s^ 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 B 
 
l)'aw1 SPEECH 
 
 o? 
 
 HON. REUBEN DAVIS, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 ON T,^n->--T'\ 
 
 Weet. Efto. Htefe. Boo, 
 
 THE STATE OF THE UNION; 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRE SENT AT I V ES, D ECEMBER 22, 1 858 , 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
 
 1858. 
 
' i 
 
 ^A-'^'^ 
 
 :\\&^ 
 
 
SPEECH. 
 
 Tiie House lieiiig in liie C(>in:iii!tec ai' tlie Wiiolc on the 
 state ol" tlio Union — 
 
 Mr. DAVIS, of Mississippi, said: 
 Mr. Chairman': The woild had arrived at a 
 new era. An adventurer had gone forth a)id 
 di.-3covcred a new continent. It had been peopled; 
 generations had been born and passed away. 
 The heroes of the Revokuion are in possession of 
 tlie country. As a race, they had no parallel in 
 ancient or modern times. From their cradle 
 they iiad looked out upon the noble forests and 
 lofty mouiUains which surrounded them, and in 
 their infant minds the i^rand and sublime had 
 been awakened; they had stood upon the banks 
 of our mighty rivers, and gazed on their waters 
 rapidly dashing on in freedom to old ocean; 
 they had seen tlie noble eagle leave his mount- 
 ain home, floating in blue ether, and heard his 
 wild scream of liberty; and from these they had 
 caught the inspiration of freedom, and its love 
 had become a part of their nature. In the enjoy- 
 ment of their political rights they felt the op- 
 pressive hand of British dominion, and with the 
 sword they severed the tie of dependence, and 
 established this Republic; the Constitution under 
 which we live is adopted, and we rapidly pass 
 from an infant and feeble state, to our present im- 
 portant position amidst the nations of the earth. 
 It is now announced in the Senate Chamber 
 " that the question of slavery in the Federal Ter- 
 ritories involves a dynastical struggle of two an- 
 tagonistical systems, the labor of slaves and the 
 labor of freemen, for the mastery in the Federal 
 Union." This, sir, is but another mode of ex- 
 pressing the sectional controversy which has so 
 long existed between the free and slave States of 
 this Union, and which, if not arrested, must com- 
 mence its tiecline and ultimate overthrow. The 
 word " dynastical," in the use made of it in the 
 above quotation, gives to each system the import- 
 ance of sovcreingty-rule-line of kings. Thus we 
 are told two distinct systems — two distinct Gov- 
 ernments, sovereignties opposite in interests, op- 
 posite in pursuit, antagonistical — exist upon this 
 
 continent, and now struggle for superiority, for 
 mastery in the Federal Union. This assertion is 
 important, if true, and ougiit tt) be rendered in- 
 telligible to the whole American people, because 
 if such an antagonism does naturally and neces- 
 sarily exist, the one or the other section of the 
 Union must become a conquered province, and 
 rendered subservient and subordinate. 
 
 Now, in a subsequent portion of my remarks, 
 I shall endeavor to show that no such antagonism 
 exists between free and slave labor on this con- 
 tinent as the announcement implies; yet for the 
 present — it having been asserted by the ackno%Vi- 
 edged leader of the free-labor system — I must 
 examine its purport. The object of this Govern- 
 ment was to advance the common good of all the 
 States, and notJ,o unite under one Government 
 two discordai^felements, the one to be corrected 
 by the other. If, after seventy years, it is now- 
 discovered that such antagonism of systems does 
 exist, it only affords a reason for a dissolution of 
 the Union, which must take place the very mo- 
 ment our people are fully convinced of the exist- 
 ence of this necessity. I regret, Mr. Chairman, 
 that the distinguished Senator who gave utterance 
 to this expression, had not afforded the country 
 evidence of its truth. I deny any antagonpsm 
 which justifies the struggle at this time existing 
 between the free and slave States. The struggle 
 is one of aggression and resistance, waged in vio- 
 lation of the constitutional compact; and is incited 
 by a spirit of avarice and injustice. 
 
 The first object of the struggl^as been, and is, 
 to deprive the people of the sl^b States of any 
 interest in acquired territory, and thus prevent 
 their expansion. This looks chiefly to a limita- 
 tion of their political power. In such a contest 
 as this there is no necessary or natural antag^- 
 onism between systems of labor; it is the off- 
 spring of injustice. And the spirit which induces 
 it will not be satisfied with the mere possession 
 of power; it has a more important aim beyond. 
 It either intends the emancipation of the slaves, 
 or the enforcement of a system of revenue which 
 will oppress slave labor and enrich capital. If 
 
either or both these objects enter into the strug- 
 gle, when all its objects are violative of the con- 
 stitutional compact, and absolve the States from 
 allegiance to the Federal Union. 
 
 Before I advance further in my remarks, to a 
 proper apprehension of my views, it is necessary 
 to examine the true nature of our Federal Gov- 
 ernment and the relation of the States to it. It 
 was created by the States by the advice and with 
 the consent of their people, and is the act of State 
 sovereignty. Its powers embrace only subjects 
 of a general nature, and such as appertain to the 
 relations between the States of the Union, and of 
 this with foreign Governments, while all that re- 
 lates to the civil rights of our people is reserved 
 to the States respectively. It acts upon measures 
 only which relate to sovereign States, and not to 
 individual citizens. It is a league, a compact 
 between the States, and not a union, as contended 
 for by many of our ablest statesmen. 
 
 The first contract between the States, after the 
 commencement of the Revolution, was only a 
 league — an alliance. And to strengthen which, the 
 convention was called wliich framed our present 
 Constitution; and that convention referred that 
 Constitution to the States, and not to the people 
 of the Union, for ratification. They could have 
 made no other disposition of it. If they had 
 referred it to the people to approve or reject, it 
 would have been an invitation to high treason 
 against the States. The people of the States could 
 do nothing towards forming an alliance or union 
 without the permission of the State, and only 
 then through the State as the sovereign. Each 
 State was a separate and distinct sovereignty — 
 complete, full, and perfect; and the people wlio 
 resided therein were her citizens, and due her, 
 individually, allegiance. Had they attempted to 
 take from the State of which they were citizens 
 any portion of its sovereignty, to be transferred 
 to another Government, they would have been in 
 rebellion to the State, and punishable as traitors. 
 The people, then, without an act of revolution, 
 could not have transferred one particle of the sov- 
 ereignty of the State to the present Government. 
 Nor could the States have done it without the 
 consent of the people. 
 
 No Government can transfer one or all of its 
 citizens to another State without his or their con- 
 sent. And in the act of forming our present Fed- 
 eral Government, it required the concurring con- 
 sent oS each State and its citizens; and as an 
 evidence that the Congress which proposed the 
 convention so regarded it, the proposition was 
 submitted to the States, and not the people as 
 such. The States, feeling that they had no power 
 to part with a portion of the sovereignty vested 
 in tliem, consulted the people in regard to doing 
 it, and obtained their consent. The States, then, 
 having created the Federal Government, stand 
 between it and its citizens; and in all questions 
 involving the exercise of political power by the 
 Federal Government over the citizen, is the ar- 
 biter, and it is her duty to decide how far she 
 surrendered sovereignty to the Federal Govern- 
 ment; and that decision is final. This leads 
 me to the conclusion that the States covenanted 
 with each other, and that the Federal Union is 
 the result of that covenant. Each of the States 
 having surrendered an equal amount of sover- 
 eignty for the common good of all, the residue 
 
 and most essential portion each retained. All that 
 which appertains especially to our domestic in- 
 terests and rights to property, is reserved to them. 
 They alone have power over questions relating 
 to property, to personal security, religion, the 
 elective franchise, and such other subjects as their * 
 citizens have an immediate interest in. On the 
 other hand , the powers of the Federal Government 
 extend to measures, not people — to great ques- 
 tions of public and national policy. 
 
 Now, this being the true nature of our Govern- 
 ment, whence comes the authority for a majority 
 of States to combine, and force upon the minority 
 a system which oppresses them, although it may 
 increase the wealth of that majority ? If there is 
 no such right, why make the Federal Government 
 a party to this dynastical struggle between the 
 two antagoiiistical systems of labor? And I may 
 ask what she can do in this controversy.' What 
 right h^ she to interfere in a contest between the 
 slave-labor system of Mississippi and free labor 
 of Massachusetts ? and why does Massachusetts 
 invoke her aid? Has she the power to emanci- 
 pate the slave? I answer, no ! The question of 
 what shall and what shall not be property is one 
 for the decision of sovereignty, and is one of the 
 powers reserved to the States, and does not apper- 
 tain to the Federal Government; and any effort 
 by her to exercise it would be a positive usurpa- 
 tion of power which would absolve the States 
 from their allegiance. The general welfare would 
 not authorize it. 
 
 But if, sir, by a usurpation of power this Gov- 
 ernment shall hereafter make herself a party to 
 this supposed struggle, and in disregard of the 
 rights of the States" deprive their people of this 
 slave property, v^'hat would belts effects upon the 
 present and future of this great country and the 
 world? You would strike down three million 
 of laborers now engaged in the cultivation of the 
 soil, thereby reducing the productive wealth of 
 the nation not less than two billion dollars, and 
 render idle three billion more of real estate and 
 agricultural implements. The sudden destruc- 
 tion of this vast sum would produce a shock 
 from which the monetary affairs of the world 
 v/ould not recover in the next five hundred years. 
 It is the products of the labor engaged in the cul- 
 tivation of the soil that adds permanently to the 
 general wealth of a nation, and gives prosperity 
 to her people. Now, render inoperative and un- 
 productive this five billion of land and labor, the 
 real productive wealth of the nation, and your 
 prosperity which now culminates at its zenith will 
 be turned back to the horizon to linger in feeble- 
 ness, and ultimately be overcast in the darkness 
 of anarchy. Thus reduce the annual products of 
 this country, and the millions of money which it 
 has heretofore attracted and now attracts, for in- 
 vestment, would seek other lands and other climes 
 more congenial to its wants. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, there is now brought into this 
 country, from the States of Europe, more than 
 two hundred million dollars annually to be in- 
 vested in agricultural products; and this vast sum 
 is an addition to the wealth of this nation; and is 
 that, sir, which gives life and activity to com- 
 merce, and dilTuses a wide-spread prosperity 
 which enters into all the pursuits of our people, 
 and is enjoyed by the industrious and energetic 
 alike. Destroy, then, and render idle this vast 
 
amount of property, and this sum will cease to 
 come here; will find other marts for investment; 
 and where now flows a golden stream of riches will 
 be seen stagnation and poverty. I will not, to- 
 day, undertake a review of the commercial con- 
 dition of the world up to the period of the intro- 
 duction of slave labor into this country, and the 
 production of cotton by it. It is sufficient for 
 my purpose to say, that industry, the mechanic 
 arts, commerce, civil and religious liberty, have 
 advanced with a rapidity which startles the con- 
 templation; destroy it, and the reaction will equal 
 the advance, and the dark ages will be restored. 
 
 The operatives in the free States, who depend 
 upon their daily labor to procure the means for 
 the support of their families, would be left with- 
 out employment, and would see their country re- 
 duced to a state of ruin which no imagination can 
 portray. If gentlemen imagine that this dark pic- 
 ture can be avoided by the introduction into the 
 rice, cotton, and sugar regions of the South of fre-e 
 white laborers, or by a regrganization of the Af- 
 rican emancipated labor, they are mistaken. The 
 African can only be made to labor as a slave, and 
 under compulsory power. The white man never 
 has performed, and never will perform, the labor 
 necessary to the successful development of tropical 
 regions. But suppose you could successfully re- 
 organize a system of labor suited to the cultivation 
 of rice, sugar, and cotton: it would require time, 
 during which, so deep would become the ruin of 
 this country, that it would require many gener- 
 ations before the shock could be recovered from. 
 Suppose the present annual products of slave labor 
 should be stopped for five years: your spindles, 
 which, as an item of national and individual weal tii, 
 equal $1,000,000,000,000, would be forever de- 
 stroyed, and those now in their employ left with- 
 out bread. In the destruction of agriculture and 
 manufactures, commercial prosperity would be 
 involved; and then would set in a dark, long, 
 dark night, upon our common country. 
 
 Thus I have shown that, by the emancipation 
 of the slave, the accumulation of national wealth 
 which has so successfully progressed in this coun- 
 try would be arrested, and national bankruptcy 
 produced. In this condition of the country no one 
 is benefited, and especially the poor or the labor- 
 ers; because in national, not individual, wealth, 
 does the interest of the poor lie. National wealth 
 falls upon all classes, like the dews of heaven, alike ; 
 while individual wealth is the cold, sordid, mi- 
 serly tyrant, that demands the letter of the bond, 
 although it exacts the last drop of blood. 
 • I have thus far, Mr. Chairman, considered this 
 question in its effects upon national prosperity. I 
 have not, and shall not, to-day examine its imme- 
 diate operation upon individual interest, or the 
 section of the Union to which I belong. Enough, 
 in times past, has been ifioken and written on 
 that subject. I leave the friends of this meafjure 
 to consult their own hearts, and then afford the 
 answer. It will tell them that seas of blood, an 
 era of anarchy, a disorganization of society, and 
 a rending of the Government, like the oak by the 
 lightning bolt, must be the consequences. 
 
 But many tell me this is not the aim of the 
 struggle. Then, I ask, what is it r Certainly no 
 great contest like thiscan commence and continue, 
 shaking a great country to its foundation, having 
 no motive. The fraternal feeling of this numerous 
 
 and mighty people ought not to be causelessly 
 riven and rent. It is the consummation of wickecl- 
 ness to excite in the minds of thirty million free- 
 men a storm luighticr than the winds of heaven, 
 for no other purpose than to hear its wild wailing, 
 and to behold the grandeur and sublimity of its 
 terrific sweepings. And he who would do it de- 
 serves the maledictions of earth and the vengeance 
 of heaven. If this is not the motive, then assert 
 it, that the quiet calm of civilization and religion 
 may be restored to the South, and the fiery breath 
 of fanaticism exlinguished in the North. But, 
 sir, it is untrue that this struggle is without mo- 
 tive; it may not be the same with all, but it has a 
 motive. With some it is, doubtless, the eman- 
 cipation of the slave. With others it is the de- 
 struction of the equilibrium in the political power 
 of the two sections of the Union, and the concen- 
 tration in the hands of the free States the bal- 
 ance, to be used in inflicting upon the slave States, 
 by legislative aid, a system too oppressive to be 
 endured; a system alike oppressive upon every 
 branch of industrial labor; a system which must 
 place at least the agricultural industry of this 
 country at the mercy of every other pursuit in 
 which civilized man is engaged — the chief meas- 
 ure of which system is the tariff, falsely denom- 
 inated protection of American labor, but truly the 
 fosterer of individual capital. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I shall not to-day, in the con- 
 sideration of this suliject, enter into detail and 
 show by statistics the true effects of a jirotective 
 tariff upon the industry of the people of this coun- 
 try. I shall content myself with a general view 
 of it. It is a system of bonuses; and that bonus 
 inures to the capitalist, and not the laborer — 
 augments individual wealth and does not reward 
 individual toil. It proposes to keep down the 
 competition of European capital, not European 
 labor. The true interest of labor is to increase 
 the competition of capital, so as therel^ to in- 
 crease the profits of labor. A protective tariff 
 has not this effect. The assertion that it does is 
 merely plausible, not real. It is not so much the 
 price of labor which gives individual prosperity, 
 as it is the cheapness of consumption. High 
 wages is always consumed by high consumption; 
 and to render consumption cheap, we should have 
 the whole world for a market. 
 
 You impose, sir, a duty of fifty per cent, upon 
 an article imported into this country from a for- 
 eign State. This sum must be paid by the con- 
 sumer, and that consumer is the laborer, as well 
 as any one else. Who, then, gets the advantage 
 of this fifty per cent.? It is the capitalist engaged 
 in the production of that particular article, and 
 the consumption of that article costs the capitalist 
 less by fifty per cent, than it costs others. This 
 assertion requires explanation ; it is easily afforded: 
 A invests $100,000 in an establishment for the 
 manufacture of cotton goods; he employs labor- 
 ers — does not own them; he pays wages. The 
 labor thus employed costs §100,000, and it pro- 
 duces $100,000 of fabric. The laborer has been 
 paid. Now, by the aid of the tariff, the capitalist is 
 enabled to add fifty per cent, to this $100,000 of fab- 
 ric, making its consumable value $150,000. Now, 
 who gets the benefit of the $50,000 thus added? 
 Not the laborer; his wages are not increased; he 
 has received his wages before this addition is made. 
 It is the capitalist. Who is injured.' The laborer; 
 
because he must consume, and consume a portion 
 of this very fabric, and is compelled to pay this 
 fifty per cent, without ^any increase in the utility 
 of the article since it came from his hands; be- 
 cause this fifty per cent, does not increase the util- 
 ity of the article, but only its cor.sumable value 
 
 But suppose you tell me that the capitalist, by 
 having the power to add this fifty per cent., is 
 enabled thereby to increase the wages of the la- 
 borer: still the increase in the consumable value 
 is far greater than in the wage% and the laborer 
 is injured. The capitalist himself is benefited in 
 another way; he consumes at the cost of making 
 the fabric, and not at its consumable price. The 
 argument might hold good if, in every instance, 
 she laborer was also the capitalist; but even then 
 the law would be unjust, because it would enable 
 the laborer in this particular branch of industry 
 to impose this burden of fifty per cent, upon every 
 other branch of industry, and especially upon 
 agriculture, which, from its very nature, cannot 
 procure from legislation similar aids. The true 
 value of every fabric is the cost of material and 
 price of labor, and that should be its consumable 
 value. But the tariff" enables you to increase its 
 market value fifty per cent., which is a burden 
 upon consumption, for individual benefit, and, to 
 the extent of the duty imposed, diminishes con- 
 sumption, and thereby lessens the value of labor. 
 
 The proposition that a tax imposed upon an 
 article of consumption increases its market price 
 to that extent, will not, I apprehend, be denied. 
 If, then, the market price is increased, it will re- 
 quire a much larger amount of labor to obtain it; 
 v/hich necessarily diminishes the consumption, 
 or increases the price of labor. If it diminishes 
 the consumption, it will prejudice those engaged 
 in that branch of labor, because less labor will be 
 required to supply the demand;and whenever de- 
 mand iadiminished , of course labor must cheapen , 
 because of the competition produced by a surplus 
 number of hands. To illustrate: the price of cot- 
 ton fabric has been increased fifty per cent, by the 
 aid of a duty imposed by the Government in its 
 favor; of course, with the same amount of money 
 I must purchase a third less, and as the consump- 
 tion has been diminished one third, the demand 
 for labor must be diminished in a like proportion; 
 and thus competition is increased, and thus labor 
 is cheapened, and the whole benefit inures to the 
 capitalist. 
 
 But suppose you deny this position, and as- 
 sume that the price of labor will be increased, 
 because the capitalists will be able to pay higher 
 rates: I will show the assumption to be founded 
 in error; firsts because it is not the nature of cap- 
 ital to pay more than it is compelled; and, sec- 
 ondly, because, although his profits would be 
 greater upon what he sold, yet he would sell so 
 much less that there would be no inducement to 
 increase wages, as competition would keep it 
 down. 
 
 But again: suppose the price of labor in that 
 branch of industry should be increased: would it 
 result to the benefit of the laborer? I think not. 
 The laborer must consume, and is interested in 
 cheap consumption; and if you increase the price 
 of consumption one third, and labor one third, it 
 would be the same in its results, as if both re- 
 mained at the lower rates. 
 
 I think, Mr. Chairman, I have shown that the 
 
 common day -laborer] at the North is not bene- 
 fited; if not, I shall certainly show that the land- 
 owner from one end of this continent to the other 
 is deeply injured. Now, buying and selling is 
 but an exchange of commodities, and no one 
 is able to continue long to buy who creates 
 nothing. Now, when you increase the cost of 
 consumption, you either diminish the amount 
 used, or require a much larger amount in ex- 
 change for it. This diminishes the value of the 
 articles given in exchange; and of course dimin- 
 ishes the profits of labor, and of course the price 
 of labor. This diminution must extend to the 
 landlord, who consumes fabric and creates raw 
 material. I confess, if the laborer worked for 
 himself, and owned the fabric when made, the 
 duty imposed would then enhance the profits of 
 his labor; but that is not the effect when the capi- 
 talist is the owner of the fabric. I confess, also, 
 that if the farmer who owns and works his own 
 land could impose a duty of twenty-five per cent, 
 upon the raw material, his profits, too, would be 
 increased; but this he cannot do, and consequently 
 he is oppressed by the operation of the rule. 
 
 To be a little more specific: take the States of 
 Massachusetts and Mississippi. The one man- 
 ufactures, the other cultivates the soil. The one 
 creates fabric, the other raw material. Tlie farmer 
 of Mississippi needs forconsumption such fabrics 
 as Massachusetts produces; but he can obtain the 
 same article from the English manufacturer. The 
 Englishman proposes to sell agiven quantity of his 
 fabric to the iMississippi farmer for §100, and will 
 take the farmer's agricultural products in exchange 
 at a given price. The Massachusetts manufacturer 
 cannot afford to take less than |150 for the same 
 amount of the same fabric, and is only willing to 
 allow the same price for the farmer's products. 
 The Government interposes in favor of the Mas- 
 sachusetts vendor, and against the farmer; re- 
 quires the English vendor to pay fifty per cent, 
 duty before he is allowed to offer his article. This 
 compels him to increase the price of his article 
 fifty per cent., and the farmer to take it at that 
 price. It is a tax on the farmer of fifty per cent.; 
 and transfers from Mississippi to Massachusetts 
 one third of the labor of the farmer without con- 
 sideration, by increasing the consumable value of 
 the article purchased. 
 
 Thus, it will be seen that no class of laborers 
 is benefited. Then, who is? I repeat again, 
 capital. And this, sir, brings me back to the 
 proposition asserted by me, in my opening re- 
 marks, that there was no conflict between the twq^ 
 systems of labor. They are dependent upon each 
 other, and mutually contribute to produce the 
 greatest national prosperity. Antagonism can 
 only exist where the labor is the same, and then 
 only because of a supeftibundance. If there were 
 more capital and labor engaged in the production 
 of iron than the consumption demanded, there 
 would then be antagonism. So in the manu- 
 facture of cotton goods. But between free and 
 slave labor no such antagonism can exist. It is 
 differently employed. The highest prosperity of 
 the one has its dependence upon the other. Slave 
 labor, everywhere, is confined to the cultivation 
 of the soil, and limited to the production of cot- 
 ton, rice, sugar, tobacco, hemp, and breadstuffa; 
 and these are the very articles upon which free 
 labor depends for success. What would your 
 
cotton factories? do without slave labor? The his- ' 
 lory of the world shows that cotton has never been 
 successfully raised where slave labor did not 
 exist. And what would they do without sugar, ' 
 breadstufls, &c.? Slave labor is peculiarly suited 
 to agriculture, and especially in tropical climates; 
 while commerce, navigation, and the meclianic 
 arts, require a higher degree of intelligence, pos- 
 sessed only by the white man. 
 
 From the triumphs and perfection of agriculture ! 
 these latter pursuits derive their success, and let ' 
 it be impaired or destroyed, and they will sink l 
 into ruin and decay. The true interest of each [ 
 system of labor demands that the disproportion ' 
 between them should not be too great, and espe- 
 cially in favor of free labor, since that, deriving ! 
 its prosperity from slave labor, will become ag- , 
 gressive, as it has been from the foundation of 
 the Government. A commerce is carried on be- 
 tween them by an exchange of commodities, thus 
 enabling the votaries of each to obtain the neces- \ 
 saries as well as the luxuries of life. Thus it will 
 be seen that the two systems are dependent, and 
 not antagonistical. The argument has its exist- 
 ence in an ingenious device originating with cap- 
 ital, which is waging an eternal war upon labor, 
 in every form and in every clime; intruding its . 
 hideous avarice into all the pursuits of men, 
 robbing them of the profits of their labor. ; 
 
 The antagonism is between capital and labor, ' 
 both free and slave; between which it would in- 
 duce a conflict to advance its profits. Its constant 
 cry is cheap labor and dear consumption. It keeps 
 labor at the lowest possible ebb, while it demands 
 the highest rates for all it sells. Thus it has been 
 in all ages of the world. When, since society 
 existed in a distinct form, have we not had com- ■ 
 binations of capital, with a view to concentrating 
 a controlling colossal power to be used in making 
 the rich richer and the poor poorer? When, in 
 years of scarcity, has it not been used to purchase 
 the entire provisions of the country, and then de- 1 
 mand prices so exorbitant as to put it beyond the 
 means of the laborer, leaving him and his family i 
 to suffer with hunger? Who now are the cham- ' 
 pions of this struggle? It is those engaged in the 
 service of capitalists. Who originated capitalists ? 
 Men engaged in class pursuits, and who now de- 
 mand, and have been demanding for so many 
 years past, protection for their capital against 
 labor. Protection which will enable them to rob 
 labor; and when they had failed to effect this by 
 argument, when they discovered there was intel- ; 
 ligence in this country to detect the error in their 
 argument, and that our people refused to be 
 misled by them, they changed their tactics, and 
 assailed the prejudices of tlie human heart, by 
 presenting, in an aggravated and false form, the 
 condition of the slave, and appealed in favor of 
 his right to be free and equal with the white 
 man. 
 
 Thus the fanaticism of the whole North was 
 awakened into action, and when they discovered 
 this Government shakened to its foundation, and 
 the Union in danger, they liave ingeniously di- 
 verted the direction of the storm, and now say 
 they are not for emancipation; but announce an ] 
 antagonism in the two systems. It is due to truth ' 
 and candor that they shall make known their real 
 object. If it is true there is antagonism, they 
 do intend emancipation; because that is the only [ 
 
 mode of terminating it. If it is true that they are 
 not for emancipation, then it is an admission there 
 is no antagonism; and, if no antagonism, the ob- 
 ject of this storm, which they are getting up, is 
 to enable capital so to use the Government as to 
 enslave the white as well as the black man. And 
 now, I ask, will the laborers of the North lend 
 tiiemselves to this foul fraud, and ripen in| 3 suc- 
 cess this despicable conspiracy against tlicir in- 
 terest ? I ask the people South if they would not 
 prefer to see this Union dissevered tiian endure 
 the operation of a system which is to transfer, as 
 I have shown, the one fourth of th6 net proceeds 
 of their labor to northern capitalists annually. 
 
 I repeat, Mr. Cliairman, this is a contest be- 
 tween capital and labor — a contest of power against 
 weakness; a contest in which the pride of the 
 freemen of this country is to be humbled and their 
 spirits broken, until they will consent to any deg- 
 radation, even serfdom; and from this, Mr. Chair- 
 man, if our people desire to escape, they must 
 stand by the Democratic organization , and thereby 
 perpetuate the great doctrine of limitation on the 
 powers of the Federal Government, and the abso- 
 lute right of the States to legislate alone upon 
 subjects which concern their domestic and civil 
 rights — doctrines which leave the people of each 
 State with the full and undivided right to pass for 
 themselves laws suited to their climate,'soil, and 
 industrial pursuits. 
 
 The perpetuation of the nationality of that 
 party with its principles, leaves every branch f 
 industry free to pursue its own course of policy, 
 and compels it to stand upon its own inherent 
 merits. In its long and brilliant course of tri- 
 umphs on this continent, it has given no cause of 
 complaint to our people; its career has been un- 
 felt, oppressively. Ithas discouraged sectionalism 
 and discountenanced class legislation. Against 
 it all class interest have combined and wage war 
 of extermination; not because the party had done 
 too much; not because the party had used the 
 power of the Government to advance one inter- 
 I est at the sacrifice of another; but because it had 
 refused to do this — not because it had used the 
 power of the Government to interfere with the 
 domestic interest of the people of the different 
 States, but because it had refused to do it; not 
 because it granted monopolies and gave bounties, 
 but because it had declared that these powers 
 did not belong to the Government; not because 
 it had not vindicated the honor and" glory of the 
 nation, when assailed, but because sensitive to 
 national honor it had resented national wrongs; 
 not because it had not used all honorable means to 
 extend our dominion and propagate our free insti- 
 ; tutions, but because this it had done; not because 
 ' it had used the power of the Government to pre- 
 I vent the full development of the various sources 
 of wealth and the various branches of industry 
 ' of our country — our whole country, this it had 
 i done, and we see it in the facts that to-day our 
 ' people are the happiest on earth, the freest on 
 earth, and prosperous beyond all parallel in the 
 past or present history of the world. Nowhere 
 else is wealth so generally diffused amongst all 
 classes, and industry so unrestrained and unre- 
 stricted as here. And now, at this point of ex- 
 alted prosperity, capital has excited this storm 
 which appals tlie heart of our people for the fu- 
 ture of our country; and amidst the conflicting 
 
8 
 
 elements our only hope to arrest the storm and 
 save the country from ruin and anarchy is the 
 Democratic organization. Let it go down, and 
 disorder and carnage and anarchy and despotism 
 must result. The free-labor system having ob- 
 tained possession of the Government, will bring 
 all its powers to their aid; and that which is now 
 denominated a struggle becomes a conflict which 
 must be settled by the sword, unless the slave- 
 labor system consents ignobly to yield to the dom- 
 inant party. Will they'do it, Mr. Chairman .' Do 
 you believe thfey will ? Does any man here to-day 
 believe they will.' I tell you, no ! Look you at 
 the breathless quiet which rests upon the whole 
 slave region. Do you apprehend it? It is the 
 
 L?.?,?^''^ 0^ CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 325 7 
 
 who know 
 II tain them, 
 . now being 
 onstitution- 
 trample the 
 usurpation. 
 I itense inter- 
 est, but uauiiwu.... „. " ' ^ his struggle 
 must be ended and sectional strife terminated. As 
 long as the Democratic party is continued in the 
 I ascendant, it will be kept in check, and when that 
 I party shall fall, the sword must and will do its 
 jt work. Let justice direct our councils, and amidst 
 !! the crumblings of European thrones we will re- 
 [i main a unit and a pride — happy and free. 
 
^^ 
 
 '^^^ 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 898 325 7