No Union With Slaveholders!

KISSING THE CHAIN!

Shall Massachusetts stand erect no longer,

But stoop in chains upon her downward way,

Thicker to gather on her limbs, and stronger,

Day after day?’

In our last number, we gave a brief account of the ridiculous, spasmodic and inconsistent action of the House of Representatives of this State on the presentation of petitions, asking for a Convention of the People to devise measures for a peaceable secession of Massachusetts from the Union, for the intolerable grievances there in set forth; first, how those petitions were precipitately laid on the table by an overwhelming majority, and thus denied the courtesy of a reference; and how, the Whigs taking the alarm on seeing Mr. BOUTWELL (the ostensible leader of the Democratic party in the House) rise on his seat to object to such a course of action as a virtual denial of the right of petition, that vote was almost instantaneously reconsidered, and the petitions were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. What has since transpired, up to the time our paper goes to press, we proceed to inform our readers.

On Friday last, the Committee with hot haste (forty-eight hours after receiving the petitions) reported that the petitioners have leave to withdraw. Thus no time was afforded for the presentation of a large number of similar petitions still circulating for signatures, and no opportunity was given the petitioners to be heard in behalf of the object prayed for. Hitherto, for several years past, petitions of this nature have been regularly sent to the Legislature, and in every instance received without hesitancy, duly referred, deliberately considered, and repeatedly supported by counsel before the Committee, even the hall of the House of Representatives being granted on several occasions for a hearing. By the rules of the House, the report of the present Committee was laid over for that day; but, as if anxious to make a special display of ‘patriotism,’ and to exonerate the Free Soil movement from every suspicion of ‘fanaticism,’ Mr. Wilson, of Natick, the proprietor of the Boston Republican, moved that the rules be suspended, and that the vote on the report of the Committee be taken by yeas and nays, that no time be lost to signify to the country and the world where Massachusetts stands in regard to this ‘glorious Union’!! The motion prevailed, and the report was accepted—Yeas, ALL except 1—Mr. TOLMAN, (Free Soiler,) of Worcester. In common with a multitude of others, we are astonished and indignant at the conduct of Mr. WILSON in this matter—of one who has displayed, on so many occasions in the House, both as a Whig and as a Free Soiler, a manly front on the subject of slavery, and at all times received at the hands of the abolitionists his full share of the credit. What his motive was for thus precipitating action, we leave him to explain. If it was with any hope of personal or party advantage, he will assuredly find that he has ‘reckoned without his host.’ If, in his conscience, he really believes that an active and willing support of the Union involves nothing of criminality—if he believes that the Union is promotive of liberty and equality, instead of chains and slavery—why then we could not reasonably expect that he would sanction a movement for its dissolution. Nevertheless, it is none the less extraordinary—especially in view of all he has said and done respecting the aggressions of the Slave Power—that he should be eager to outstrip both Whig and Democrat in his zeal to do an act which he knew would give special pleasure to the Southern brokers in the trade of blood, and gain nothing for Massachusetts but there fresh contempt for her disgusting servility.

One man—only one man of the two hundred and fifty who voted—was found willing or able to stand erect in the HOUSE on a question of justice, to say nothing of liberty; and while a single member retains his manhood, we will not despair of the old Bay State! Mr. TOLMAN, by his solitary vote, had displayed an independence as rare as it is commendable, and a fearlessness of consequences which indicates the man of integrity immeasurably above the party politician. Let the time-serving sneer at him, and the vile and malignant abuse him; it shall only place in stronger contrast his worth and their baseness. Of course, we are not commending him as a disunionist—for he is not, otherwise he would not be found in the Legislature; but only for his sense of justice, and of what constitutes fair treatment. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, he objected to its hasty report as equally unwise and unnecessary,—the subject presented for their consideration being one of the gravest character and greatest solemnity, justifying a patient hearing in its elucidation. He dissented not from the conclusion of the report, that the petitioners have to withdraw their petitions, but only from the haste with which intentionally made, so to give no opportunity to their signers to vindicate their course. This is all he meant to imply in giving his negative in the House; and for this he deserves the approbation of all decent, fair-minded, honorable men. He is no trading politician, but a working-man, a mechanic, of great integrity of character and lively conscientiousness, and must respected by those who know him. As a proof of his moral firmness, it deserves to be stated to his credit, in this connection, that he refused some profitable offers to furnish government wagons to be used in the Mexican war, regarding that war as he did as most wicked and inexcusable. It is so rare a thing for conscience to be stronger than the love of gain, that every instance like this is an oasis in the desert. It is evident that Mr. Tolman is not a man to be sneered or frowned down. In the House, he stood actually in the majority, for he was in the right and the right is with God, who is more than multitudinous.

Mr. BOUTWELL, in contending for a reference of the petitions, as due to a just regard for the right of petition, pursued a course for which we intended to accord him our thanks and all due credit; but his subsequent behavior has vitiated an otherwise meritorious act. On Tuesday, as one of the committee, we requested him to present to the House sundry petitions from Boston and other places, numerously and respectably signed, on the subject of disunion, similar to those already presented; and also a remonstrance signed by FRANCIS JACKSON and others against the precipitate action of the Committee and the House on the petitions, and asking for a hearing as a matter of Justice. Much to our surprise, but more to his own discredit, Mr. BOUTWELL positively declined complying with the request! On the question of the Union he was eminently patriotic—very conscientious; he could never think, for one moment, of presenting such petitions. ‘But is it a matter of conscience, or a rule of action with you,’ we asked, ‘never to present a petition, except you can give it your sanction?’ He could not say it was. ‘Why, then, the present refusal? Do you believe there is any one, either in this Commonwealth or out of it, who would suppose that you were in favor of a dissolution of the Union merely from the fact of your presenting these petitions?’ He did not suppose there was. ‘you can make as many disclaimers as you may think proper; to these we do not object; these we are prepared to expect; but we still desire these petitions and this remonstrance to be laid before the House.’ He should prefer that some other person would present them. ‘But the same excuse that you make might be made by every other member; and where then would be the right of petition? If a memorial relating to the liberty of the people of Massachusetts, and to the millions in this country who are groaning in bondage, couched in respectful and solemn phraseology, is to be denied a presentation, so may all others of an inferior nature if the petitions are in error as to the form or substance of their request, is it not obviously the true way to allay popular agitation for the Legislature to show wherein they err?’ He had no doubt that the dissolution of the Union would be the abolition of slavery; but he went for the Union as the lesser of two evils! Humane man—upright moralist—profound logician! To cease ‘striking hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers’—to refuse any longer to join in the enslavement of three millions of the people of this country—would certainly give liberty to the oppressed, and put an end to all the woes and horrors of the slave system, but it would be injurious to ourselves!! How disinterested the action, how exact the calculation! See what folly it is to obey God by remembering them that are in bonds as bound with them, and loving our neighbors as ourselves! See how safe, profitable and. expedient it is to commit sin, perpetrate robbery, and exercise tyranny, on a gigantic sale! ‘The end sanctifies the means—I am for doing evil that good may come’—is the moral philosophy of this leader of the Democratic party.

Mr. BOUTWELL may reconcile—if he can—the consistency of his acts in refusing to present a disunion petition to the House; and then, after its presentation by other hands, protesting against its being summarily laid upon the table as a virtual denial of the right of petition, and advocating its reference to the Judiciary Committee. We are unable to reconcile discrepancies so glaring.

We admonished him—as we would admonish all politicians—that this great and solemn question is not to be dodged, crowded down, or shuffled out of sight, with impunity—that those who are pressing it are not lacking in intelligence or spirit, neither are they to be discouraged by defeat or intimidated by censure—that it is the religious element, it its purest and most disinterested manifestation, by which they are impelled—a dread of sin, a hatred of tyranny, a sacred love of liberty, and a sentiment of obedience to God, overriding all party ties and all constitutional requirements—and therefore not to be trifled with.

On Wednesday forenoon, Mr. TOLMAN presented the remonstrance of Francis Jackson and others, against the action of the House on Friday last, as follows:

To the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

The undersigned, petitioners ‘for a Convention of the People of this Commonwealth to devise measures for a peaceful Secession of Massachusetts from the Union,’ respectfully ask for a reconsideration of the vote of the House, on Friday last, by which those petitioners had leave to withdraw their petition—basing their request and their remonstrance against the action of the house on the following grounds:—

1. That the petitioners had no opportunity to be heard before your Committee in support of the object prayed for; the action both of the Committee and the House manifesting, in the judgment of the undersigned, precipitancy, and being without any good precedent.

2. That if a patient hearing is cheerfully conceded to petitions touching matters of the smallest pecuniary interest, much more does the same, of right, belong to questions involving the welfare, honor and liberty of millions.

3. That while your petitioners are subjected, by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore of this Commonwealth, to heavy fines for obeying the law of God, and refusing to deliver up the fugitive slave, or giving him aid and protection, they feel that they have a right to be heard in asking to be relieved from such immoral obligations.

4. That while citizens of this Commonwealth, on visiting Southern States, are seized, thrust into privation, condemned to work with felons in the chain-gain, and frequently sold on the auction block as slaves;—and while the governments both of the United States and of the Southern States have refused, or made it penal, to attempt a remedy—and while this Commonwealth has given up all effort to vindicate the rights of its citizens as hopeless and impracticable, under the present Union—it is manifestly the duty of the Commonwealth, as a Sovereign State, to devise some other measure for the redress and prevention of so grievous a wrong, which your petitioners are profoundly convinced can be reached only by a secession from the present union.

5. That while the matter touched on in said petitions has attracted so much attention, and awakened so deep an interest in all parts of the country, it is clearly the duty of the legislature, in the opinion of the undersigned, either to hear the reasons on which the petitioners found their request, or, at least, to make a plain statement of the petitioners’ mistake as to the form or substance of the remedy prayed for.

6. That on a subject so momentous, the precipitate rejection of a petition, without reason given therefore, or opportunity offered to the petitioners to support their request, is a virtual denial of the right of petition.

FRANCIS JACKSON,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON,

EDMUND QUINCY,

WENDELL PHILLIPS,

WM. I. BOWDITCH,

JOHN ROGERS,

EDMUND JACKSON,

CHARLES F. HOVEY,

CHARLES K. WHIPPLE,

SAMUEL MAY, JR.,

JOHN M. SPEAR,

ROBERT F. WOLLCUT,

BOURNE SPOONER.

Mr. Tolman made a few sensible remarks, defining his own position, and expressing his conviction that the petitioners had not been fairly treated. He therefore moved that the remonstrance he referred to the Committee of the Judiciary.

Mr. Codman, of Boston, moved that the remonstrants have leave to withdraw their remonstrance; and on this the yeas and nays were ordered—41 to 125.

Mr. Earle, of Worcester, moved to refer the remonstrance to the Special committee on Slavery, and supported his motion in some earnest and forcible remarks. A long debate ensued—Messrs. Earle and Tolman, Griswold of Greenfield, Branning of Tyringham, and Wilson of Natick, supporting the commitment, and Messrs. Codman, Schouler and Kimball of Boston, Hoar of Concord, and Smith of Enfield, (the last named an orthodox deacon, in appearance ‘a sleek oily man of God,’) opposing it.

Mr. Williams, of Taunton, demanded the previous question, which was ordered, thus cutting off the motion to commit.

The yeas and nays were then taken on Mr. Codman’s motion to give the remonstrants leave to withdraw, and the motion was carried—yeas 192, nays 63—Mr. Boutwell, of Groton, voting in the affirmative.

It is due to Mr. Wilson of Natick, to say that his course on this occasion was manly, explicit and commendable. In explanation of his vote on Friday, he said he was not aware that the petitioners desired a hearing: if he had been, he would not have voted that they should have leave to withdraw their petitions until they had been fully and fairly heard. We accept the explanation, and so would mitigate the severity of our censure; at the same time wondering that he should have supposed that he should have been the first to hasten the action of the House on this subject. Well, this is our defence—

‘Though we break our fathers’ promise, we have nobler duties first:

The traitor to Humanity is the traitor most accurst!

Man is more than Constitutions—better rot beneath the sod,

Than be true to Church and state while we are doubly false to God!’

SOURCE: “No Union With Slaveholders!” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, February 22, 1850, p. 2, cols. 5-6

No Union With Slaveholders!

In the House of Representatives of this State, on Monday last, petitions numerously signed by legal as well as non-voters, were presented from Abington and Leominster, for the peaceable secession of Massachusetts from the Union.

It is time for the return and presentation of other petitions that are in circulation in various parts of the Commonwealth, to the same intent—Those to whom this matter has been specially entrusted are earnestly enjoined to be prompt and active. It is desirable to procure the names of as many of the women of Massachusetts as possible, as well as of the legal voters. This struggle for the freedom and independence, like that of ’76, must enlist all classes and both sexes in its support. We have had enough of Southern domination and misrule, and too long been in religious and political partnership with the deadliest foes of human liberty. Let us rend the chains that bind our limbs, and it will be impossible to keep the Southern slaves long in captivity. The present Union is an imposture, a shame, a lie, an insupportable despotism. Away with it, and on its ruins let us erect a glorious temple of freedom.

Send in the petitions!

SOURCE: “No Union With Slaveholders!” The Liberator, Boston, Massachusetts, Friday, February 12, 1847, p. 2, col. 5.

John C. Calhoun: Speech on the Reception of Abolition Petitions, delivered in the Senate, February 6, 1837

If the time of the Senate permitted, I would feel it to be my duty to call for the reading of the mass of petitions on the table, in order that we might know what language they hold towards the slaveholding States and their institutions; but as it will not, I have selected, indiscriminately from the pile, two; one from those in manuscript, and the other from the printed, and without knowing their contents will call for the reading of them, so that we may judge, by them, of the character of the whole.

[Here the Secretary, on the call of Mr. Calhoun, read the two petitions.]

Such is the language held towards us and ours. The peculiar institution of the South—that, on the maintenance of which the very existence of the slaveholding States depends, is pronounced to be sinful and odious, in the sight of God and man; and this with a systematic design of rendering us hateful in the eyes of the world—with a view to a general crusade against us and our institutions. This, too, in the legislative halls of the Union; created by these confederated States, for the better protection of their peace, their safety, and their respective institutions;—and yet, we, the representatives of twelve of these sovereign States against whom this deadly war is waged, are expected to sit here in silence, hearing ourselves and our constituents day after day denounced, without uttering a word; for if we but open our lips, the charge of agitation is resounded on all sides, and we are held up as seeking to aggravate the evil which we resist. Every reflecting mind must see in all this a state of things deeply and dangerously diseased.

I do not belong to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the

opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular, I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession—compromise would follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determination of maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next demand will be that they be referred to a committee in order that they may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session we were modestly asked to receive them, simply to lay them on the table, without any view to ulterior action. I then told the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), who so strongly urged that course in the Senate, that it was a position that could not be maintained; as the argument in favor of acting on the petitions if we were bound to receive, could not be resisted. I then said, that the next step would be to refer the petition to a committee, and I already see indications that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed by another, and we will thus proceed, step by step, to the final consummation of the object of these petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of arresting the progress of abolition is, to reason it down; and with this view it is urged that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee. That is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other House, but instead of arresting its progress it has since advanced more rapidly than ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in the present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress—they have no right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of deliberation or discussion.

In opposition to this view it is urged that Congress is bound by the constitution to receive petitions in every case and on every subject, whether within its constitutional competency or not. I hold the doctrine to be absurd, and do solemnly believe, that it would be as easy to prove that it has the right to abolish slavery, as that it is bound to receive petitions for that purpose. The very existence of the rule that requires a question to be put on the reception of petitions, is conclusive to show that there is no such obligation. It has been a standing rule from the commencement of the Government, and clearly shows the sense of those who formed the constitution on this point. The question on the reception would be absurd, if, as is contended, we are bound to receive ; but I do not intend to argue the question; I discussed it fully at the last session, and the arguments then advanced neither have been nor can be answered.

As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work upwards till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new impression with me. Several years since, in a discussion with one of the Senators from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the Force Bill,—that this Government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own powers, and enforce its decision at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly maintained by that Senator, would at no distant day arouse the dormant spirit of abolitionism. I told him that the doctrine was tantamount to the assumption of unlimited power on the part of the Government, and that such would be the impression on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance,—and that this doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence as it has with this fanatical portion of society, and that they would begin their operations on the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the thoughtless,—and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to obtain political control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all this is already in a course of regular fulfilment.

Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will not be more difficult to trace the course of future events now than it was then. They who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the North, will die away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate conception of its real character; it will continue to rise and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its progress be adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable extent, of the press; those great instruments by which the mind of the rising generation will be formed.

However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. Ву the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great sections, if the present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot co-exist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it—and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races.

Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them, that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: — far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. It came among us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and in the course of a few generations it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions, reviled as they have been, to its present comparatively civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of the race, in spite of all the exaggerated tales to the contrary.

In the mean time, the white or European race has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our nature. I ask whether we have not contributed our full share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustaining this political fabric; and whether we have not constantly inclined most strongly to the side of liberty, and been the first to see and first to resist the encroachments of power.

In one thing only are we inferior—the arts of gain; we acknowledge that we are less wealthy than the Northern section of this Union, but I trace this mainly to the fiscal action of this Government, which has extracted much from, and spent little among us. Had it been the reverse,—if the exaction had been from the other section, and the expenditure with us, this point of superiority would not be against us now, it was not at the formation of this Government.

But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper occasion, but if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the nonproducing classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the more civilized portions of Europe—look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poor house. But I will not dwell on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North. The advantages of the former, in this respect, will become more and more manifest if left undisturbed by interference from without, as the country advances in wealth and numbers. We have, in fact, but just entered that condition of society where the strength and durability of our political institutions are to be tested; and I venture nothing in predicting that the experience of the next generation will fully test how vastly more favorable our condition of society is to that of other sections for free and stable institutions, provided we are not disturbed by the interference of others, or shall have sufficient intelligence and spirit to resist promptly and successfully such interference. It rests with ourselves to meet and repel them. I look not for aid to this Government, or to the other States; not but there are kind feelings towards us on the part of the great body of the non-slaveholding States; but as kind as their feelings may be, we may rest assured that no political party in those States will risk their ascendency for our safety. If we do not defend ourselves none will defend us; if we yield we will be more and more pressed as we recede; and if we submit we will be trampled under foot. Be assured that emancipation itself would not satisfy these fanatics:—that gained, the next step would be to raise the negroes to a social and political equality with the whites; and that being effected, we would soon find the present condition of the two races reversed. They and their northern allies would be the masters, and we the slaves; the condition of the white race in the British West India Islands, bad as it is, would be happiness to ours. There the mother country is interested in sustaining the supremacy of the European race. It is true that the authority of the former master is destroyed, but the African will there still be a slave, not to individuals but to the community, forced to labor, not by the authority of the overseer, but by the bayonet of the soldiery and the rod of the civil magistrate.

Surrounded as the slaveholding States are with such imminent perils, I rejoice to think that our means of defence are ample, if we shall prove to have the intelligence and spirit to see and apply them before it is too late. All we want is concert, to lay aside all party differences, and unite with zeal and energy in repelling approaching dangers. Let there be concert of action, and we shall find ample means of security without resorting to secession or disunion. I speak with full knowledge and a thorough examination of the subject, and for one, see my way clearly. One thing alarms me—the eager pursuit of gain which overspreads the land, and which absorbs every faculty of the mind and every feeling of the heart. Of all passions avarice is the most blind and compromising—the last to see and the first to yield to danger. I dare not hope that any thing I can say will arouse the South to a due sense of danger; I fear it is beyond the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal security into which it has fallen.

SOURCE: Richard Crallé, Editor, The Works of John C. Calhoun: Volume 2: Speeches delivered in the House of Representatives, and the Senate of the United States, p. 625-33