort to convince the Assembly that the Church has no power to delegate authority committed to her by her Master; that she should do her own work, and not appoint boards or other organizations to do it. He argued, too, that it is a sin and a shame to have boards where the membership is complimentary, and the privilege of consulting in which can be purchased with money. The principle is money. The seed of the serpent may be harmless, but the seed contains the poison. We need unity, simplicity, and completeness of action; and he closed by rejoicing that, when the millennium comes, we will not find it necessary to change our principles. But I can not say, as the brethren have, ‘We have done well enough.’ Look at 800,000,000 of heathen without the Gospel! Look at the resources, the riches of our Church, and dare we say we have done well enough? I believe these boards have stood in the way of free action of the Church.

“He referred, likewise, to Dr. B. M. Smith's history of those boards, as full of startling disclosures."

In the New Orleans Christian Advocate of May 30th, 1860, edited by Rev. C. C. Gillespie, one of the strongest writers in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, I find an able article, prompted by the anniversary meetings of the societies referred to in Quitman's letter. The article, which furnishes thoughts enough for a book, and a very interesting book, thus concludes:

"We confess we are sick of societies. We may be wrong; if so, we hope for pardon and more light. There is a cold, heartless, mechanical utilitarianism about this exclusive associational way of doing good that crushes out all individuality of reason, affection, and progress. Societies grow fat and strong, and individual Christian character remains stationary, or, rather, assumes dwarfish proportions. It is a sort of concentration of all the surplus energy of the artificial, cantish Yankeeism there is in American character. It is true, there must be associated effort. We do not deny that. But it should be harmonious with those individual aptitudes and social relations and sympathies which God has ordained. Such association we find in the Church. God made our individual constitutions, He established our social relations and sympathies, and He ordained the Church. They are all harmonious. It may be said that, condemning High Churchism, we are High Churchmen ourselves. In the sense of giving the Church the place, and the importance, and the allegiance intended by its Divine Founder, and set forth in the Scriptures, we are High Churchmen. We have almost as little sympathy with Low Churchmen, of any school, as for societarians. They both undervalue the Church in theory, or are unfaithful to their own Church ideal. High Churchism, in the sense of giving the Church a character and power not taught in the Scriptures, is the other extreme. Societarianism and Low Churchism lead to indifferentism and infidelity. Devotion to the Church of Christ, as set forth in the Bible, as ‘the purchase of Christ's blood’ — as ‘the body of Christ,’ as ‘the pillar and ground of the truth,’ as the ‘kingdom’ of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail — is simple Christianity, as far as it goes.”

These are striking illustrations of the forecast and sagacity of Quitman. He saw, thirty years ago, what no one else saw at that day, but what is now viewed as a serious social and religious evil.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 106-11

John A. Quitman to John F. H. Claiborne, July 31, 1831

Rhinebeck, July 31st, 1831.

dear Claiborne, — On my return yesterday from a fortnight's tour through the New England States, I had the pleasure to receive your favor. It was a great treat. You must either know my taste in familiar correspondence, or, from some parity of disposition, you have served up a series of dishes that suit my palate. I have but one objection to your letter, that is, to “burn it.” I will execute your injunction with regret. When you understand my method and care in filing letters received in an off-hand, friendly correspondence, you will be under no apprehension that even an accident will ever expose your sensibility or your criticisms to the curiosity or remarks of others. I have the same delicacy myself. There are flowers that bloom in the shade of personal confidence that the storms of vulgar life would convert into worthless weeds.

You fancy that the short respite I am now enjoying from the vexatious cares of my office will destroy my taste for active pursuits. Not so. In 1826 I determined to devote the vigor and strength of my life to honorable and useful ambition. Sweet as the repose and retirement of philosophy may be — and a charming picture you have drawn of it — I will not shrink from the labor and the struggle which that determination will cost. To raise the standard of independence, and boldly fling it in the face of any party; sink or swim, to stand by the best interests of our country; to bravo the shock of public opinion when required, shall be to me a pleasure. In pursuing such a course, how happy I shall be to find myself side by side with the virtuous, intelligent, and generous young men of our state. A phalanx of bold, independent, and honest men may be, for a long time, in the minority, but even then their influence upon public affairs will be felt and respected, and an intelligent and high-toned people will, sooner or later, appreciate their merits.

SOURCE: John F. H. Quitman, Life and Correspondence of John A. Quitman, Volume 1, p. 105-6