THE OTHER SIDE OF "THE TRUE ISSUE STATED."
A PAMPHLET WRITTEN BY THE HON. ALBERT G.
BROWN UPON THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPROMISE MEASURES OF 1850.
Two pamphlets, of
thirty-two pages each, have recently made their appearance in great numbers
among the people. These publications are entitled "The True Issue Stated,
by a Union Man," and they do me such gross injustice that I feel called
upon to notice them. If the man in the mask, who styles himself "A Union
Man," would throw off his disguise and appear in his real person, I should
doubtless be spared the trouble of answering his gross perversions of truth. An
exposure of his name and face would be the most conclusive proof that justice
and fair dealing are not to be expected at his hands.
The author of these
pamphlets introduces my name in various places and connections, and it shall be
my purpose to show how grossly he has perverted, or attempted to pervert, my
acts and words.
1st. Reference is
made to the introduction of a bill by Mr. Preston of Virginia, to admit, as a
state, into the Union, the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico (to wit,
California, Utah, and New Mexico), and an attempt is made to produce the impression
that I contemplated voting for this proposition. The truth is that I spoke
against it, and no one can read my speech without seeing at once that I never
could have voted for Mr. Preston's bill, without having it amended in its most
essential features. I spoke on the 10th of February, 1849 (see page 120,
Appendix to Cong. Globe). In that speech I said:
"All
our propositions were voted down as they were successively presented, and by
that party which claims a right to undivided dominion over these territories. I never have, and never shall assent to
the justice of this claim, and hereafter I will vote to maintain the rights of the South in their broadest latitude, unless I shall
plainly see that by an honorable and manly surrender of a portion of these rights,
peace may be secured, and the Union rescued from its present perilous
condition."
It suited the
purpose of "A Union Man" to leave this out. To have included it would
have been to show the true temper of my speech—that I never would consent to
give up the whole of the territories to the North. Then, as ever since, and
before, I was ready to occupy the territories
jointly with the people of the North,
and if this could not be done, to divide them fairly. The North claimed the
whole. "I never have, and never
will, assent to the justice of this claim."
With amendments to
Mr. Preston's bill, such as would effectually have insured the South justice in
the territories, I would have voted for it; without these it never could have
commanded my support.
"A Union Man"
entirely overlooks the important fact that Preston's bill proposed to confer on
the people of California, by act of Congress, the power to erect a state. I
spoke against this at length, and yet the singular inference is drawn, that I
ought to have voted for the admission of California, erected as she was into a
state without the authority of Congress or of any other legislative body. It
may be well seen how I could have voted to confer on the people of California
the right to form a state government, and yet, how, without inconsistency, I
should oppose her admission when she sought it on the authority alone of
irresponsible and unauthorized persons. It did not suit the jaundiced eye of
"A Union Man," to see the difference between the two propositions. Suppose
I had even voted for Preston's proposition, to confer on the people of
California the power to erect a state government, would it thence have involved
me in an inconsistency to vote against the admission of a state, erected
without authority, and by persons having no more right to do so than a nation
of Hottentots? But the truth is, I did
not vote for the one or the other of these propositions, nor did I contemplate
doing so at any time.
I submit the
following extracts from my speech on Preston's bill. Read them, and ask
yourself what was "A Union Man's" intention in suppressing them:
"Here
is a conquered people, possessing as yet, no political rights under our laws
and Constitution, because not yet admitted to the rights of citizenship, and,
what is worse, possessing no practical knowledge of the workings of our system
of government, and knowing nothing of our institutions. The substantial
question is, shall such a people give laws to our territories, and shape and
mould their institutions for the present, and possibly for all time to come. *
* * * The gentleman's bill gives to every white male inhabitant, over the age
of twenty-one years, the right to vote, whether Spaniard, Mexican, Swede, Turk,
or what not. * * * I submit to my honorable friend whether it would not be
respectful, to say the least of it, towards his constituents and mine, to
require these people, before they pass final judgment on our rights, to make an
intimation in some form that they intend to become CITIZENS, as well as inhabitants of the United
States." (See page 120, Appendix to Cong. Globe, 1849.)
It will be seen from
these extracts, and more clearly by reading the whole speech, what my opinion
of Mr. Preston's bill was, and that without amendments, such as should have
avoided my objections, and given the South a hope of justice, I never could
have voted for it. I confess to have felt then, as at all times, before and
since, a strong anxiety to see the question settled upon terms fair and just to
all parties, and in this spirit I said in my speech on Preston's bill: "I
am prepared to go to that point where conflicting interests and opinions may
meet, and adjust this dangerous issue upon terms honorable to both sides, and
without any undue sacrifice by either party." Preston's bill did not go to
that point. I made my speech to show that it did not. If it had been so amended
as to reach the point designated, then I should have voted for it. Without
this, my speech shows that my vote would have been given against it.
2d. The second point
made by "A Union Man," is based on what he calls the memorial of the
Senators and Representatives from California. I know nothing of this memorial,
and care less. My statement was made on the authority of eye-witnesses in the
country at the time the so-called California constitution was formed, and upon
the better authority of General Riley's published proclamation. Upon these I
stated, what is true, that thousands of foreigners were authorized to vote, and
that they did vote. I make no qualification to the general declaration that the
constitution of California was made by unauthorized persons—that among them
were foreigners not speaking our language, knowing nothing of our laws, and
caring nothing for our rights.
3d. "A Union
Man" next takes issue with me on my statement that "the fugitive
slave bill," the same that is now the law of the land, is not, and never
was, one of the "compromise bills." I repeat now, that it was not,
and that it never was, a part of Mr. Clay's omnibus, or general compromise
bill. "A Union Man" knows perfectly well, if he knows anything at all
on the subject, that the fugitive slave bill, the one that passed, did not come
from the hands of Mr. Clay, or the hands of any other compromise man. He knows
that Mr. Mason of Virginia, a friend of southern rights, and a bitter opponent
of the compromise, introduced this bill, and that it was supported and carried
through the Senate and House of Representatives, by Southern votes, and that
without the votes of Southern Rights Democrats, it never could have been passed
through either House of Congress. He knows that the Fugitive Slave Bill got but
thirty-three Northern votes, three in the Senate, and thirty in the House. All
the rest, one hundred and forty-four in number, either voted against it, or
fled from their seats to avoid the responsibility of voting. All these things
"A Union Man" knows perfectly well. Why conceal the facts if he did
not mean to deceive the people?
The Fugitive Slave
Bill is not a gift from the North, either as a part of the Compromise or
otherwise. It was introduced by an Anti-compromise Southern Rights Democrat,
and it was carried through both Houses of Congress by Southern votes, and
without the aid of the ENEMIES of the Compromise it never would have passed.
4th. The fourth
point made against me is that I was a member of a committee in Congress that
reported a bill to abolish the slave trade in the District of Columbia, in
1849. It is true that I was a member of the committee, made so by the Speaker,
without my consent; but it is not true that I reported the bill, or even
consented to its being reported. It is not true that I voted for it after it
was reported, or ever consented or promised to vote for it.
In this, as in other
cases, a "A Union Man" publishes what he calls extracts from my
speeches, taking care to suppress every word that does not suit his purpose.
Why were paragraphs like these left out:
Mr.
Brown said, "he had always believed that in his representative character,
he was called upon to represent the expressed will and wishes of the people of
the District of Columbia, having, at the same time, due regard to the rights of
the people of the several states, and to the restrictions of the Constitution
of the United States." And again, he did not believe that the strong party
in Congress had a right to pass any law for the District without respect to the
wishes of the people of the District, and without respect to the Constitution
and the rights of the people outside of the District, but that in all this
branch of their public charge they should have an eye strictly to the
Constitution and to the rights of the whole people." And then again:
"In acting upon a petition from the people of this District, his first
object was to inquire how far he might go and still remain within the limits of
the Constitution, and then how far he might go without infringing upon the deed
of cession from Maryland and Virginia. These limits being ascertained, he
should be prepared to go for any law desired by the people of the District,
which did not require these fixed limits to be transcended."
These passages have
been omitted by a "A Union Man." He could not show them, without
disclosing the fact that then, as now, I insisted upon an observance of the constitutional rights of the whole people.
Were these rights respected when Congress enacted that the master's slave
"should become liberated and free," if he took him to the District,
"for the purpose of selling him?"
I extract again from
the same speech:
Mr.
Brown said: "If gentlemen desire it of him, he would now tell them that he
felt the necessity, on the part of the South, of standing together upon every
question involving the right of property in slaves, the slave trade, and
Abolition in all its forms. He knew that they must stand together for defence:
therefore, as the South vote so he should vote, till the pressure from without
should be withdrawn. The South acted together upon the principle of
self-protection and self-preservation. They stood for protection against
destruction and annihilation. He knew not the motive which prompted this
outward pressure; he felt its existence, and he knew that the South acted purely
on the defensive; they merely warded off the blow directed against their
peace-their lives. Such were his motives for voting with the South. And he now
said to all who were opposed to him or his country, Withdraw your pressure;
cease to to agitate this question; let us alone; do whatsoever you think be
right without endangering us, and you will find that we, too, are ready to do
right."
Mr.
Brown trusted he had not been misunderstood; for it was known that, to a
Southern member, this was a delicate question. He had expressed his honest
views—views which he desired to carry out in good faith. He did very well know,
that if the South were let alone—if they were not positively ill-treated, the
North might be assured they would come up and do what was right. They stood
together now for their own preservation, and nothing less than unity in their
councils could be expected of them in the present crisis. If individual members
did not always vote exactly according to their views of right upon these
questions, it was because of this known, and now universally acknowledged,
necessity of unity and concert among ourselves. When a sleepless and dangerous
enemy stood at our doors, we felt the necessity of acting together. Let that
enemy withdraw—let us out into the open sunshine, where we could look upon the
same sun that you look upon—where the air, the land, the water, everything
could be seen in common, and enjoyed in common—and we should be ready to meet
you as brethren, and legislate with you as brethren. But so long as you keep up
this pressure, these endless, ceaseless, ruthless assaults upon us, we must
stand together for defence. In this position we must regard you as our enemies,
and we are yours.
These, and other
kindred expressions, were meanly suppressed, because it would not do to
disclose the fact, that then, as now, I stood by the South, and with the South,
in the defence of Southern interests, Southern rights, and Southern honor.
This bill of 1849,
which I did not introduce, did not in any way support, and for which I never
would have voted, except (as stated at the time) in company with the great body
of southern members, and not then, unless certain constitutional impediments had
been first removed—this bill only punished the overt act of selling or offering
to sell, by the fine and imprisonment
of the master or owner of the slave. The bill, as passed into a law, by the Compromisers, punishes the
"purpose" or intention to sell by setting
the slave free. It is the act of setting the slave at LIBERTY, because his
master intends to sell him, that I complain of, as the special outrage
inflicted by this Compromise.
These are the
material points made against me in pamphlet number ONE. The positions against
me in the second number are:
1st. That I voted,
on two occasions, with certain Abolitionists in Congress—first, on the Utah
bill, and next on the Texas boundary bill. For both of these votes I had good
and sufficient reasons, and I have so often given them to the public that I
deem it useless to repeat them at length. Let a very brief statement suffice.
And first, as regards the Texas boundary bill. This bill, and that to give a
territorial government to New Mexico, were included in one proposition. I could
not, therefore, vote for, or against the one, without voting for or against the
other. The Abolitionists desired to take from Texas about 80,000 square miles
of the territory south of 36° 30′, and pay her nothing; I was not willing to give
up one inch of territory south of that line, or pay anything if it was taken;
and hence, for very different reasons, we were brought together in voting
against a proposition to take forty-four thousand square miles of territory,
and pay ten millions of dollars. And then, as regards Utah. This was the last
of the territorial bills that came up for consideration, and for many reasons I
did not think it a matter of much consequence. If justice had been done us in
the other territories, I might have voted for this bill. Utah lies entirely
above 36° 30′, and if our rights had been respected south of that line, I
should not have contended against giving up the territory north of it. But if
our rights were not acknowledged south of the line, I would not voluntarily
abandon our claim north of it. As many Free-Soilers as felt willing to risk the
Mexican law abolishing slavery in the territories voted for this Utah bill.
Those who insisted upon the Wilmot proviso, in terms, voted against it. But
since the bill has passed they are all satisfied, and they will remain so as
long as the Mexican law has the EFFECT of excluding slavery, and whenever it
fails in that effect, if it ever does, they will fall back upon the Wilmot
proviso. These territories, Utah and New Mexico, were organized with the
distinct understanding among all northern men, and with many southern men, that
slavery was already excluded by the law of Mexico. And without this
understanding, it is well known that northern senators and representatives would
not have voted for these bills. I could not, and would not make myself a party
to such an understanding, and for this, as well as for other reasons, I voted
against these territorial bills.
Why was not this
Mexican law repealed? I will show the reason; and I will show, moreover, that
"A Union Man" acts the hypocrite when he charges it as a FAULT
against me that I voted with the Abolitionists. Is not "A Union Man"
the friend of General Foote?—and, if so, how does he excuse such votes as the
following? Colonel Davis introduced an amendment, as follows, the design of
which was to repeal the law of Mexico—abolishing slavery in the territories
acquired from Mexico. Here is Davis's amendment:
"And
that all laws and usages existing in said territory, at the date of its
acquisition by the United States, which deny or obstruct the right of any
citizen of the United States to remove to and reside in said territory with any
species of property legally held in any of the states of this Union, be and are
hereby declared null and void.”
The following is the
vote:
YEAS-Messrs.
Atchison, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Mississippi,
Dawson, Downs, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian,
Soule, Turney, Underwood, and Yulee—22.
NAYS-Messrs.
Badger, Baldwin, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper,
Davis of Massachusetts, Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa,
Felch, Foote, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Jones, Miller, Norris, Pearce, Seward,
Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Upham, Wales, Walker, and Whitcomb—33.
It will be seen that
twenty-two senators voted for this amendment—all of them from the South, and
that thirty-three voted against itamong them CHASE, HALE, HAMLIN, SEWARD, and
every other Free-Soiler and Abolitionist in the Senate, and it will be further
seen that GENERAL FOOTE voted in the same list with these Free-Soilers and
Abolitionists.
Nor is this all. On
the 28th of August, 1850, Mr. Atchison moved to lay the bill to abolish the
slave trade in the District of Columbia on the table. GENERAL FOOTE voted with
Hale, Chase, Baldwin, and other Abolitionists and Free-Soilers, against laying
it on the table.
And again, on the
10th of September, 1850, the question being on striking out the first section
of this same bill, GENERAL FOOTE again voted with Chase, Hamlin, Seward, and
other Free-Soilers, against striking it out. Here is the first section of the
bill:
"Be
it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in
Congress assembled, That from and after the first day of January, eighteen
hundred and fifty-one, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of
Columbia any slave whatever for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose
of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other state or
place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into said
district by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to
the provisions of this act, such slave shall, thereupon, become LIBERATED AND
FREE."
The following is the
vote on the motion to strike out this section:
YEAS-Messrs.
Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Mississippi, Dawson, Downs, Houston,
Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Underwood,
Yulee—18.
NAYS-Messrs.
Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Benton, Bright, Chase, Clay, Davis of Massachusetts,
Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wisconsin, Dodge of Iowa, Ewing, Felch, Foote,
Greene, Hamlin, Jones, Mangum, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith,
Spruance, Sturgeon, Wales, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop—30.
It will be seen that
all the ayes are from the South, and that "A Union Man's" favorite
candidate for governor voted again with the Abolitionists.
My object in
presenting these votes of General Foote, is not to criticise them, but to show
the hypocrisy of "A Union Man," who holds up my votes, and invokes
the condemnation of my constituents upon them, whilst he carefully avoids the
like votes of his own favorite candidate. If it be a sin in me to have voted
with Giddings and Tuck, is it any less a sin in Foote to have voted with SEWARD
and HALE?
But to proceed to
point No. 2. This pamphlet contains what purports to be extracts from my
speeches, and in making them up to suit his purposes, "A Union Man"
has been guilty of the grossest frauds. He not only suppresses material parts
of my speeches, without which, he well knows, the other parts will not be understood,
but he divides paragraphs, sticks the divided parts together, drops sentences,
and leaves out whatever does not suit his purposes, and all with the intention,
as he well knows, of misleading the public. In all my life, I have never seen
truth so grossly perverted, or falsehood and slander more impudently suggested.
The intention of
this writer is to show that I am a Disunionist. To this charge I give the LIE
direct, and leave this masked calumniator to his farther proof. On this point I
select, at random, the following paragraphs from my speeches, and ask an
indulgent public why these things have been suppressed, if the intention of
"A Union Man" was not fraudulent? If it was not his purpose to impose
upon the public, why did he suppress the truth? From my speech on Preston's
bill, February 10th, 1850, page 120, Appendix Congressional Globe:—
"Let
it (the Union) fulfil the high purposes of its creation, and the people will
preserve it at any and every sacrifice of blood and treasure, and nowhere will
these sacrifices be more freely made than in the South."
"The
Union of these states rests on a foundation solid and sacred, the affections of
the people of all the states. Be careful how you tamper with that foundation,
lest you destroy it, and thus destroy the UNION itself. Let the Union dispense
equal and exact justice to all-special favors to none, and not one murmur of
complaint will ever come up here from the patriotic sons of the sunny South.'
We despise injustice of every kind. In the emphatic words of a distinguished
chieftain, 'we ask no favors and shrink from no responsibility.”
Why did "A
Union Man" pass over these and other like expressions in that speech?
"A Union
Man" commences one of his extracts with the words, "Have we any
reason to fear a dissolution of the Union?" and then has the meanness to
suppress these words, which are next after them, in the same paragraph, and in
actual connection with them: "Look at the question dispassionately, and
answer to yourselves the important question, can anything be expected from the
fears of the southern people?" Why were these words left out? Simply, because
to have shown them would have been to show that I had but warned the North not
to calculate on the cowardice of the southern people.
And again, in the
same paragraph, these words are left out: "We have not been slow in
manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have
obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism-our money has gone
freely, the lives of our people have been freely given up, their blood has
washed many a blot from the national escutcheon, we have loved the Union, and
we love it yet, but not for this, nor a thousand such Unions, will we suffer
DISHONOR at your hands."
And again, these
words are extracted, "I tell you,
sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as this,"
and with this "A Union Man" stops. Why did he not include the very
next words, "Sooner than allow our SLAVES to become our MASTERS, we would
lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for
ourselves honorable graves." Why were the first words taken and the next
left out? Because, if all had appeared, it would have been seen that it was
bondage to our own slaves that I gave warning we would not submit to. It did
not suit "A Union Man" to tell the truth, and so he LIED, by
suppressing the truth.
Again, "A Union
Man" extracts a part of a paragraph as follows:— "Whether the people
will submit to this high-handed proceeding (the admission of California), I do
not know; but for myself, I am for resistance," &c. Here I charge that
this writer not only garbles my speech, but by inserting the words (the
admission of California), he suggests a positive falsehood. These words were
not used by me, do not appear in the printed copy of my speech, and were
interlined by this writer for no other purpose than to suggest a falsehood. The
"highhanded proceeding" alluded to by me, had no reference to the
admission of California, but referred directly to the conduct of the President
of the United States, as was stated at the time, in attempting "to make a
new state without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the
Constitution." This was the "high-handed proceeding" which I
pledged myself to "resist," and that pledge I have redeemed to the
utmost of my ability. This whole speech will be found on page 258 to 261 Cong.
Globe, 1850.
In addition to the
above, I beg leave to submit, from the same speech, the following extracts. Why
did "A Union Man" omit them?—
"Oh!
gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The South cannot, will
not, dare not submit to your demands.
The consequences to her are terrible beyond description. To you forbearance
would be a virtue-virtue adorned with love, truth, justice, patriotism. To some
men I can make no appeal, * * * but to sound men, just men, patriotic men, I do
make an earnest appeal, that they array themselves on the side of the
Constitution, and save the Union. Let those who desire to save the Constitution
and the Union, come out from among the wicked, and array themselves on the side
of justice-and here in this hall, erected by our fathers, and dedicated to
liberty and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand
together and fight the demon of discord, until death shall summon us to another
and a better world." * * * * *
"Before
the first fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which
we cannot relinquish, rights which it were better to die with than live
without. The direct pecuniary interest involved is twenty hundred millions of
dollars, and yet the loss of this is the least of the calamities you are
entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate, we are to be driven from
our homes-the homes hallowed by all the sacred associations of families and
friends, we are to be sent like a people accursed of God to wander through the
land, homeless, houseless and friendless, or what is ten thousand times worse
than this, than these, than all, remain in a country now prosperous and happy,
and see ourselves, our wives and our children, degraded to a social position
with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible consequences you
would entail upon us. I TELL YOU, SIR, SOONER THAN SUBMIT, WE WOULD DISSOLVE A
THOUSAND SUCH UNIONS AS THIS-Sooner than allow our slaves to become our
masters, we would lay waste our country with fire and sword, and with our
broken spears, dig for ourselves honorable graves."
Is there a southern
heart that does not throb a fervent response to these sentiments? and is there
an honest eye that does not detect the baseness which prompted "A Union
Man," when he tore from this paragraph the single sentence: "I tell
you, sir, sooner than submit, we would dissolve a thousand such Unions as
this?" Did he not know that he was perpetrating a fraud? On the same page
from which this extract is taken, the following may be found. Does any one
suppose it escaped the eye of "A Union Man?"
“I
repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution-reverencing the
Union-holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of
our common and illustrious ancestors, there is no ordinary ill to which we
would not bow sooner than dissolve the political association of these states.
If there was any point short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and desolation to
our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would
say at once go to that point and give us peace." And again
"I
warn gentlemen if they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin
of disunion is on their heads, not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in
self-defence, I am no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such
fury as to jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no
murderer. If you attempt to force upon us sectional desolation, and-what to us
is infinitely worse social degradation, we will resist you, and if in the
conflict of resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any
man charges me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken.
If he says that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does
me no more than justice." * * *
"Do
not mistake me; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories would of
itself justify disunion. I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade
in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the
prohibition of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be,
that not one, or two, nor all of these combined, would justify disunion. These
are but initiatory steps, they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you
shall not take these steps."
I might show many
other extracts from this same speech, but surely these may suffice. To those
who would know more about it, I would say, "Look to the Congressional
Globe, of January 30th, 1850, page 257, and read the whole speech. The book may
be found in the office of the Probate Clerk, where I caused it to be placed for
your inspection."
If more shall be
desired in refutation of the slander, that I sought dissolution of the Union,
allow me to present an extract from my speech of August 8, 1850, page 1550
Cong. Globe. And here let me remark that when these speeches were made, no
murmur of complaint was heard against them. Then they were patriotic enough;
now they are rank treason, according to my enemies.
“There
is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of
late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of
southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in
our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with
northern wrongs, the next step is to whistle us down the wind, as traitors and
disunionists. It is not because I fear the effects of charges like these on the
minds of my constituents, that I now speak. They have known me for many long
years. I have served them here and elsewhere, and if there is any earthly power
to persuade them that I am a disunionist, or a traitor to my country, I would
scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I
may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who
ating the South, while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base
calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who
ever crouched at the footstool of power."
So I spoke on the
8th of August, 1850, and so I say now. It is by such reptiles as this
"Union Man," that the South is stung; and when the South learns to
plant her foot upon them and crush them, she may look for justice, and not till
then.
A speech made by me
at "Ellwood Springs," in November, 1850, has been the subject of
extensive misrepresentation and slander. “A UnionMan" could not of course
speak the truth in regard to it.
He leaves out
sentences, and puts others together to suit his own false purposes. For
instance, he makes me say "this justice was denied us in the adjustment
bills that passed Congress." "I am for resistance; I am for that sort
of resistance which shall be effective and final." These two sentences are
more than two entire pages apart in the speech as delivered by me, and have no
relation to each other. The words "this justice was denied us in the
adjustment bills which passed Congress," are immediately followed by the
words, "But we are not to infer that the fault was either in the Union or the
Constitution. The Union is strength, and if not wickedly diverted from its
purposes, will secure us that domestic tranquillity which is our birthright.
The Constitution is our shield and our buckler, and needs only to be fairly
administered to dispense equal and exact justice to all parts of this great
confederacy." Why were not the words extracted as they were spoken? Why
put two sentences together taken from different pages, having no relation to
one another, and leave out all that was said in connection with the one and
with the other? Was there ever a more impudent attempt at fraud and imposition?
This writer says, I
demanded justice for every state and for all sections, and that I added,
"If the Union cannot yield to the demand, I am against the Union. If the
Constitution does not secure it, I am against the Constitution." And he
would, from his manner of stating what I said, leave the inference that I was
against the Union and the Constitution, because they had not secured us
justice. I said, in this precise connection, "We are not to infer that the
fault is in the Union, or the Constitution. The Union is strength, and the
Constitution is our shield and our buckler." But it did not suit the
purposes of "A Union Man" to quote these words. He could not have
seen the words that he did quote without seeing these also; they were,
therefore, intentionally omitted.
It is asserted that
I made certain demands of the federal government, and took the ground if these
demands were not complied with, "all connection with the Northern States
ought to be dissolved." The demands are not set forth, and the reader is
left to infer that there was something monstrous and unreasonable in these
demands. The truth is, that
I have demanded
nothing, have proposed nothing, but what the southern friends of the compromise
say we now have. All I ask is that they will join us in procuring from their
northern friends, an acknowledg ment that their interpretation of the
compromise is right. Here are the demands; is there anything unreasonable or
unjust in them?—
"We
should demand a restoration of the laws of Texas, in hæc verba, over the country which has been taken from her and added
to New Mexico. In other words, we should demand the clear and undisputed right
to carry our slave property to that country, and have it protected and secured
to us after we get it there; and we should demand a continuation of this right
and of this security and protection.
“We
should demand the same right to go into all the territories with our slave
property, that citizens of the free states have to go with any species of
property, and we should demand for our property the same protection that is
given to the property of our northern brethren. No more, nor less.
“We
should demand that Congress abstain from all interference with slavery in
territories, in the District of Columbia, in the states, on the high seas, or
anywhere else, except to give it protection, and this protection should be the
same that is given to other property.
“We
should demand a continuation of the present fugitive slave law, or some other law
which should be effective in carrying out the mandate of the Constitution for
the delivery of fugitive slaves.
"We
should demand that no state be denied admission into the Union, because her
constitution tolerated slavery."
Is there anything
asked for in all this which the friends of the compromise are not constantly
insisting we now have? And yet the writer of this pamphlet falsely asserts that
I have demanded a repeal of the compromise, and the substitution of other
legislation in its place. No such thing is true. I have only asked that the
friends of the compromise at the North should execute it as its southern
friends say they understand it; and why shall southern men shrink from this
demand if they are sincere in their declarations? They know perfectly well that their interpretation is repudiated by
their northern allies, and therefore it is that they shrink from the test of
making the demand.
Mississippi has
declined making any demands, and of course my proposition falls to the ground.
No one could suspect me of the extreme folly of urging these or any other
demands, after the state had decided that she would do nothing.
I present these
extracts from the Ellwood Springs speech:
"I
have great confidence that the government may be brought back to its original
purity. I have great confidence that the government will again be administered
in subordination to the Constitution; that we shall be restored to our equal
position in the confederacy, and that our rights will again be respected as
they were from 1787 to 1819. This being done, I shall be satisfied-nothing
short of this will satisfy me. I can never consent to take a subordinate
position. By no act or word of mine shall the South ever be reduced to a state
of dependence on the North. I will cling to the Union, and utter its praise with
my last breath, but it must be a Union of equals; it must be a Union in which
my state and my section is equal in rights to any other section or state. I
will not consent that the South shall become the Ireland of this country.
Better, far, that we dissolve our political connection with the North than live
connected with her as her slaves or vassals. The fathers of the republic
counselled us to live together in peace and concord, but those venerable sages
and patriots never counselled us to surrender our equal position in the Union.
Let
me say to you, in all sincerity, fellow-citizens, that I am no disunionist. If
I know my own heart, I am more concerned about the means of preserving the
Union, than I am about the means of destroying it. The danger is not that we
shall dissolve the Union, by a bold and manly vindication of our rights; but
rather that we shall, in abandoning our rights, abandon the Union also. So help
me God, I believe the submissionists are the very worst enemies of the
Union."
Why was all this
passed over in silence?
I might show how, in
many other instances, I have been treated with the same gross injustice which
has marked those that I have now pointed out; but to pursue the subject farther
would be tedious and unprofitable.
"There are my speeches, and there my votes, I
stand by and defend them. You say for these my country will repudiate me. I
demand a trial of the issue." This was my language in the first speech
made by me after my return from Washington. I repeat it now. I said then, as I
say now, that the charge laid against me that I was, or ever had been, for
disunion or secession, was and is FALSE and SLANDEROUS.
I stand by my votes
as they were given, and by my speeches as they were made. I am not responsible
for speeches made for me by others; nor will I consent to be tried on the
motives which my enemies charge to have influenced my votes. It is easy to
publish garbled extracts
from any man's
speeches, and it is quite as easy to attribute to any man bad motives for his votes.
I am not to be tried, thanks to a free government, in a STAR CHAMBER, before
perjured judges, but at the ballot box, by a free people.
I am not surprised
to find myself assailed with malignity, and least of all does it surprise me
that these assaults come from Natchez. I was never a favorite with certain men
in that city, and if it should ever fall out that they speak well of me, I
shall indeed wonder what great sin I have committed against republican
institutions.
When I heard that a
large sum of money had been subscribed by my enemies, and that my defeat was
one of the great ends to be obtained by it, I conjectured that the old
Federalists were on their walk, and that a plentiful shower of slander and
defamation might be expected. I have not been disappointed. These attacks will,
no doubt, be kept up until after the election, and many of them will,
necessarily, go unanswered. I cannot be everywhere in person, and I have not
the means of publishing and circulating documents against this regular combination,
controlling, as it does, its thousands and its tens of thousands of dollars.
It ought to be borne
in mind how easy it is to misconstrue and misrepresent the acts and speeches of
a public man. Taking into account the length of time that I have been in the
public service, it is rather a matter of surprise with me that my enemies have
found so little to carp at. The circumstances under which I have spoken or
acted are, of course, very conveniently forgotten, and nothing is remembered
but such words or acts as may be turned to my disadvantage. These are eagerly
seized upon by my enemies, and held up to public gaze; and if the public
indignation fails to rise, they then torture my words, and give them forced
constructions, so as to make me say what, indeed, I never thought of saying. No
man ever yet spoke so explicitly as to escape the misconceptions of the weak,
or the misconstructions of the corrupt and designing. Not even the inspired
writers have escaped this common fate. The Atheist proves, to his own satisfaction
at least, that there is no God, and, taking the Bible for his text, he
undertakes to prove that the Bible is a fiction. Volney, Voltaire, and Tom
Paine, have each made his assault upon the divinity of the Saviour; each has
had his proselytes; and each based his argument upon the words of inspired
writers. These things being true, what folly it is for an ordinary man to hope
for escape from false interpretations, misconstructions and misrepresentations!
I know my own meaning better than any other man, and after sixteen years of
public service, during all of which time I never practised a fraud or deception
upon the public, I confront my enemies, and tell them they SLANDER me, when
they charge that I am now, or ever have been, the SECRET or OPEN advocate of
disunion or secession.
I am no more a
secessionist, because I think a state has a right to secede, than are my
enemies revolutionists, because they maintain the right of revolution.
In days gone by, I
denounced the United States Bank, the protective tariff, and other acts of the
general government, without incurring the charge of being a disunionist. I
opposed and denounced the compromise, but I did not thereby make myself a
disunionist. I thought, in the beginning, that it inflicted a positive injury
upon the South, and I think so now. This opinion is well settled, and is not
likely to undergo any material change. I gave my advice freely, but never
obtrusively, as to the course which I thought our state should pursue. That
advice has not been taken. Mississippi has decided that submission to, or
acquiescence in, the compromise measures, is her true policy. As a citizen, I
bow to the judgment of my state. I wish her judgment had been otherwise; but
from her decision I ask no appeal. Neither as a citizen nor as a
representative, would I disturb or agitate this or any other question after it
had been settled by the deliberate judgment of the people.
I never have, and I
never will introduce the subject of slavery into Congress. When it has been
introduced by others, I have defended the rights of my constituents, and, if
re-elected, I will do so again.
In the approaching
election, I ask the judgment of my constituents on my past course. I claim no
exemption from the frailties common to all mankind. That I have erred is
possible, but that the interests of my constituents have suffered from my
neglect, or that I have intentionally done any act or said anything to dishonor
them in the eyes of the world, or to bring discredit upon our common country,
is not true. In all that I have said or done, my aim has been for the honor,
the happiness, and the true glory of my state.
I opposed the
compromise with all the power I possessed. I opposed the admission of
California, the division of Texas, the abolition of the slave trade in the
District of Columbia, and I voted against the Utah bill. I need scarcely say
that I voted for the Fugitive Slave bill, and aided, as far as I could, in its
passage. I opposed the compromise.
I thought, with Mr.
Clay, that "it gave almost everything to the North, and to the South
nothing but her honor.'
I thought, with Mr.
Webster, that the “South got what the North lost-and that was nothing at all.’
I thought, with Mr.
Brooks, that the "North carried everything before her."
I thought, with Mr.
Clemens, that "there was no equity to redeem the outrage.”
I thought, with Mr.
Downs, that "it was no compromise at all." I thought, with Mr.
Freeman, that "the North got the oyster and we got the shell."
I thought, at the
last, what General Foote thought, at the first, that "it contained none of
the features of a genuine compromise."
And finally, and
lastly, I voted against it, and spoke against it, BECAUSE it unsettled the
balance of power between the two sections of the Union, inflicted an injury
upon the South, and struck a blow at that political equality of the states and
of the people, on which the Union is founded, and without a maintenance of
which the Union cannot be preserved.
I spoke against it,
and voted against it, in all its forms. I was against it as an Omnibus, and I
was against it in its details. I fought it through from Alpha to Omega, and I
would do so again. I denounced it before the people, and down to the last hour
I continued to oppose it. The people have decided that the state shall
acquiesce, and with me that decision is final. I struggled for what I thought
was the true interest and honor of my constituents, and if for this they think
me
worthy of condemnation,
I am ready for the sacrifice. For opposing the compromise, I have no apologies
or excuses to offer; I did that which my conscience told me was right, and the
only regret I feel is that my opposition was not more availing.
NOTE.—As the
district will, no doubt, be flooded with all manner of publications, and
traversed by all sorts of speakers, I must again remind my friends that the
Congressional Globe, containing a perfect record of all my votes, speeches,
motions and resolutions, may be found in the clerk's offices of each county. It
was placed there by me for inspection, and by it, as the official record, I am
willing to be tried. When my enemies are found peddling newspapers and pamphlets,
without names, giving accounts of my actings and sayings, I hope my friends
will appeal to this record, and insist that I shall be tried by that, and not
by the statements of my enemies. A. G. B.
SOURCE: M. W.
Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon.
Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 233-46
