Charles Sumner to Richard Cobden, July 9, 1850

The slaveholders are bent on securing the new territories for slavery, and they see in prospective an immense slave nation embracing the Gulf of Mexico and all its islands, and stretching from Maryland to Panama. For this they are now struggling, determined while in the Union to govern and direct its energies; or if obliged to quit, to build up a new nation slaveholding throughout. They are fighting with desperation, and have been aided by traitors at the North. Webster's apostasy is the most barefaced. Not only the cause of true antislavery is connected with the overthrow of the slave propaganda, but also that of peace. As soon as it is distinctly established that there shall be no more slave territory, there will be little danger of war. My own earnest aim is to see slavery abolished everywhere within the sphere of the national government,—which is in the District of Columbia, on the high seas, and in the domestic slave-trade; and beyond this, to have this government for freedom, so far as it can exert an influence, and not for slavery. When this is accomplished, then slavery will be taken out of the vortex of national politics; and the influences of education and improved civilization, and of Christianity, will be left free to act against it in the States where it exists.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 216-7

Senator Lewis Cass to Senator Daniel S. Dickinson, May 1, 1850

WASHINGTON, May 1, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR—While Foote is laboring at the administration for the Lady Franklin expedition, I drop you this hasty note. We have this day had the third meeting of our committee, the second since you left us. We stand thus:—We have determined on the admission of California without change or limitation. We have determined on the establishment of territorial government without the Wilmot proviso. On the extinction of the Texas title, beginning just north of the Passo, and running thence in a course north of east to the southwestern corner of the old Indian tract, fixed by the Spanish treaty. We leave the question of price till we all meet again. King will bring in a bill for the suppression of the slave-trade in this district. We shall arrange the fugitive-slave bill to give general satisfaction, North and South.

Absentees: yourself, Berrian, Webster, and Mason. All the others present.

There is reason to fear that Mason and some four or five of the extreme Southern members will oppose, to the last, the admission of California. Should that be so, the result is doubtful. But if they go for it, all will be safe. This is about all I can tell you. I trust you will be here soon. We want you. I presume our report will be ready on Monday. I hope you have found your family all well. 

Ever your friend,

LEW. CASS.

Gov. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 430-1

Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, January 8, 1861

South Carolina, it appears, adopted her Ordinance of Secession on the 19th of December, unanimously. It has been hailed with exultation in most of the Southern States. Mr. Mason rather intimates that the movement is designed to compel adequate concessions from the North, or to form a basis upon which the confederacy may be reconstructed.

The first article of Blackwood's Magazine for this month, "The Political Year," is one of much ability. Its purpose is to depreciate the present government by special attacks on Mr. Gladstone and Lord John Russell. In the concluding paragraph I find the following: “The last news from America announces that, Lord John Russell having complained of the inactivity of the American cruisers in the suppression of the slave-trade, Mr. Dallas informed his Lordship, in October last, that 'the British Foreign Office had better mind its own business.' He wound up by stating that 'the government at Washington did not require to be continually lectured as to its duty by our Foreign Secretary.' Can anything be more absurd? We have a Foreign Secretary who writes letters and gives good advice to all the world, and who, at one time, cannot get his effusions answered, at another time gets snubbed for them, yet again finds them quoted as authorizing rebellion, and always finds himself doing more harm than good." It is true, that, on the 24th of November, I read, as instructed, a despatch from General Cass, dated the 27th of October, to Lord John Russell. His Lordship did not like it; said that all Christendom had condemned the slave-trade, and he had a right to speak against it. I merely remarked that perhaps the serenity of the State Department at Washington would not be disturbed by one or two exhortations, but that his Lordship must be aware that too frequent recurrences in diplomatic correspondence to the obligations of humanity imply a neglect of them by those addressed, and cannot but be unacceptable. When I reported this matter to the Secretary of State, I added: “English statesmen generally have a complacent and irrepressible sense of superior morality, and are apt, without really meaning incivility, to be prodigal of their inculcations upon others." Here is the basis of Blackwood's remarks.

SOURCE: George Mifflin Dallas, Diary of George Mifflin Dallas, While United States Minister to Russia 1837 to 1839, and to England 1856 to 1861, Volume 3, p. 427-8

Speech of George Mason, August 22, 1787

The infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to stop it. The integrity and welfare of the whole Union is concerned in the matter. The evil of slavery was experienced in the late Revolution. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy (i.e., liberated and armed), they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands.

The prohibition of the slave trade by individual States was of none avail so long as South Carolina and Georgia were left free to bring Africans into the country. The new Western territory would be filled with the wretched creatures.

Slavery discourages the arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor, when they see it performed by slaves. Negro slaves prevent the immigration of free white laborers, who really enrich and strengthen a country.

Slavery debases morals; every master is born a petty tyrant. It brings the judgment of heaven on a country. As nations cannot be punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.

SOURCE: Marion Mills Miller, American Debate: The Land And Slavery Question, 1607-1860, p. 101-2

Speech of Senator Andrew Butler, March 2, 1854

I wish to say one or two words at this point of the debate, and to bring the attention of the Senate distinctly to the issue made by the senator from Wisconsin, (Mr. WALKER.) I understand, in any point of view in which this subject can be regarded, that if you obliterate or abolish what is called the Missouri Compromise line, you at least place upon an equality Nebraska, Utah, and New Mexico.

Now, northern gentlemen—I do not speak of the senator from Wisconsin particularly, but many gentlemen of the North—were reconciled to vote for the territorial governments given to Utah and New Mexico upon the ground that the Spanish law excluded slavery there. Suppose we ask to have the Missouri line obliterated, and give to the territorial government of Nebraska the right to determine this subject for themselves, and by that obliteration the old French law should be restored; would that not be fair? Gentlemen were willing to restore the old law when it excluded slavery and were willing to trust the territorial legislation under that law. But they are not willing to prohibit this Missouri restriction and confer upon the territorial legislature of Nebraska the power to regulate slavery when the old law, which it's said will be here revived, admits slavery. Congress, as the representative of sovereignty, has all the constitutional power over the subject; and, in parting with it to a territorial legislature, it appoints an administrator to discharge legislative functions, controllable by the constitution.

This, sir, is a fair and practical view of the subject. In Utah and New Mexico, the Mexican law, it was said, excluded slavery, and gentlemen then were willing to give exactly the same provisions to those Territories which are given in the bill under consideration. In Nebraska and Kansas, according to the view of the gentleman—I do not admit it, I do not believe one word of it—the French law is revived, and will establish slavery; and that being so, they are not willing to trust the people of these Territories at all upon the same subject. They are willing to make fish of one and flesh of another. I have not the least idea that the effect would be such as the gentleman supposes; but I am only showing the manner in which these issues are made. So long as the law is one way they are willing to go for one system; and when, in their opinion, it is another way, they are not willing to apply the same system. It is not fair to apply the same provisions in both cases.

Now, sir, I have not the least idea that, under the plenitude of the language of this bill, the territorial legislature may not act. The honorable senator from Connecticut [Mr. TOUCEY] put that in a very clear point of view. The truth is that both the Utah and New Mexico bills, and this bill, as I understand, are designed to make a blank leaf, and to give to the territorial legislature all the authority on the subject, whether there is French or Mexican law intervening. That is the fair meaning of it. Yet, though gentlemen were willing to give this power to a territorial government under Mexican law, they are not willing to give a territorial government the same power under the French law. Gentlemen cannot escape these two positions.

Sir, when I stand here as a southern man, I feel humiliated when I hear threats made that, unless we come to the terms of gentlemen, they will reopen this agitation until they expel us from every Territory of the Union, and even abolish the slave trade between the States. Sir, I am her to legislate to the best of my ability, in good faith, to preserve the institutions of the country; and yet I am threatened that if I do not do so and so the North will abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; and that they will assume a jurisdiction equal to their numerical power and strength; and that northern justice is not to be trusted. I do not believe one word of it.

But, sir, no man can stand up and read what I read in a paper this morning without indignation. It does not emanate, I know, from the gentleman who sits near me, [Mr. WALKER] for he has a heart incapable of it. But sir, I read this morning, what made my blood boil, that if this discussion went on and this bill were passed, the South should not only be prepared to give up all their power and surrender every inch of territory which they might claim for slavery, but that the scenes of San Domingo should be introduced, and their wives and daughters subjected to the lust of the black man. Sir, to such a state of things would the spirit of demonic agitation be reconciled. I read that statement in a New York paper to-day. I say to my neighbor, and senator from Wisconsin, who sits near me and for whom I have great respect, let him not make threats of that kind to me. I am willing to conduct this discussion in harmony, but when I am told that the scenes of San Domingo are to be opened to all the southern States, and our wives and daughters are to be subjected to the lust of the black man—my God! can it be that I sand in the Senate of the United States?

Mr. CASS. Will the honorable senator allow me to ask him if he does not give too much importance to these matters? Did not the very paper to which he refers abuse us all like pickpockets and rascals, over and over again? It does not speak for the North.

Mr. BUTLER.  I believe it.

Mr. CASS.  As a western man, I disavow its authority in toto.

Mr. BUTLER.  I know you do, sir. You are a statesman, and have the sentiments of a Christian, and look to events with the views of an American statesman, and I know that my neighbor from Wisconsin has no such idea. No statesman could utter such sentiments, or dare to carry them out. But when the threat is made, and I am required to legislate under duress, per minas, I do feel that it was unfortunately introduced. I say this in all kindness; for though my manner may be impetuous, I have nothing but a kind feeling towards those who differ from my honestly. I have thus far endeavored to control my language. I have used none except upon general topics, and I have used no language of personal resentment towards any one, believing it would defeat its end. I must say, however that these are not matters which are to be lightly passed over. Whatever may be the fate of this bill—and I do not much care what it may be—my deliberate judgment is, that if this discussion is conducted fairly, the North and South will be reconciled to return to the original principles on which this government was administered; and the sooner their differences are reconciled the better.

Now, what could the North gain by excluding us from these Territories? If two States should ever come into the union from them, it is very certain that not more than one of them could, in any possible event, be a slaveholding state; and I have not the least idea that even one would be. Perhaps some good people will go there, and carry with them their old negroes and a few personal servants. Now, who would go and disturb a poor old negro reposing happily under the government of a hereditary master? Who would disturb the relation existing between a good master and his personal servant, willing to live contented with those whose habits and principles and feelings he understood? None, sir, but a criminal agitator, and one who does not understand the responsibility of his position when he undertakes to agitate matters of this kind.

I shall make no unkind remarks in reference to the senator from Ohio. He has disavowed that he had any knowledge of the resolution which was so justly commented upon by my friend from North Carolina this morning. Sir, this is enough for me. I never ask of a senator on this floor anything but a disavowal. He has said so, and, I believe it; and that is enough. Allow me to say, however, although he may not have the design of putting the torch to the temple of this confederacy, and becoming the incendiary himself, yet there is a crassa negligentia which, in using fire, may burn it down by his agency, though without his consent. How did that document come here? Through his hands. Did he revise it? He has said not; yet a paper of that kind was presented in the Senate of the United States, and an extract from it made and published in an abolition paper. How did that abolition paper get that extract? Not from the senator, of course, for he says not.

Mr. President, these are topics which have always touched me more deeply than anything like sectional power. As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South. It will, however, I hope, reconcile both the North and the South; and when that desirable end can be effected, why should it not be? The honorable senator from Wisconsin objects to the application of this law to territory acquired from France. Was he not willing to apply it to territory acquired from Mexico? What difference is there, except that the previous law in once case excluded, and in the other admitted slavery? Now, I believe that, under the provisions of this bill, and of the Utah and New Mexico bills, there will be a perfect carté-blanche given to the territorial legislature to legislate as they may think proper. I am willing, as I have said before, to trust discretion, and honestly, and good faith of the people upon whom we devolve this power; but I can never consent that they can take it of themselves, or that it belongs to them without our delegating it; for I think they are our deputies—limited, controllable deputies—not squatter sovereigns.

I am willing to say that the people of the territories of Nebraska and Kansas shall be deputed by Congress to pass such laws as may be within their constitutional competency to pass, and nothing more. Is not that an honorable, fair, liberal trust to an intelligent people? I am willing to trust them. I have been willing to trust them in Utah and New Mexico, where the Mexican law prevailed, and I am willing to trust them in Nebraska and Kansas, where the French law, according to the ideas of the gentleman, may possibly be revived.

But the gentleman said that he would sooner cut off his right arm than allow this institution to be revived in these territories, under the operation of the Spanish law, as I understood him. Now, I am willing to trust the territorial Legislatures to that extent; not, I must say, because I concur in the proposition that that delegation, that deputization, that  lieutenancy of power which we confer on them shall not be controllable. I think that justice to myself requires that I should say that, if their action was flagrantly in violation of the constitution of the United States, I should insist upon its being controlled. I have said, however, as a southern man, that I am willing to make this advance towards restoring something like the harmony which once existed in this glorious republic. I do not believe it is anything but an advance to the sentiment of honor. I do not believe it is going to confer on the South any power. The North have the power, and we cannot take it from them; but if they had magnanimity with it, they would not use the language of reproach and threats and contumely. The belief that a deluded people cannot be informed is a mistake—that a tainted sentiment may not be saved from the putrefaction.

The senator has told us what dire consequences are to come in the future. Let them come. The sooner I know my fate under the threats which are made here the better for me. I shall not live, perhaps, to see the day when they will be fulfilled; but I have those dear to me who may be affected by them; and if I were upon my death-bed, I should inculcate upon them the necessity of standing true to the lessons of self-respect. I would tell every child, I would tell every relations I have, to perish sooner than to submit to the injustice which many seem disposed to heap upon them. But, sir, enough of this. I have not the least idea that the northern people, if fairly appealed to, would confirm the verdict indicated by some of their representatives. I have confidence in the public mind when it is fairly enlightened by intelligence and free discussion. I have read history, sir, and I know that any one who has peculiar notions, and cannot elevate his mind above the prevailing sentiment of the day, is not capable of understanding the distinctions of society. I am not one of those who are so partial as to make an ex parte decision. I had not the least idea of making this speech, Mr. President, but when I thought it fair, after what my neighbor [Mr. WALKER] had said, to say that much.

Mr. WALKER.  Mr. President, I fear that hereafter when this debate shall be read, great injustice will be done to me, unless the senator from South Carolina Corrects his remarks; and I ask him to do it.

Mr. BUTLER.  Not one word, as far as I think now.

Mr. WALKER.  But I will satisfy the senator that, in justice to me, he ought to do it.

Mr. BUTLER.  Certainly, then, I would do so.

Mr. WALKER.  Any one who will read the senator’s remarks as he has delivered them, without reading what I said, would come to the conclusion that I had threatened him and his southern colleagues in the Senate. Now, what did I let fall from my lips which sounded like it? I, in the kindest terms which I knew how to use, spoke in warning to the South. I spoke in warning of what I thought might arise, and what I endeavored to express my great deprecation of, and which, as I said, I would greatly deplore. Yet the senator’s speech will appear as charging me with having stood up here and threatened men that, if they passed this bill, slavery should be abolished in the District of Columbia, the internal slave-trade between the States should be abolished, and the Wilmot proviso set up in the Territories. I never made any such threat, or intimated for an instant that I would be an advocate of any such thing. That, however, will be the construction of the senator’s speech.

Mr. BUTLER.  Then allow me to put that right. I wish to be understood exactly in this way; that I expressly said I did not believe it of him, but that he was one of those who was beating the drum to make others fight.

Mr. WALKER.  No; you did not say that at all, nor intimate it.

Mr. BUTLER.  I said that the gentleman did not undertake to say that he would do the things which he mentioned; for I do not believe he would. I do not undertake to say that the North would do them; but he said that you might introduce such a state of things as would induce the North to do them. Is not that so?

Mr. WALKER.  I said, what I shall continue to say, that I fear the result of this agitation being opened again. I fear it for myself—

Mr. BUTLER.  I am not afraid of it.

Mr. WALKER.  I fear it for those who are disposed to stand by the peace which was made in 1850. Why, sir, what harm was being done to our southern friends at the opening of this session of Congress? What agitation existed? Who was proposing any agitation? I am not threatening the honorable senator; God forbid that I should I never threaten. I know he is the last man to be moved by threats. He need not have posted of that here, for I know it was well as he.

Let me state another fact, however, to show how necessary it is for him to revise his remarks. Who that will read them will not suppose that I, who am his nearest neighbor in the Senate, expressly stated that I was willing to sacrifice my right arm rather than establish slavery, when in fact, I was simply quoting the language of Mr. Clay himself a slaveholder.

Mr. BUTLER.  Did you not adopt it?

Mr. WALKER.  You do not ask it expressly, I know, but you do impliedly.

SOURCES:  The Congressional Globe, Vol. 23 (1854), p. 292-3; The Daily Union, Washington, D. C., Thursday Morning, March 23, 1854, p. 8

Diary of Gideon Welles: Friday, May 20, 1864

The Secretary of State is becoming very anxious in view of our relations with France. Wants the ironclad Dictator should be sent over soon as possible. I told him she was yet in the hands of the contractor, and was likely to be for some time, and when we had her I was not certain that it would be best to send her across the Atlantic. But he was nervous; said it was the only way to stop the Rebel ironclads from coming out, unless Grant should happen to get a victory.

The recent arrest of a Spaniard (Arguellis) who was in New York, and who was abducted, it is said, by certain officials under instructions or by direction of the Secretary of State is exciting inquiry. Arguellis is accused of having, in some way, participated in the slave trade. But if the assertion be true, we have no extradition treaty with Spain, and I am therefore surprised at the proceeding. There is such hostility to the slave trade that a great wrong may perhaps be perpetrated with impunity and without scrutiny, but I hope not. Nothing has ever been said in Cabinet on the subject, nor do I know anything in regard to it, except what I see in the papers.

Mr. Seward sometimes does strange things, and I am inclined to believe he has committed one of those freaks which make me constantly apprehensive of his acts. He knows that slavery is odious and all concerned in slave traffic are distrusted, and has, it seems, improved the occasion to exercise arbitrary power, expecting probably to win popular applause by doing an illegal act. Constitutional limitations are to him unnecessary restraints.

Should there be an investigation instituted and mere denunciation of the act, the President will be called upon to assume the responsibility, yet I am persuaded he has nothing to do in this affair beyond acquiescing without knowledge in what has been done. Could the abduction by any possibility be popular, Mr. S. expects it to inure to his credit.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 35-6

Speech of Samuel Gridley Howe, September 24, 1846

I have been requested, Fellow-citizens, as Chairman of the Committee of Arrangements for this meeting, to make a statement of the reasons for calling this meeting, and of the objects which it is proposed to attain; and I shall do so very briefly. A few weeks ago, there sailed from New Orleans a vessel belonging to this port, owned and manned by New England freemen, under the flag of our Union—the flag of the free. When she had been a week upon her voyage, and was beyond the jurisdiction of the laws of Louisiana, far out upon a broad and illimitable ocean, there was found secreted in her hold, a man lying naked upon the cargo, half suffocated by the hot and stifled air, and trembling with fear. He begged the sailors who found him not to betray him to the captain, for he had rather die than be discovered before he got to Boston. Poor fellow! he had heard of Boston; he had heard that there all men are free and equal;—he had seen the word Boston written on that ship, and he had said to himself—“I, too, am a man, and not a brute or a chattel, and if I can only once set my foot in that blessed city, my claims to human brotherhood will be admitted, and I shall be treated as a man and a brother,”—and he hid himself in the hold. Well, Sir, the knowledge of his being there could not long be kept from the captain, and he was dragged from his hot and close hiding-place, and brought upon deck. It was then seen that he was a familiar acquaintance,—a bright intelligent mulatto youth, who used to be sent by his master to sell milk on board; he had been a favorite, and every man, from the captain to the cabin-boy, used to have his jokes with “Joe.” They had treated him like a human being, could he expect they would ever help to send him into slavery like a brute?

And now what was to be done? Neither the captain nor any of his officers had been privy to his coming on board; they could not be convicted of the crime of wilfully aiding a brother man to escape from bondage; the man was to them as though he had been dropped from the clouds, or been picked up floating on a plank at sea; he was thrown, by the providence of God, upon their charity and humanity

But it was decided to send him back to New Orleans; to deliver him up to his old owner; and they looked long and eagerly for some ship that would take charge of him. None such, however, was found, and the “Ottoman” arrived safely in our harbor. The wish of the poor slave was gratified; his eyes were blessed with the sight of the promised land. He had been treated well for the most part, on board, could he doubt that the hearts of his captors had softened Can we suppose that sailors, so proverbial for their generous nature, could have been, of their own accord, the instruments of sending the poor fellow back I, for one, will not believe it.

But the captain communicated with his rich and respectable owners, men whom he was accustomed to honor and obey, and they decided that whether a human being or not, poor “Joe” must be sent back to bondage; they would not be a party, even against their will, to setting free a slave. (Loud cries of “Shame,” “Shame,” and “Let us know the name of the owner.”) The name of the firm is John H. Pearson & Co. (Repeated cries of “Shame,” “Shame,” “Shame.”). It was a dangerous business, this that they undertook; they did not fear to break the laws of God—to outrage the laws of humanity; but they did fear the laws of the Commonwealth, for those laws threatened the State's Prison to whoever should illegally imprison another. They knew that no person, except the owner of the runaway slave, or his agent, or a marshal of the United States, had any right to touch him; they were neither the one nor the other; and they therefore hid their victim upon an island in our harbor and detained him there.

But he escaped from their clutches; he fled to our city—to the city of his hopes—he was here in our very streets, fellow-citizens! he had gained an Asylum, he called on us for aid. Of old, there were temples so sacred that even a murderer who had taken refuge in them was free from pursuit; but no such temple did Boston offer to the hunted slave; he was pursued and siezed, and those of our wondering citizens who inquired what it all meant, were deceived by a lie about his being a thief, and he was dragged on board ship. But the news of this got abroad; legal warrants were at once procured; the shield of the habeas corpus was prepared to cover the fugitive; officers of justice were urged to the pursuit; the owner of the vessel was implored to give an order for the man's surrender, but all in vain. A vessel was found, bound for New Orleans, which would consent to be made a slave-ship of (Loud cries for the name of the ship.) The Niagara, belonging to the same owners, and on board of this ship the man was sent back, to receive the lash, and to wear the shackles, for his ill-starred attempt to be free, and to drag out all the days of his life, a degraded, wretched, and hopeless slave!

And now, fellow-citizens, how does all this differ from piracy and the slave-trade? The man was free—free at sea, free on shore; and it was only by a legal process that he could be arrested. He was siezed in our city; bound and carried into slavery by those who had no more right to do so than has the slave-trader to descend upon the coast of Guinea and carry off the inhabitants. All these facts are known and admitted; nay, they are defended by some who call themselves followers of Him who said, “As ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them;” they are defended, too, by some of those presses, whose editors arrogate to themselves the name of Watchmen on the towers of Liberty!

And now it will be asked,—it has been asked, tauntingly,–How can we help ourselves? What can this meeting do about it?

In reply, let me first state what it is not proposed to do about it. It is not proposed to move the public mind to any expression of indignation, much less to any acts of violence against the parties connected with the late outrage. As to the captain, it is probable that he was more sinned against than sinning. I am told that he is a kind, good man, in most of the relations of life, and that he was made a tool of Let him go and sin no more. As for the owners and their abettors—the men who used the wealth and influence which God gave them, to kidnap and enslave a fellow-man,—a poor, trembling, hunted wretch, who had fled to our shores for liberty and sought refuge in our borders—let them go too, their punishment will be dreadful enough without our adding to it. Indeed, I, for one, can say that I would rather be in the place of the victim whom they are at this moment sending away into bondage,_I would rather be in his place than in theirs: Aye! through the rest of my earthly life, I would rather be a driven slave upon a Louisiana plantation, than roll in their wealth and bear the burden of their guilt; and as for the life to come, if the police of those regions to which bad men go, be not as sleepy as the police of Boston, then, may the Lord have mercy upon their souls'

But, Mr. Chairman, again it is asked, “What shall we do?” Fellow-citizens, it is not a retrospective but a prospective action which this meeting proposes, and there are many ways in which good may be done, and harm prevented, some of which I hope will be proposed by those who may follow me, and who probably will be more accustomed to such meetings than I am. But first, let me answer some of the objections which have been urged by some of those gentlemen who have been invited to come up here to-night and help us, and have declined to do so. They say, “We must not interfere with the course of the law.” Sir, they know as well as we know, that if the law be the edge of the axe, that public opinion is the force that gives strength and weight to the blow.

Sir, we have tried the “let alone system" long enough ; we have a right to judge the future by the past, and we know that the law will not prevent such outrage in time to come, unless the officers of the law are driven by public opinion to do their duty. What has made the African slave-trade odious? Was it the law, or public opinion?

But, Sir, in order to test the strength of this objection, let us suppose that instead of the poor hunted mulatto, one of the clergymen of Boston had been carried off into slavery. Would the pulpit have been silent? Had one of our editors been carried away, would the press have been dumb Would there have been any want of glaring capitals and notes of exclamation? Suppose a lawyer had been kidnapped in his office, bound, and carried off to work on a slave plantation; would the limbs of the law have moved so lazily as they did week before last Or suppose a merchant had been torn from his counting-room in State street, and shipped for the slave-market of Tunis; would there not have been an excitement all over the city? Think you there would not have been “Indignation meetings” on “Change?”

And yet, Sir, are any of these men more precious in the sight of God than the poor mulattoo Or suppose a slave ship from the coast of Guinea, with her human cargo on board, had been driven by stress of weather into our port, and one of her victims had escaped to our shore, and been recaptured and carried off in the face of the whole community; would there have been any want of “indignation” then ? And, Sir, is there any difference, would it be a greater crime to carry such an one away, except that as this man had been once a slave, he might be made a slave again, that is, that two wrongs might make a right.

No, Mr. Chairman, these are not the true reasons. It is, Sir, that the “peculiar institution,” which has so long been brooding over this country like an incubus, has at last spread abroad her murky wings, and has covered us with her benumbing shadow. It has silenced the pulpit; it has muffled the press; its influence is everywhere. Court street, that can find a flaw in every indictment, and can cunningly devise ways to save the murderer from the gallows—Court street can find no way of escape for the poor slave; State street, that drank the blood of the martyrs of liberty, State street is deaf to the cry of the oppressed slave: the port of Boston, that has been shut up by a tyrant king as the dangerous haunt of freemen, the port of Boston has been opened for the slave-trader; for God's sake, Mr. Chairman, let us keep Faneuil Hall free. Let there be words of such potency spoken here this night as shall break the spell that is upon the community. Let us devise such means and measures as shall secure to every man who seeks refuge in our borders, all the liberties and all the rights which the law allows him.

Let us resolve that even if the slave-hunter comes to this city to seek his runaway victim, we will not lay our hands upon him, but we will fasten our eyes upon him, and will never take them off till he leaves our borders without his prey. Sir, there is a potency, a magic power, in the gaze of honest indignation. I am told that one of the parties of the late outrage—one of the owners of the “Ottoman,” came up here to this temple of liberty the other night to hear Mr. John P. Hale talk about slavery. He was discovered and pointed out. And, Mr. Chairman, what was done to him? Why, Sir, he was fairly looked out of this Hall. No one touched him ; but he could not stand the look of indignation, and he fled away. Sir, this beats the hunters of the West; they boast that they can “grin the varmint off the trees,” but they cannot look a slave-hunter out of countenance, as the freemen of the East Can.

I say, Sir, if ever the slave-hunter come among us in pursuit of his victim, let us not harm a hair of his head—“let us touch not the hem of his garment; but let him be a Pariah among us,” and cursed be he who gives him aid, who gives him food, or fire, or bed, or anything save that which drove his friend and coadjutor from Faneuil Hall the other night.

SOURCES: Laura E. Richards, Editor, Letters and Journals of Samuel Gridley Howe, Volume 2, p. 399-400; Address of the Committee Appointed by a Public Meeting: Held at Faneuil Hall, September 24, 1846, Appendix, p. 2-6

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Colonization, June 23, 1838

There is either a most strange delusion, or an obstinate wickedness in men, in relation to this matter of expatriating our colored people — probably both — for delusion — “strong delusion” generally attends a long course of transgression. We believe, if there is any one crime in this land, on which the Father of the human family looks down with more displeasure than on any other, it is on this deliberate and malicious wrong and insult entertained by a portion of the proud people of this country towards their humbler brethren — a deliberate, premeditated, cool-blooded plot to banish them from their native land, and to send them to the most undesirable spot on earth. God commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. Christ our Lord tells us in the story of the good Samaritan, who is our neighbor, and what loving him is, in practice. We ask the reverends and honorables, who compose the official list of New Hampshire Colonization, if the good Samaritan would have joined the Colonization Society. The question need only be asked. The idea of such a man as he, entering into a conspiracy like this, is so absurd, as to be almost ludicrous on the very face of it. Colonization is hate of one's neighbor, of the very deepest and most far-reaching kind.

But the organization is getting to be matter of form merely — it can't act. It may raise contributions of some amount—but no widows' mites — and not from many hands. It is impotent malice now — and kept up, probably, as a set-off effort versus anti-slavery. We are loath to speak severely of the names who compose this benevolent enterprise, but cannot help it. If we feel justly towards the plot, we feel severely, and must speak as we feel. It is not only a wicked plot against our innocent and injured (ah, injured beyond reparation) brethren, but it is a most mean and dishonorable service, done at the bidding of the slaveholder of the South. He wants to get the free man of color away, so that he can the more securely grind down the colored bond man. Poor Mr. Observer remarks that “the colored man must have a soil of his own, before he can rise.” Pray, what does he mean by a soil of his own? soil that he owns? or a sort of black soil? Can't he own soil in this country? Truly he can, if these Observers will only get out of the way, and let us win him his liberty, and let him work for wages. Free colored people are rising now as rapidly and as palpably as water ever rose in a freshet. They rise, as fast as such philanthropists as the Observer fall. The Observer's fall is their rise, and his rise their fall. Colored men can earn money and buy and own soil, and do now buy and own it. They need not go to Africa for soil. The land they own here is their soil, and the country they are born in is their native country. A man's native country (this is said for the especial benefit of Observers and colonizationists) is the country a man is born in. He can't have but one. He can't be born in one country, and have a native land somewhere else — in some other country. The land he is born on, and no other, is his native land, and it is equally so with colored people, and those who have less or no color. No American, United States-born man can have two native lands, or can have one without the limits of America. He can no more be born here and have him a native land in Africa, than an African, born on the Gold Coast, can make him out a native land here in New England. This is really so — there is no mistake — there is no two ways about it. This is a cardinal point, and it ought to be settled and made clear to the minds of our colonization brethren. They have a strong notion of restoring colored people to their native Africa — to their own soil, as the Observer calls it — where they can rise. The soil of Africa is supposed to be theirs by a kind of nativity, though they were born here, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, and their fathers not only American-born, in some cases, but “as white,” as the African prince said of the Dane — the first creature of that complexion he ever saw — “as white as the very devil,” — not only white, but white slaveholders, owners of their own children — sellers of their own blood and bones. What soil have they in Africa then, on which they can rise? None, unless they go and buy it, which they will never do. And what does the Observer mean by rising? He means getting to be governor, councillor, general court man, deputy secretary, dancing master, clerk in a store, dandy, — any of these elevations, which whiteness of outside and total lack of inside, will give folks here.

Now colored people don't want this sort of elevation; all they want is common liberty — common humanity — a common sort of human chance for their lives. They don't care about rising very high. As to rising out of the dust and dunghill, into which this inhuman people have trodden them that they will do, as soon as colonizationists will take their feet off of their necks and breasts, where they are now planted. They stand on the very breasts of the colored people, and look down and taunt them with incapacity to rise; and wickedly say to them, I'll step off of you, if you will creep away to Africa before you rise. You may go freely — with your own consent — mind that; you are not to be forced away; but unless you do most voluntarily and freely consent, I shall stand here, with both my Anglo-Saxon hind-feet plump on your breast bone, where the night-mare plants her hoof, shod all round with palsy, and you never can rise till you rise to the judgment. It is a pity you can't rise in this country; but you see how it is. God has placed you in an inferior position; you are evidently beneath me, and I above you. I am your friend. I belong to an “American Union for your race's relief,” and also to a “Liberian association, auxiliary to said Union;” and besides, your people, when they stand up straight here, and we are not standing on them, have an unpleasant fragrance which annoys our noses exceedingly; but as you lay now, right under our noses, somehow or other we do not seem to smell you. And moreover we are in the way of evangelizing the world; we've got that work on our hands, and are in a hurry about it — and we must take in Africa, and we don't want to go there. The climate is deadly, the people black and inferior, and we are not exactly on terms with them, and we want you to do what is to be done there; in the way of evangelizing. You can do it well enough for black people, though you can't rise to human level here. We want to colonize you for the sake of Africa — the millions of Africa. Oh, how our hearts bleed (now we think on't) for poor, benighted Africa! And then, that accursed, bloody slave trade — we want that stopped. Why, our Congress declares it piracy. We wont have the market stopped. We'll keep up slavery here, in an improved state. We'll ameliorate, and have it done "kindly;" but that traffic on salt water must be stopped, and you must go to Africa and put it down there. Q. E. D.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 48-51 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of June 23, 1838.

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: Dr. Francis Wayland, October 20, 1838

We wonder if this learned divine has ever undertaken to convince men that their “responsibilities were limited” in regard to the removal of any other nuisance than slavery. We have not seen any portion of his "limitations," except that relating to slavery. Whether he has treated on them as to any other sin, we do not know. But what possessed him to think men needed reminding of the limitations of their obligations? Are they prone to works of supererogation? Are they apt to be rampant in the exercise of that “charity,” which “seeketh not her own,” to transcend the bounds of their duty? Is it necessary, in order to a proper husbanding of their sympathies, that they be warned and admonished against their too prodigal lavishment upon their fellow-men? Is it to be predicated of fallen, depraved men, that they will be likely to overrun their obligations? Need they be guarded against an extravagance like this? Need ministers of the gospel tax their ingenuity in a behalf like this? Generally this class of men have been engaged, on what they call in court “the other side;” in enforcing human obligations, and in setting forth and urging on men's consciences their terrible responsibilities—to remove from their minds and hearts erroneous notions of their limitation?. and of their own freedom from obligation.

We take it nothing can be clearer and more reasonable than the universal obligation to do to others as we would that they should do to us — and to do likewise for others. If we were slaves, does any doctor doubt we should desire our neighbors, if we had any, to try to rescue us? If our house was a-fire, should not we want our neighbors to help put the fire out? If we were in the water, going to the bottom, could we bear it that neighbors should go indifferently by, and let us sink — that they should merely pity us — in the abstract? The slavery case is exceedingly plain. Slavery is the creature of tolerance — of public sufferance. Southern slavery exists in northern sufferance. The North is the seat of American sufferance. It is the theatre of moral influence for this nation. There is no such influence in the South — that is, no reforming influence except by negative operation. What is the moral influence of New Orleans on the nation? What of Charleston, or Mobile, or St. Louis, or Richmond, or any of the states or people of which these are the capitals? What religious or moral enterprise ever originated, or advanced in any of these places or people? They no more influence the country, than gamblers, drunkards, thieves, religiously influence the church. The church influences them for good or for evil, according to her faithfulness or unfaithfulness in her Master's service. The North influences the South in the matter of slavery. Yea, the North acts with the South in slaveholding. They directly and professedly uphold the system wherever they have occasion. They tolerate it in the District of Columbia. They directly sustain it in the territories. They allow the slave trade between the states. They conspired with the South in the constitution, that the foreign trade in slaves should not be interrupted by Congress for twenty years. They voted that Arkansas should come into the Union, with a constitution guarding slavery with a two-edged sword, giving the slaveholder a veto upon an emancipating legislature, and the legislature a check upon the repentant slaveholder. They have voted to admit a system that forbids and discourages repentance of the sin of slaveholding, and makes it desperate. All this has been done solemnly and with deliberation, and in legislative form — and the whole nation has tacitly allowed those of its people who chose, to hold slaves. It has never been disreputable, but highly the contrary, to hold slaves in this country. Is not a nation answerable for the vices and crimes which are reputable and popular within its borders? If a nation has any moral influence, any moral standard, is it not responsible for what that standard does not condemn? Has not this nation cast all its presidential votes for two men, guilty at the very moment of the election and all their days before and since, of the crime of slaveholding — Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder and a slave driver, and voted for twice by a majority of the electoral suffrage of this nation, north and south — and Henry Clay, a slaveholder and a notorious compromiser in the service of the infernal system, voted for by the rest of the nation. Jackson chosen by northern men against Adams a northern man. And then a northern man abandoned by northern men, one and the same party, in favor of Clay, a southern slaveholder[.]

We have nothing to do with abolishing slavery, says the Doctor Wayland, either as citizens of the United States, or as men. Our responsibilities for its removal are all limited away. On the very face of our case, it is palpable and grossly evident, we say, that the northern people have at least as much to do with its abolition as the people of the south. They have at least as much to do with its continuation. They are as directly engaged in it. They have the control of it in the national councils wherever it exists within congressional jurisdiction. It is the North, and not the South, that prevents a legislative abolition of it in the District of Columbia. Slavery in the national district is a northern institution, and not a southern. It is the “peculiar institution” there of the North, and not of the South. Is it not so? We declare then, that, as citizens and as men, we at the North have something to do with the abolition of American slavery — ay, that we have every thing to do with it. We can abolish it, and we alone can. We ought to abolish it, and we alone ought to do it, as appears at first impartial glance.

“I think it evident,” says Dr. Wayland, “that as citizens of the United States, we have no power whatever either to abolish slavery in the southern states, or to do any thing of which the direct intention is to abolish it.” We do not perceive the propriety of the Doctor's language when he talks of a thing having an intention. Slaves have intentions, and the Doctor and his friends call them things—but how a thing to be done can have an intention — a “direct intention,” as the Doctcr says, is beyond our slight learning. Perhaps the Doctor meant tendency by intention — and meant to say that we could not do any thing the direct tendency of which is the abolition of southern slavery. That is to say, we, as citizens of the United States, may not vote in Congress against slaveholding in the District of Columbia, or in the territories, or against the slave trade between the states. We may not receive petitions in behalf of those objects — we may not petition Congress — we may not talk against slaveholding — or write against it — or pray against it — or sympathize with our fellow-men in slavery; because each and every one of these acts has a direct tendency to abolish slavery in the southern states. Slavery in the land is a system, a whole system, a custom, a crime, and but one crime wherever committed. It is not warrantable in one place, and not in another. It is not lawful in one state, and not in another. It is one entire, individual, undivided matter of fact every where in the land, as much as murder is —  and if it is denounced and condemned in the District of Columbia by Congress, it is as fatal to it, in the whole country, as if denounced in South Carolina by Congress, or any where else — more fatal to it. A blow struck against it, as existing in that district, would be a blow at the head of it, and it would be mortal, — not one having a direct tendency to kill the system — or a direct intention, as the Doctor hath it, — but a blow destructive in itself. It would fix the brand of infamy on every slaveholder's front throughout the nation. It would render him infamous even in the eyes of Americans. Dr. Wayland could set no limits to his infamy. It would seal him a criminal with the broad seal of the nation, the E pluribus unum. Who would vote for him for President then — who would send him ambassador to London — who put him in Speaker of the House — President of the Senate — Chief Justice of the United States? Who would shake hands with him at the capitol? Now he is first in office, first in honor. Slaveholding is passport to every distinction. We ask Dr. Wayland and his aid-de-camp Major Mordecai Noachus, if a vote by Congress on our petitions, abolishing slavery in the district, and making it capital to enslave a man there, as they would do if they made it penal at all, would not give the system the death blow in the South, even if abolitionists had done nothing to kill it elsewhere. Would not that single enactment do it? Self-evidently it would. Have we not a right, as citizens of the United States, to do this? The Doctor says no. We say, ay.

But not to follow this self-immolated man any farther now, we will say that we need not get a vote from Congress against slavery in order to its abolition there and every where. Congress! what is it? The mere dregs and precipitations, the settlings and sediments of the nation. It is as soulless as a corporation. It has no soul, no mind, no principle, no opinion. It is an echo, and that not always a true one. It is a mere catastrophe—an upshot. It will only mutter the word abolition, after it has become an old story through the country. We have struck slavery its death blow already. We need not contend with the Doctor about the power. “One thing you have done,” said an eminent judge to us, “you have driven the South to come out and declare directly in favor of slavery. Heretofore they have pretended to lament it, as an evil. Now they declare it is a blessing, and a righteous institution.” Have we not, said we, driven them to join the issue, before the world, in favor of slaveholding? “You have,” said the judge. Must they not maintain it before the world, said we, to save the institution from going down? “They must,” he replied. Can they maintain it? said we. “No,” said he, — and yet the judge is not an abolitionist.

We need not contend with this Wayland and wayward President for the power, as citizens or as men, to beat down southern slaveholding. We have exercised the power already, and the South knows it. We have waked the nation to discuss the demerits of the system and the question of the negro man's humanity; and they are discussing it, and amid the flash and fervor of the agitation the foul system dies. It can no more endure it, than owls can noon, or bats sunshine, or ghosts day-break. While Wayland is groping about in his metaphysics to get hold of some puzzle to embarrass us about the power, we will have exercised it to the full, and cleared the land of slavery. Then where will the Doctor find a market for his “limitations?” Slavery is a dead man already, unless Orator Rhett, and Professor Dew, and Colonel McDuffie, and General Hamilton, and doctor this, that and the other one, can maintain the precious creature in the argument, and get the verdict of an enlightened and purged christianity in its favor. To this conclusion it has already come. The question is stated — the issue joined — the pleadings closed — all demurring and abating and delaying past by. And now for the trial. Now, Slavery, hold thine own. The Doctor's question of our having the power comes too late.

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 39-44 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of October 20, 1838.

Nathaniel Peabody Rogers: George Thompson, September 29, 1838

Our readers may remember that his excellency Governor Hill, the Reverend Wilbur Fisk, D. D., President of Wesleyan University, the Honorable Charles G. Atherton, one of our free and enlightened delegation in Congress, and sundry other dignitaries in church and state, as well as the Honorable their Graces the Concord mob — while Mr. Thompson was in this country, and soon after our brutality drove him from these guilty shores, — took great liberties with his name, and attempted liberties with his person. We call the attention of these distinguished functionaries to some of their sayings and doings, and will then subjoin some few of the testimonials recently come to us from England, or which will be new to them, we presume, as they would not be likely to encounter them in the course of their more lofty readings.

“This fugitive from justice,” said his excellency Isaac Hill — this “bankrupt in character and in purse,” said his highness the Reverend Doctor Fisk, a gratuitous vindicator of slavery — “a miscreant who had fled from the indignation of an outraged people,” declaimed the pert Mister Atherton — amen to the whole of it, repeated their Graces the mob.

Hear Thomas Fowell Buxton, the Wilberforce of the British parliament — one of the ornaments of philanthropy for all christendom. It was at a great anti-slavery meeting in the city of Norwich, in the neighborhood of where this fugitive from justice had been brought up. He had just spoken on the platform where Buxton and other great men of England sat. “I come here,” says Thomas Fowell Buxton, “to declare my assent to the great doctrine of immediate abolition of the apprenticeship, as well as to hear a speech from George Thompson, with whose sentiments I fully concur, and with whom I hope to labor through years to come, shoulder to shoulder, for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade throughout the world.” “Fugitive from justice” indeed — “bankrupt in character,” with a witness!

Hear Ralph Wardlaw, of Glasgow, one of the ablest, profoundest divines and writers in Europe. After Mr. Thompson's victory in Scotland over Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge of Baltimore, who honored the challenge of this “fugitive from justice” in the very land from which he fled, — fought with him in presence of 1200 of the very flower of the city of Glasgow, and fell before him there — at a public meeting held in Dr. Heugh's chapel in commemoration of this victory, Dr. Wardlaw said of Mr. Thompson, “With the ability, the zeal, the eloquence, the energy, the steadfastness of principle, the exhaustless and indefatigable perseverance of Our Champion, we were more than satisfied.” — “We sent him to America,” said Dr. Wardlaw. “He went with the best wishes of the benevolent, and the fervent prayers of the pious. He remained in the faithful, laborious and perilous execution of the commission entrusted to him, as long as it could be done without the actual sacrifice of life. He returned. We hailed his arrival,” &c. “Fugitive from justice,” says the New Hampshire governor. “We sent him,” says Dr. Wardlaw. “Bankrupt in character,” says the Rev. Dr. Fisk. “He returned,” says Dr. Wardlaw, “and we hailed his arrival.”

And now hear Henry Brougham, in the House of Lords. We put him against the American Brougham, who called George Thompson “miscreant!” against the Honorable Charles G. Atherton, of America. In the House of Lords, July 16th ultimo, in reply to Lord Glenelg, who claimed for the British government the credit of abolishing slavery in the West India islands — Lord Brougham said that “he maintained that, but for the interference of this country by the friends of emancipation and of liberty, there would not to-day have been received such a despatch as had arrived from the governor of Jamaica.” “He would say, ‘Honor to those to whom honor was due.’ He would name such men as Joseph Sturge, John Scoble, William Allen, and other noble-minded and devoted philanthropists — and above all he would name one — one of the most eloquent men he had ever heard either in or out of parliament — he meant the gallant and highly-gifted George Thompson, who had not alone exerted himself in the cause of humanity in this country, but had risked his life in America, in the promulgation of those doctrines, which he knew to be founded in truth.”

Has our dainty-fingered little statesman ever heard of Henry Brougham, of England — that intellectual Titan — that combination of all that is glorious in the history of British genius and learning and eloquence and patriotism; the pride of Westminster hall, the peerless among her peerage, the very star of England, the man whose impress, of all others, this age and coming ages will bear wherever the English language shall be spoken, the man whose mental influence is felt from the palace to the hovel, from the queen to the chimney-sweeper — has the Honorable Mr. Atherton heard of him, and does he call “misereant” the man who receives such eulogium from his lips, in the face of Europe? Fugitive from justice! Is the companion of Brougham and O'Connell and Buxton and Sturge and Scoble and Allen and Wardlaw, a “felon” and a “bankrupt in reputation” in England — a miscreant? What say you, Messrs. Hill, Fisk, Atherton, and mob, will you repeat your words in face of such testimonials as these?

SOURCE: Collection from the Miscellaneous Writings of Nathaniel Peabody Rogers, Second Edition, p. 29-31 which states it was published in the Herald of Freedom of September 29, 1838.

Daniel Webster to Justice Joseph Story, September 24, 1821

Boston, September 24, 1821.

My Dear Sir, — I am happy to hear that you are coming up to-morrow, to dine with the commodore. Mr. Baker, the British consul-general, is in town. He called on me to-day, and expressed a wish to see you. I have invited him to pass an hour with me to-morrow evening, and have promised him your company; and he has accepted, on the strength of that promise.

Will you be kind enough to bring up with you the last Dodson. I wish to look at the recent case about the slave-trade. I very much fear my Lord Stowell has missed a figure. However, I suppose, as usual, he has given plausible reasons.

We shall have some interesting questions here on this subject, and that shortly.

Very truly yours,

D. Webster.

P. S. I am greatly delighted at this notion of going to Worcester. I know nothing of that county, where so many venues were laid, and I think we shall meet some good men. Bainbridge means to go with us.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Volume 1, p. 316

Hopkins Holsey to Howell Cobb, December 31, 1847

Athens, Ga., Dec. 31st, 1847.

Dr. Sir: I avail myself of a leisure moment to reply to your communication of the¹ ——. Your favor in sending to this office the National Intelligencer is duly appreciated, in as much as the editor of the Union admits that his reports of the proceedings of Congress, thus far, have not been accurate. I find this to be the case particularly in regard to Mr. Giddings's instructions to the Judiciary Committee relative to the slave trade in the District of Columbia. These instructions as reported in the Intelligencer open up the whole question of property in slaves; and the double vote of Mr. Winthrop, in first deciding the tie vote against the South, and afterwards upon the correction of the Journal repeating his position, is peculiarly unfortunate for the Southern Whigs. It is also an unlucky omen for them that Northern Democrats were the only members from the non-slaveholding states, voting against the agitation of the question. In the other wing of the Capitol a similar mishap seems to have befallen them almost at the same time upon the movement of John P. Hale on the same subject, in the disposition of which I observe all the Northern democratic Senators voting with the entire South to lay the question of reception on the table, and all the Northern Whigs voting against it.

Previous to this conclusive demonstration by the Northern Democrats in both Houses came the resolutions by Mr. Dickinson of New York, which assume the same ground taken by Mr. Dallas in Pennsylvania last summer. Satisfactory as this position must be to us in all respects (leaving out the absolute monomania of the Calhoun faction) it becomes us to ascertain, before we adopt it as the basis of our action in the next campaign, whether the Northern Democracy will rally to its support? This is the all important preliminary question to be decided before we can properly solve that other question, whether we should take the basis of Mr. Buchanan or Mr. Dallas. I perceive in your letter the expression of a belief that our Northern friends will come to the support of Dallas and Dickinson and Cass ground. By the bye, this is the first and most gratifying intimation that we have here of Gen. Cass's position. Resuming the question which of these two propositions, leaving the matter to be settled by the Territories or adopting the Missouri basis, will best unite the Northern Democracy, I can only say at this distance you have a better opportunity of judging than I can possibly have as to the actual state of things North. If our friends there are of the opinion that they can stand better upon one of these propositions than the other, of course we should let them have their own way. They are certainly better judges than we can be of what they may be able to effect. It is needless to say to you that the Southern Democrats will be satisfied with either position.

You will however agree with me that great caution should be observed by us in weighing the evidences of the state of Northern feeling. Buchanan, Dallas, Cass are all for the Presidency; and may not the fact that Mr. Buchanan having broken ground on the Missouri basis have operated upon the other two to vary their positions from his, and thus mislead us? Both of the latter have numerous friends who will adhere to their positions, and could we be assured they were sufficiently numerous to give tone to the Northern Democracy, the question would be settled. But I apprehend that the surer data of conjecture on our part should be laid deeper in the nature of things than the mere personal or immediate political attachments to individuals, however prominent they may be.

Upon a survey of the whole ground, I must express to you my strong apprehension that our Northern friends can not be brought to any other position with half the strength that they would rally to the Missouri basis. You will perceive that I treat it alone as a practical question. Let me now assign you a few reasons. First, the Herkimer men in New York will not yield to Mr. Dickinson's or Dallas's ground. Their pride, their passions, are all enlisted against it. Secondly, the Democrats of New Hampshire occupy the same ground as the Radicals of New York. If we adopt the Missouri basis may we not yet hope that both of these States will yet be saved? The ground of my hopes may be found in Clingman's speech. It is difficult to convince our Northern friends that Congress has not the complete control of this question. You know how they stood in relation to the constitutional power over the District. The Missouri basis will enable them to retain their constitutional prepossessions and yet to seek refuge from an unjust, unequal or destructive exercise of the power.

The South on the other hand may retain its constitutional opinions and yet yield to the Missouri basis for the sake of peace and harmony. This idea that constitutional questions may not be compromised is all fallacious. In Mr. Jefferson's letter to Mr. Cartwright on the powers of the state and federal governments, speaking of questions of this nature he says, “if they can neither be avoided or compromised,” etc.

There is however another and more conclusive view in favor of occupying the compromise ground to which I ask your attention. Henry Clay holds the card in his hand which he is yet to play upon this subject. He will wait for us to shew our hands. If he finds we have adopted Mr. Dickinson's ground — he will himself trump us with the Missouri Compromise, and win the game m spite of us! Clingman's speech shews how easily it could be done. Mr. Clay is the father (if I mistake not) of that Compromise. He will rally his party to it and kill us with the word Union. We might struggle in vain. The Democratic party of Georgia is already committed, in the convention of last spring. Our press, with but one exception, are committed also. Virginia is committed, South Carolina even is now committed by a unanimous vote to abide the Missouri line. Leading politicians all through the South are committed. We can not war against a position which we have already sanctioned." If the issue should be formed by the two parties in this manner, Mr. Clay would sweep through the non-slaveholding States with irresistible power, and find none but a partial check, at least in the South. I am therefore of the opinion that, strengthened as the Compromise has been by the recent developments in the South, and strong as it must be in the nature of things North, that we should never relinquish it. We must occupy it in the Baltimore Convention or the Whigs will, and kill us off at the South with our men weapons. You will have observed also in the recent democratic meeting at the Museum in Philadelphia that the Missouri line was adopted. This is at least evidence of the state of feeling and opinion among our Northern friends. It was unanimously adopted.

The Herkimer men will send delegates to the convention. So will the Conservatives. Both delegations should be admitted. The Ultras will eventually find so strong a current against them, that they would fain compromise. But if that word is not to be known in the Convention, they will return home enemies to the party. This will probably be the case with the N. Hampshire delegation also. It may also be the case with Maine and Rhode Island. Besides, the Compromise is so intimately blended with the idea of preserving the Union that hosts of men of all parties, North and South, will follow the banner upon which it may be inscribed. If we do not write it upon ours, the Whigs will upon theirs, and we must fall under its influence.

P. S. — The Ultras, North, says that Dallas's proposition virtually excludes Union. That's their feeling—we must respect it, though erroneous. Exclusion either way would weaken the bonds of Union, and thus our own shaft would recoil upon us.

_______________

¹ Blank in the original.

SOURCE: Ulrich Bonnell Phillips, Editor, The Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1911, Volume 2: The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and Howell Cobb, p. 91-4

Thomas Wentworth Higginson to a Louisa Storrow Higginson, November 5,1859

Worcester, November 5,1859

Dearest Mother:

. . . Four days I spent in going to the Adirondacks for Mrs. Brown and then another in Boston about her affairs.

It was a pleasant reward to be taken through that wonderful Notch, far finer than any road through the White Mountains — the excitement of the black gateway enhanced by the snow and ice, and by the fact that for three miles I pursued my runaway horse and wagon, with the constant expectation of finding them smashed on some projecting rock or over a precipice. . . . These mountains were a fitting shrine for the family of Browns and Thompsons. . . .

When I came out through the Notch again, I felt as if that corner of the world would tip down, as if there were not virtue enough here to balance it. . . .

Dear Mrs. Brown — tall, erect, stately, simple, kindly, slow, sensible creature — won my heart pretty thoroughly before we got to Boston, and many people's there, for many visited her during the morning she was there, bringing money, shoes, gloves, handkerchiefs, kisses, and counsel. Amos Lawrence had a large photograph taken of her and now she has gone on to see her husband.

I got safe home, recited to my wondering family the deeds of the invalids and the annals of Marion, and settled down to daily life again. . . . Mary hasn't exaggerated my interest in Harper's Ferry accounts; it is the most formidable slave insurrection that has ever occurred, and it is evident, through the confused and exaggerated accounts, that there are leaders of great capacity and skill behind it. If they have such leaders, they can hold their own for a long time against all the force likely to be brought against them, and can at last retreat to the mountains and establish a Maroon colony there, like those in Jamaica and Guiana. Meantime the effect will be to frighten and weaken the slave power everywhere and discourage the slave trade. Nothing has so strengthened slavery as the timid submission of the slaves thus far; but their constant communication with Canada has been teaching them self-confidence and resistance. In Missouri especially this single alarm will shorten slavery by ten years.

SOURCE: Mary Potter Thacher Higginson, Editor, Letters and Journals of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1846-1906, p. 86-7

Amos A. Lawrence to Franklin Pierce, July 15, 1855

Boston, July 15, 1855.

My Dear Sir, — It is evident that there is a body of men in Missouri who are determined to drive our people from Kansas, if they dare to do so; and for the reason that the settlers from the “free States” are opposed to the introduction of slave trade there. Up to this time the government has kept so far aloof as to force the settlers to the conclusion that if they would be safe, they must defend themselves; and therefore many persons here who refused at first (myself included) have rendered them assistance, by furnishing them the means of defense.

Yours with regard,

A. A. L.

SOURCE: William Lawrence, Life of Amos A. Lawrence: With Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence, p. 95

The Compromise of 1850

• An Act proposing to the State of Texas the Establishment of her Northern and Western Boundaries, the Relinquishment by the said State of all Territory claimed by her exterior to said boundaries, and of all her Claims upon the United States, and to establish a territorial Government for New Mexico, September 9, 1850. 

• An Act for the admission of the State of California into the Union, September 9, 1850.

• An Act to establish a Territorial Government for Utah, September 9, 1850.

• An Act to amend, and supplementary to, the Act entitled "An Act respecting Fugitives from Justice, and Persons escaping from the Service of their Masters," approved February twelfth, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, September 18, 1850.

• An Act to suppress the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia, September 20, 1850.

An Act to suppress the Slave Trade in the District of Columbia, September 20, 1850

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

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for each of the corporations of the cities of Washington and Georgetown, from time to time, and as often as may be necessary, to abate, break up, and abolish any depot or place of confinement of slaves brought into the said District as merchandize, contrary to the provisions of this act, by such appropriate means as may appear to either of the said corporations expedient and proper. And the same power is hereby vested in the Levy Court of Washington county, if any attempt shall be made, within its jurisdictional limits, to establish a depot or place of confinement for slaves brought into the said District as merchandize for sale contrary to this act.

APPROVED, September 20, 1850.

SOURCES: George Minot, Editor, The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America from December 1, 1845 to March 3, 1851, Volume 9, p. 467-8; Andrew Cunningham McLaughlin, Editor, Readings in the History of the American Nation, p. 235-6

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, March 16, 1850

Mar. 16, 1850.

*          *          *          *          *          *          *

As to affairs here, there is little of interest which you will not learn from the papers. Of our Ohio Democrats I regard only four as heartily opposed to the extension of slavery. These are Carter, Wood, Cable & Morris. All the rest except Miller & perhaps Hoagland may be relied on to vote for the proviso when brought forward. But I am not sanguine that it can be passed. The ground taken by the Administration and the hope on the part of the Old Line Democracy of securing the support of the slaveholders in the next Presidential struggle, and the peculiar circumstances which tie up Col Benton & prevent him from taking ground in favor of the proviso & induce to represent it as unnecessary — all these things are against the friends of freedom. Still this Congress will not go by without something gained for humanity and progress — the slave trade will be abolished in the District & two cents postage probably established. It will then remain for the Free Democracy by its steadfastness, courage, & perseverance to bring up the nation to the standard of our principles, by declaring and acting upon, a fixed resolution to support no candidate who will not take decided ground against all slavery which the national jurisdiction reaches and against all national political alliances which involve the support of slavery. Our cause is onward. The fluctuations which ordinary politicians see are occasioned by the ebb and flow of the accidental floating mass which comes and goes without principle. But the current, which knows no ebb flows on steadily swelling in volume & accumulating power, freighted with the hopes of millions.

I send you Seward's speech & Hamlin's. Walker of Wisconsin also has made a good speech which I will send you by & by. Hale is to speak Tuesday. I have been endeavoring to get the floor lately, but have not succeeded as yet. I am only beginning feel at home.

P. S. Was any thing done about getting a suitable Editor for the Columbus paper. Do see to it that we have a real democratic platform.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 204-5

Diary of William Howard Russell: June 11, 1861

Before noon the steamer hauled along-side a stationary hulk at Baton Rouge, which once “walked the waters” by the aid of machinery, but which was now used as a floating hotel, depot, and storehouse — 315 feet long, and fully thirty feet on the upper deck above the level of the river. The Acadia stopped, and I disembarked. Here were my quarters till the boat for Natchez should arrive. The proprietor of the floating hotel was somewhat excited because one of his servants was away. The man presently came in sight. “Where have you been you ——?” “Away to buy de newspaper, Massa.” "For who, you ——?” “Me buy ’em for no one, Massa; me sell ’um agin, Massa.” “See now, you ——, if ever you goes aboard them steamers to meddle with newspapers, I'm —— but I'll kill you, mind that!”

Baton Rouge is the capital of the State of Louisiana, and the State House thereof is a very quaint and very new example of bad taste. The Deaf and Dumb Asylum near it is in a much better style. It was my intention to have visited the State Prison and Penitentiary, but the day was too hot, and the distance too great, and so I dined at the oddest little Creole restaurant, with the funniest old hostess, and the strangest company in the world.

On returning to the boat hotel, Mr. Conrad, one of the citizens of the place, and Mr. W. Avery, a judge of the district court, were good enough to call and to invite me to remain some time, but I was obliged to decline. These gentlemen were members of the home guard, and drilled assiduously every evening. Of the 1300 voters at Baton Rouge, more than 750 are already off to the wars, and another company is being formed to follow them. Mr. Conrad has three sons in the field, and another is anxious to follow, and he and his friend, Mr. Avery, are quite ready to die for the disunion. The waiter who served out drinks in the bar wore a uniform, and his musket lay in the corner among the brandy bottles. At night a patriotic meeting of citizen soldiery took place in the bow, with which song and whiskey had much to do, so that sleep was difficult.

Precisely at seven o'clock on Wednesday morning the Mary T. came alongside, and soon afterward bore me on to Natchez, through scenery which became wilder and less cultivated as she got upwards. Of the 1500 steamers on the river, not a tithe are now in employment, and the owners of these profitable flotillas are “in a bad way.” It was late at night when the steamer arrived at Natchez, and next morning early I took shelter in another engineless steamer beside the bank of the river at Natchez-under-the-hill, which was thought to be a hotel by its owners.

In the morning I asked for breakfast. “There is nothing for breakfast; go to Curry’s on shore.” Walk up hill to Curry's — a bar-room occupied by a waiter and flies. “Can I have any breakfast?” “No, sir-ree; it's over half-an-hour ago.” “Nothing to eat at all?” “No, sir.” “Can I get some anywhere else?” “I guess not.” It had been my belief that a man with money in his pocket could not starve in any country soi-disant civilized. I chewed the cud of fancy faute de mieux, and became the centre of attraction to citizens, from whose conversation I learned that this was “Jeff. Davis's fast-day.” Observed one, “It quite puts me in mind of Sunday; all the stores closed.” Said another, “We'll soon have Sunday every day, then, for I ’spect it won't be worth while for most shops to keep open any longer.” Natchez, a place of much trade and cotton export in the season, is now as dull — let us say, as Harwich without a regatta. But it is ultra-secessionist, nil obstante.

My hunger was assuaged by Mr. Marshall, who drove me to his comfortable mansion through a country like the wooded parts of Sussex, abounding in fine trees, and in the only lawns and park-like fields I have yet seen in America.

After dinner, my host took me out to visit a wealthy planter, who has raised and armed a cavalry corps at his own expense. We were obliged to get out of the carriage at a narrow lane and walk toward the encampment on foot in the dark; a sentry stopped us, and we observed that there was a semblance of military method in the camp. The captain was walking up and down in the veranda of the poor hut, for which he had abandoned his home. A book of tactics — Hardee's — lay on the table of his little room. Our friend was full of fight, and said he would give all he had in the world to the cause. But the day before, and a party of horse, composed of sixty gentlemen in the district, worth from £20,000 to £50,000 each, had started for the war in Virginia. Everything to be seen or heard testifies to the great zeal and resolution with which the South have entered upon the quarrel. But they hold the power of the United States, and the loyalty of the North to the Union at far too cheap a rate.

Next day was passed in a delightful drive through cotton fields, Indian corn, and undulating woodlands, amid which were some charming residences. I crossed the river at Natchez, and saw one fine plantation, in which the corn, however, was by no means so good as the crops I have seen on the coast. The cotton looks well, and some had already burst into flower — bloom, as it is called — which has turned to a flagrant pink, and seems saucily conscious that its boll will play an important part in the world.

The inhabitants of the tracts on the banks of the Mississippi, and on the inland regions hereabout, ought to be, in the natural order of things, a people almost nomadic, living by the chase, and by a sparse agriculture, in the freedom which tempted their ancestors to leave Europe. But the Old World has been working for them. All its trials have been theirs; the fruits of its experience, its labors, its research, its discoveries, are theirs. Steam has enabled them to turn their rivers into highways, to open primeval forests to the light of day and to man. All these, however, would have availed them little had not the demands of manufacture abroad, and the increasing luxury and population of the North and West at home, enabled them to find in these swamps and uplands sources of wealth richer and more certain than all the gold mines of the world.

There must be gnomes to work those mines. Slavery was an institution ready to their hands. In its development there lay every material means for securing the prosperity which Manchester opened to them, and in-supplying their own countrymen with sugar. The small, struggling, deeply-mortgaged proprietors of swamp and forest set their negroes to work to raise levees, to cut down trees, to plant and sow. Cotton at ten cents a pound gave a nugget in every boll. Land could be had for a few dollars an acre. Negroes were cheap in proportion. Men who made a few thousand dollars invested them in more negroes, and more land, and borrowed as much again for the same purpose. They waxed fat and rich — there seemed no bounds to their fortune.

But threatening voices came from the North — the echoes of the sentiments of the civilized world repenting of its evil pierced their ears, and they found their feet were of clay, and that they were nodding to their fall in the midst of their power. Ruin inevitable awaited them if they did not shut out these sounds and stop the fatal utterances.

The issue is to them one of life and death. Whoever raises it hereafter, if it be not decided now, must expect to meet the deadly animosity which is now displayed towards the North. The success of the South — if they can succeed — must lead to complications and results in other parts of the world, for which neither they nor Europe are prepared. Of one thing there can be no doubt — a slave state cannot long exist without a slave trade. The poor whites who have won the fight will demand their share of the spoils. The land for tilth is abundant, and all that is wanted to give them fortunes is a supply of slaves. They will have that in spite of their masters, unless a stronger power than the Slave States prevents the accomplishment of their wishes.

The gentleman in whose house I was stopping was not insensible to the dangers of the future, and would, I think, like many others, not at all regret to find himself and property safe in England. His father, the very day of our arrival, had proceeded to Canada with his daughters, but the Confederate authorities are now determined to confiscate all property belonging to persons who endeavor to evade the responsibilities of patriotism. In such matters the pressure of the majority is irresistible, and a sort of mob law supplants any remissness on the part of the authorities. In the South, where the deeds of the land of cypress and myrtle are exaggerated by passion, this power will be exercised very rigorously. The very language of the people is full of the excesses generally accepted as types of Americanism. Turning over a newspaper this morning, I came upon a “card” as it is called, signed by one “Mr. Bonner,” relating to a dispute between himself and an Assistant-Quarter-Master-General, about the carriage of some wood at Mobile, which concludes with the sentence that I transcribe, as an evidence of the style which is tolerated, if not admired, down South: —

“If such a Shylock-hearted, caitiff scoundrel does exist, give me the evidence, and I will drag him before the bar of public opinion, and consign him to an infamy so deep and damnable that the hand of the Resurrection will never reach him.”

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 290