SPEECH OP HON. C. C. CLAY, JR., OF ALABAMA, ON THE CONTEST IN KANSAS AND THE PLANS AND PURPOSES OF BLACK REPUBLICANISM; DELIVERED IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, APRIL 21, 1856. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. ■ ";«K 1856. been hitherto . picion. Wlven ciu 4hey neither name him i. \ AFFAIRS OF KANSAS-SLAVEHY QUESTION. The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, having under consideration the bill to authorize the people of the Terri- tory of Kansas to form a constitution and State »overniiwnt, preparatory to theit admission into the Union wlien they have the requisite population — Mr. CLAY said: Mr. President, this debate, on the part of the advocates of insurrection in Kansas, has been worthy of their cause. Prom its inauguration by the Senator &om New Hamp- shire, [Mr. Hale,] in his furious onslaught upon the President's annual message, down to the attempt to foist upon the Senate the spurious memorial of the amateur Legislature at Topeka, they have displayed more personal, partisan, and sectional asperity, than I have ever witnessed on this floor. They seem not to desire to restore peace, to preserve order, and sustain the laws, but to incTea-se dissension, create disorder, and subvert the laws of that Territory. They appear not as impartial arbiters; of this great con troversy , but as zealous advocates with contingent fees Testing on its decision. Determined to know and to present but oKe sid«,they concede no violation of law, order, jnorality, or propriety, by their clients. Instead of exhibiting the impartiality, •dignity, and sobriety of an Areopagus, in whose justice and judgment contending States may con- fide, they have betrayed the rancorous prejudice ■of sectional bigotry, and the blind passion of selfish partisanship. They have assailed the reputations not only of those who have appeared as prominent advocates of slavery in Kansas, but even of those who have espoused neither •side, but have striven to stay the hand of violence and to do justice to both parties. The newspaper contributions of hireling and anonymous writers have been gravely paraded as testimony on which to decide this great issue, and with which to de- fame men whose integrity and patriotism have been hitherto without reproach and above sus- picion. When challenged to give their author, they neither name him nor indorse his statement; but admit their high esteem for the man whom they aid in traducing. They seek to injure, and to sliirk responsibility " Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike." The President has been assailed with a bitter- ness characteristic rather of personal enmity than political antagonism.' The Missourians have been spoken of as for- eign and barbarous enemies, rather than as fel- low-citizens, descended from a common ancestry and devoted to the same civil and political des- tiny. The South has been assailed as aggressive and overbearing; acquiring territory, or giving it away to aggrandize herself, and appropriating federal property and offices to her own use ^ and to the exclusion of the North. The North has not escaped detraction by her own sons; for they allege that she has always had venal men in market, ready to sell themselves to serve the ambitious purposes of the South. Those who proclaim the infamy of their own household must share the shame and endure suspicion; and when they wantonly and mali- ciously charge members of their own family with) selling themselves, people will suspeijt that they; have escaped that debasement only for want of a purchaser. The President needs not the shield of another to protect hini, against the missiles of their malice, ana is more honored by their censure than their praise. Covered in the complete panoply of truth, he has no vulnerable point exposed — not even a tender heel — which the curs that bay at him can, wound. If a love of country, which embraces the whole Union, and knows no North, no South, no East, and no West, in the adminis- tration of the Government; if a strict adherence to his professions of, political faith and observance of all the pledges with which he came into office; if a vigilant guardianship of the Constitution, and uncalculating vindicntion of its great principles; if these are marks of the true patriot, enlightened statesman, and honest man, then has the Presi- dent's official career illustrated that character. The people of his own section, deceived and mis- led by artifice, may unjustly condemn him in the present, but will in the future correct theirerrorand unite with the South in awarding him the honor due to noble ends attained by noble means. If the President's friends distrusted his fidelity to the Constitution and laws in discharging his official duty towards Kansas, the conflicting and contradictory charges of his enemies would fur- nish his vindication. The Abolitionists charge that the President approved the Nebraska-Kansas bill to open new iields for slavery; the South Americans, that he did so to enlarge the area of free soil. The Aboli- tionists say his Administration has been exerted to make Kansas a slave State; the South Ameri- cans, to make it a free State. The Abolitionists abuse the President for removing Reeder; the South Americans, for appointing him. The Abo- htionists say he was removed too soon; the South Americans, too late. The Abolitionists say he was removed for no official delinquency ; the South Americans, that he was retained after repeated delinquencies. The Abolitionists complain that squatter sovereignty is frowned upon and threat- ened with suppression; the South Americans, that it is countenanced and encouraged. The Aboli- tionists complain that the proclamation is leveled at Free-Soilers; the South Americans, at pro- slavery men. Thus do the President's accusers contradict and confute each other, and prove that he has displeased extremists on both sides by occupying that middle ground which is consistent •with the rights of both North and South, and ;hostile to the interests of neither. Nor, sir, are the President's northern accusers g his inter- ference, the Senator conceded that he did not know that there was a state of facts to justify interference! Again, that Senator, on the 3d of January last, in his violent attack upon the President, admitted ''there had been nothing in Kansas to justify bis official interference." But on the 28tn of Feb- ruary, the same Senator charged, that there had been a state of facts to justify and call for presidential inteiyosition .' In the former speech he complained, that while nothing had occurred to justify the Pres- ident's interposition, yet he had interposed, lohether justified or not. In the latter speech, he con- demns the President for not interposing, although advertised by Governor Reeder's stump speech of the urgent exigencies calling for Federal aid ! Thus the Senator appears as the President's accuser for interposing and not interposing, at the same time, and under the same circumstances, ready to prove the affirmative or negative in order to convict him of official misconduct ! One who did not know the man, would never suspect the identity of the author of the two speeches of 3d of January and 28th of February last. He re- minds me of a client of large resources and small conscience, who, when asked by his counsellor what facts he could prove, replied, " Tell me what facts must be proven, and trust me for producing the evidence." The Secretary of War has not escaped cen- i •sure. Nor has less of the blindness of sectional bigotry been displayed in criticising his letter to Colonels Sumner and Cooke. His accusers pre- tend to have discovered a discrimination in favor of Missouri invaders and against Free-Soil insur- rectionists. Far from showing in that letter the narrow and sectional spirit of his assailants, it is marked by a moderation, philanthropy, and pa- triotism they have not evinced, and can scarcely appreciate. If, sir, the omission of the words inv-asive aggression, in tlie peremptory part of the letter, was designed, why should the champions ■of the emigrants' aid society object or complain? Havenottheirhirelingsentered that Territory with arms not fitted for sport, but war — not designed to kill game, but men? — and, with the fear of con- scious blood-guiltiness, and the cunning of fraud, they sm.uggled.them into the Territory in boxes — marked'* books, "or " carpenters' tools!" Are •companies of men, specially equipped for war in New England, less deserving the name of invaders, than the Missourians with their mere fowling-pieces? The arrogance of pharisaical puritanism might justify the former and condemn the latter, just as it would deny the right to carry slave property there; but those whose visions are not limited to their own little section of this Con- federacy, or who would not surrender to party the rights of the people of every State, can make no discrimination. If the Secretary had used the words " invasive aggression," the Black Repub- licans should, and probably would, have under- stood it as menacing them; at all events, they would have howled as horribly at their use as they have done at their omission. But, sir, the words were properly omitted, be- cause they were unnecessary and liable to misap- prehension and misapplication. The words used are coextensive with any exigency that could have been anticipated, or that can possibly arise. The colonels are ordered to obey the requisitions of the Governorfor " suppression of insurrectionary combinations or armed resistance to the execution of the law." What matters it, wliether insurrec- tionary combinations or armed resistance be med- itated and organized within or without the Terri- tory, by citizens of Kansas or Missouri ? When- ever insurrectionists or resistants endeavor to put their illegal purposes in action, by rising up within, or entering from without, they subject themselves alike to the consequences, and invoke suppression by military force of the Government. All who put themselves in opposition to lawful, civil, or political authority within Kansas, are insurgents, whether residents or non-residents. All who put tiiemselves in armed resistance to the laws, no matter whence they come, are aggress- ors, and if they come from without are invading aggressors. The orders are, too, in strict conformity to the act of Congress, in spirit and letter, adopting the very language of those acts in directing when, how, and for what purpose to exert the military force of the Government. Let the assailants of the Secretary compare the orders and the acts, and show wherein he has transcended, or fallen short, or departed in any degree, from the law; and if they fail, as they must, to show any depart- ure, let them blame the makers of the law, and correct its imperfections. The words " invasive aggression" should have been omitted, because they are not used in the law under and by which, and which only, the orders were issued. Again, they were liable to misapprehension and abusive misinterpretation. What do Senators mean by armed invaders from Missouri? Are we so far advanced in this age of progressive depart- ure from the provisions of the Federal Constitu- tion, that the entranceof thepeopleof a slavchold- ing State into the Territories is an invasion ? Or are Missourians, in Free-Soil dialect, foreigners or savages ? Is the entrance by them with arms in their hands, armed invasion or invasive aggres- sion ? Does not the Constitution guaranty to them, in common with the people of Massachu- setts, the right to bear arms, and freedom of transit into or out of the States or Territories ? And may not the militia of a State be marched into another State or a Territory where the standard of reljellion or insurrection is raised against the existing government? Does not the Constitution make this an obligation of the State governments instead of an invasion ? Do Senators mean to renounce this obligation, and denounce its exercise in declaring against armed invasion ? Do they mean to forestall and prevent the employment of the Missouri militia for the suppression of rebellion? If so, then they may find a pretext for censuring the Secretary. But, if they use the term in the sense used by the President and Secretary, as "invasive aggression against the organized Government of the Terri- tory," then the orders of the latter embrace the case which they say was omitted. The orders direct the officers to comply with the requisi- tions of the Governor, and suppress all insurrec- tionary combinations and armed resistance to the execution of the laws, without inquiring who are the insurgents or resistants, or whence they came> To have ordered them to prevent armed bodies of men from entering the Territory, would have placed the United States troops in conflict with the Missourians — the victors of Sacramento and Chihuahua, who disdain to conceal their weapons or play the part of assassins — while puling and coward knaves might have gone in without let or hindrance, in the garb of peace, carrying, concealed in boxes, the implements and munitions of war. TJiis would doubtless have suited them and their counselors, but would have wronged the brave and encouraged the cowardly. The entrance of armed men from Missouri or Massachusetts into Kansas is no invasive aggres- sion, if they go as law-abiding citizens; and the character in which they go is not to be prejudged, but determined by their acts after they enter. The Secretary was right in not predetermining, or authorizing his subordinates to predetermine, their character. The orders of the Secretary are public acts, and a legitimate subject of praise or censure. But the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] has gone behind the order and assailed the char- acter of the Secretary. He has impeached the integrity of his conduct and impugned his motives. Indeed, he denied the purity of intention and pro- priety of action of the entire Administration. He has assailed, in like manner, the people of the South. He alleges that they and this Adminis- tration are sustaining lawless men from Missouri in their aggressive acts — the lawless men before ichom the Secretary of War shrinks and bends ! Sir, it 6 would justly excite mirth or indignation, and provoke bitter words of scorn or contemptuous phrases of ridicule, should a brave and responsible man charge with cowering before any men, and more especially lawless men, him whose patriot- ism and whose courage have been attested by his blood, and illustratedby his deeds on the heights of Monterey and plains of Buena Vista. But, when one who has displayed neither of those virtues, makes such a charge against such a man, he should be regarded rather with the pity with which we look upon an idiot, who cannot appre- ciate an emotion he never experienced. This discussion has indicated the policy (more distinctly developed in speeches made elsewhere) of the self-styled Republican party. They are unwilling to hazard a contest for the presidency upon the old issues of abolition. They do not believe that the northern people are yet prepared to sustain them in an open assault upon the con- stitutional rights of the South; and hence the repeal of the fugitive slave law, the abolition of slavery in this District, the inhibition of the inter- State slave trade and other anti-slaver)^ measures are suppressed for the present. Even the wrongs of the slave no longer form the staple of their appeals to the northern heart. No; the wrongs and injuries of the North and the usurpations and aggressions of the South furnish themes for their popular harangues. The South, they charge, has been robbiiTg the North of its just share in the Territories, the treasures, and tiie honors of the Union. They affect not to be aggressors, but the aggrieved; and are implacably incensed against the President for assailing their false position. The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] denies that there is anything 171 the plans or purposes of the emigrant aid society hostile to the Constitu- tion, to law, order, or peace, or aggressive upon the South. And so do all of the party to which he belongs. The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] denies that the North has ever " made (Agression or ever means to do so;" declares that she "asks to stand nothing more than our equals;" and alleges that all the men about whom he knows anything, engaged in the anti-slavery enterprise of the North, " have always disclaimed Mtterly the purpose, the desire, or the power to inter- fere with slavery in any State ichere it exists." On the contrary, he ali(;ges tliatthe North has always " stood on the defensive;" that, " in the history of this Government there has been no .A'or//i except to collect revenue from," and is grievously exercised about the territorialacquisitionsof the South, and her possessions of the high places of the Gov- ernment. The Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] denies there has been any disregard of constitutional obligations by the northern States, and especially by New York and Massachusetts, and charges territorial aggrandizement on the South; and, addressing his constituents at Albany last fall, made " the danger of extending slavery" his text, and expatiated upon tiie perjidious and insidious (Agressions and bold usurpations of" the privileged class," " thi- slave aristocracy," their sectional par- tiality in denying protection to northern wool, ivhilc freely giving it to the slaveholder's sugar; in giving millions of acres of public land to .Qlabainafor rail- roads, or oj gratuities, while not a dollar can be ob- tained for internal improvements in Jfew York; and the humiliation exacted of northern Representa- tives as the price of pensions to the old soldiers ! The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] takes as his text for a discourse in Faneuii Hall " the slave oligarchy and its usurpations," against whom he prefers like charges, and utters yet stronger denunciations. The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] in a stump speech in Maine last summer, denounces the slave power as " asystem of outrage, aggression, and wrong," and declares the men of the North and the South are more inimical than the Rus- sians and the English, and that "the pretended Union, noiv existing, is all meretricious." Ay, sir, the Republican party was professedly formed to repel "southern aggression!" If its leaders can persuade the North that their asser- tions are true, they must achieve a sectional vic- I tory in the coming elections. They invoke to I their aid, not only hatred of the South as an en- ! eray, vengeance for the wrongs she has inflicted, indemnity for past injuries and security for the future, but the uistincts of self-love and self-pres- ervation. If their assertions be true, it is not only the duty of the northern people to sustain them at the polls, but if unsuccessful there in wresting power from the tyrants who oppress them, to take up arms and resort to revolution, as has been attempted by the Republicans in Kansas, and is approved by their advocates here. The plain import of the sentiments avowed by their leaders is, that not only the people of Kansas, but of the northern States, are .suffering intolerable wrongs and oppression, and the inevitable tendency of their appeals is to civil war and revolution. If their counsels prevail, I sincerely believe civil war must and will come. Tlie Union was formed by the several States as friends and equals, and was designed to secure justice, tranquillity, and equality to every State. If it has failed to answer its purpose, it is truly a meretricious Union, and its days will soon be numbered. In order to test the truth of these assertions, to determine tiiis issue of southern aggressions and usurpations tendered by the Black Republi- cans, and to vindicate the President from their aspersions, I propose to state briefly the account between the North and the South. Let us see which section has added more, and which has appropriated more of the Federal domain; which has contributed more, and which has enjoyed more of the Federal treasure, and which has disturbed the tranquillity of the other or the harmony of the Union. The facts are neither new nor strange, but may be found in the documents published by Congress. At the conclusion of peace, in 1783, the States then north of Mason and Dixon's line had 164,081 square miles; the States then south of that line had 647,202 square miles. Pending the Revolu- tion, the Northwestern Territory excited (as Mr. Madison expressed it) " the lucrative desires" of the northeastern people, to a degree threatening the existence of the Confederacy. That territory belonged to Virginia by repeated royal grants, as well as by conquest, achit\ed at her sole ex- pense and by her unaided arms. To satisfy those desires, quiet the contest, and secure harmony and peace, she surrendered it to the Confederacy, and the ordinance of 1787 devoted it to free soil. That surrender reduced southern territory nearly .mHeaii—itta one half, and increased northern territory nearly threefold . Northern territory was thereby swelled to 425,761 square miles, and southern territory reduced to 385,521 square miles. The Territory of Louisiana, next acquired, in which slavery was maintained by both French and Spanish laws, and guarantied in the treaty of acquisition, was, by the Missouri restriction, so divided that the North took (exclusive of Oregon) 659,138 square miles, and the South ret£iined 225,456 square miles. By that settlement, the South surrendered of slaveliolding territory to the North about three fourths, and retained about one fourth. But, including Oregon as part of the Louisiana purchase, the North took 972,605 square miles, and the South retained 225,456 square miles; thereby the South surrendered more than four fifths, and retained but one fifth of that territory. The acquisitions of Oregon, (if not included in the Louisiana purchase,) Florida, and Texas, resulted in a division by which the North got about 415,467 square miles, and the South retained about271,268 square miles. By that arrangement the North obtained about three fifths of those ter- ritories. The Mexican conquests engrossed by the North, added to her limits about 401,838 square miles. The South has grown from 647,202 to 882,245 square miles; having added but 235,043 square miles to her area since 1783. In the same time, the North, from 164,081, has grown to 1,903,204 square miles; having added in the same time, 1,738,123 square miles to her limits. The South has increased less than fifty per cent., the North near 1,100 percent, in territorial area since the Revolution. The South commenced with more than four times the territory of the North; the North now has near two and a half times the territory of the South. The Federal Govern- ment never held one foot of territory east of the Rocky Mountains that was free soil when ac- quired; and, indeed, I question whether she ever held any west of them that was free soil. The northern States never ceded one foot of territory to the United States; and never yielded one foot of territory, that was free soil when acquired, to the use of the South, but have retained it all. The South has ceded, of her own exclusive territory, 261,671 square miles, and has relin- quished, of other slaveholding territory when acquired — belonging in common to all the States — 972,605 square miles, and of slaveholding and non-slaveholding territory in all, not less than 1,738,123 square milesp— an empire elevenfold greater than the entire area of the northern States at the peace of 1783, and more than double the entire domain of the States of the Confederation. When stronger and richer than the North, she magnanimously gave up nearly half her domain to hush the clamor of envy, avarice, and ambi- tion, and preserve confederation. Whenreduced by that suicidal act to a minority in both Houses of Congress, on the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, the North, for the first time, avowed her purpose to appropriate all the Territories to her sole and exclusive use, and to ijefuse admission to another slaveholding State into the Union. The South then yielded to the demands of dominating power more than she had given, in the prodigality of her wealth, to the importunities of dissatisfied weakness. She sur- rendered four fifths of slaveholding territory to. the North, and submitted to that odious interdict: inhibiting her from.holding slaves north of 360 30', on condition of the admission of Missouri, and the extension of her territory south of that, line. Yet, in less than twelve months, northern Free-Soilers violated the miscalled compromise, by refusing to admit Missouri; and from that day to the present, have persistently endeavored to transgress that line, and to deny the South the enjoyment of territories and admission of States south of it. No impartial mind can contemplate the history of these territorial contests without being im- pressed with the arrogant demands on the one part, and the generous but unwise concessions on the other part. Instead of aggressing, the South has been retrogressing; instead of en- croaching on non-slaveholding territory, she haa been surrendering slaveholding territory; instead of demanding and exercising equal participancy in the common domain, she has been conceding this right until she seems almost regarded by northern Free-Soilers as a mere tenant by suifer- ance. And yet, in seeming ignorance or disregard of these undeniable truths of history, we are told by some of her unjust and rapacious sons, that the North has never been aggressive, that she has always stood on the defensive, only .asking to stand as our equals, nothing more; and that the South has always been acquiring territory for her aggrandizement, and cutting off, selling or giving away territory at the North for her enfee- blement. But, sir, in seeming apology for the attempt to exclude slaveholders from the territories of the United States, we are modestly told by the Sen- ator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] that slave labor blasts and curses the soil; and are assured by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Hale,] with pious philanthropy, that New Eng- landers cannot endure the ^'responsibility of sxis- talning, extending, and perpetuating an institution which, in their heart of hearts, they believe to be lorong." The Senator from Massachusetts, in his desire to disparage the South and extol the North — common to all of his party — tells us that many southern men, emigrating to Kansas, per-i. haps a majority, prefer making it a non-slave- holding State. He utters this assertion, as he does all others, upon the testimony of interested witnesses, many of them hireling contributors to northern presses, as zealously devoted to manu- facturing public sentiment for the exclusion of slaveholders from the Territory as the Senator himself. That there are southerners of that class, is not improbable; but that there are, also, settlers from northern States who would prefer intro- ducing slavery, I am well assured, and fully credit. But the reason assigned by him for the prefer- ence given by many poor white men for free in- stitutions, is their experience in the South of "the malign influences which bear icith oppressive force upon free labor." What those malign influ- ences are, he did not disclose, and I neither know nor can conjecture. In this connection, however, he speaks of our artless, untutored, unpaid labor, and quotes two or three lines from an agricultural address, made by me last spring, in which I spoke § of the exhaustion and impoverishment of the soil of portions of that State, " exhibiting the painful signs of senility and decay apparent in Virginia and the Carolinas." The inference deducible is, that, like all of his school of politics, he means to impress the idea that it is slavery which blasts tlie soil and causes ail labor there to go unpaid. And, although he does not allege it, the implica- tion may be fairly drawn that my address siip- pHed him evidence for his assertion. I do not suppose the Senator ever read, or saw, the entire address, or more of it than the paragraph from which he quoted. Had he read it, he would have learned that it maintained that agricultural labor had not only been well paid, but better paid there, in the culture of cotton, than it had been in any field-tillage elsewhere; that it had enabled the State to realize about twenty millions of dollars annually from her cotton crop alone, and to become tiie largest exporter of agricultural products of all the States of the Union. Had he read but the para- fraph preceding the one from which he quoted, e would have found that the impoverishment of our soil was properly attributed to the constant and changeless cultivation of the cotton plant; and that the folly of violating inexorable laws of Nature was illustrated in the result. That this result is caused by slave labor, is a conclusion as illogical as unjust. Indeed, I cannot suppose that finy Abolitionist or negro-philist will concede that there is a Divine curse upon the labor of the negro, which prevents the earth from yielding her treas- ures in return for his tillage. As like causes pro- duce like results, it will be found that artless w/?i,10,00(),000, of which nearly every cent has been paid to the North, and chiefly to New England. About $300,000 is annually paid at the North for catch- ing codfish. A like disproportion in favor of the North against the South, in expenditures for postal services, for custom-houses, court-houses, pay- ment of civil ofiicers, and, indeed, every object of Federal care, could be shown. And yet, having received in fortifications t^or her defense more than double the amount expende'd on the same extent of southern coast; having received a light for every twrniy-odd miles, to guide and protect her mariners along her own coast, wliile, for hundreds of miles along soutliern coast, not a warning beacon cheers the storm-rocked vessel; having received ten dollars, in cutting roads and canals, cleiining rivers and constructing harbors, where one dollar has been given the South; having received four dollars in jjoisions where one has been paid the South; having received in grants of land for intrrnai improvement tiDo acrrs for one granted the Souiii; having received, in ab- solute bounti(A for her fishermen, more than brougiit to $10,000,000, while no industrial pursuit of the Si)uth his enjoyed any bounty; having appro- priated all of non-slaveholding, and five sixths of slaveholding territory, acquired, as admitted, by southern diplomacy, or southern arms, some of her sons complain that she does not enjoy a fair and just parlicipancy in the treasures and terri- tory of the Union! The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] assures his constituency that "in the history of this Government, there has been no North, except to collect revenue from !" The Senator from New York [Mr. Seward] tells his constituency, that millions ujion millions are lavished in war and diplomacy to annex and spread slavery at the Soutli, while free territory at the North must not be looked upon, lest they may lust after it; that millions of acres of public domain are freely givi'n to Alabama for railroads, or even gratuities, while not a dollar can he ob- tained for New York harbors; that northern Senators must humiliate themselves, to obtain justice for even their old soldiers; that protection is freely given southern industry, while it is refused northern ! The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sum- ner] adjures his constituency, by their desire for economy in the Government and improvement in their rivers and harbors, by their hatred of tyraimy, which has trampled on them, to pros- trate the slave oligarchy. Sir, the aggressions and usurpations of the South have merely this extent: sin; has struggled with a proud spirit but feeble power in main- taining her constitutional rights and repelling as- saults; in resisting the appropriation of territory acquired mainly by her own diplomacy or blood to her own exclusion; in unsuccessfully opposing the extravagant expenditure in the North of four fifths of the revenue of the Government derived from southern toil; in exerting all means to pre- serve her slave property provided by the Con- stitution and the laws; in .striving to secure for herself that justice and domestic tranquillity, for the guarantee of which to all the States the Union was formed; and in winning too often, though fairly, and filling too long, though well, with her own sons, the chief executive otHce of the nation. The South does not seek to exclude non-slave- holding States from the Union; but only asks the admission of those who may choose to C(nne in as slaveholding. She does not seek to exclude northern men or their yiroperty from the Territo- ries; but only asks that her own citizens, with their property, may, too, be admitted. She does not deny the equality of the northern States in the Union; but only asserts her own. She does not demand any concession of northern rights; but only asks the acknowledgment of her ov/n. She does not assail or disturb the domestic peace of the North; but only asks the fori)earance she displays. She does not interfere with the internal affairs or social institutions of the North; butonly asks the privilege of being allowed to manage her own. She offers no insult, no injury to her northern sisters or their sons. Can the same be truthfully alleged by all themn-thern States or by their representatives on this tloor.' Sir, I sup- pose they did not weigh the truth of their decla- rations; yet the Senators from New York [Mr. Seward] and New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] have 11 both denied any disregard of their constitutional obligations by the northern States, and the former Senator has challenged the President to the proof, especially against Massachusetts and New York. Mr. President, it affords me no pleasure to criminate or censure the conduct of any State, or of any portion of the people of this Union. lam unconscious of having uttered a charge on this floor that could offend the northern people or any portion of them. I have eschewed all sectional controversies. But, sir, I should be unjust to northern friends, as well as faithless to my con- stituency, if I did not accept, on behalf of the President and the South, the challenge of the Senator from New York. With that view I must revive bitter recollections. Is it no proof of disregard of constitutional obligation to break or seek to destroy the solemn and sacred compacts of the Constitution? Among them, and without which the Union would never have been formed, and the destruction of which the Union can never survive, was that securing to us a representation of three fifths of our slaves Massachusetts has twice by her Legislature — 07ice by unanimous vote — called for an amend- ment of the Constitution, so as to abolish this representation guarantied by tViat instrument. The South would thereby lose twenty-one of her representatives, and the North would swell her majority in the other branch of Congress from fifty-three to seventy-four votes. What end has Massachusetts in view, when she proposes this amendment to the Constitution? Is it for self- defense, or is it to injure, to despoil the South? Is there neither injury nor insult offered or med- itated, by this menace of that State to violate her bond of compact with the South? And will the Senator from New York reiterate his denial that Massachusetts has shown any disregard of her' constitutional obligations ? Another consitutional compact is that requiring the rendition of/itgiJire slaves. The Constitution declares that the fugitive slave shall be delivered on the claim of his master. The language is plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal. The pur- pose and the manner of its execution are beyond doubt, and were never brought in question until the discovery of that /iig/icr taw, of which the Senator from New York is a prominent advocate and exponent. The fugitive slave act of 1793 looked to the agency of State officers and State tribunals for its execution. Massachusetts and New York, together with several other northern States, had, previous to 1850, virtually nullified that act by State legislation. The acts of the States named were specially contrived to defeat the objects of the constitutional provision and congressional legislation. The process of recov- ery was made slow, costly, and embarrassing, and a trial by jury of the fact of servitude was required. The Supreme Court of the United States declared those acts in conflict with the Federal Constitution. The same States immedi- ately after passed acts forbidding their citizens from aiding in the recapture of fugitive slaves, and in)|iosi ng heavy penalties upon the master for any disturbance of the peace in any attempt to recapture his property. Those acts of the States rendered the enact- ment of the fugitive slave law of 1859 necessary for the protection of our property. But that has in like manner been virtually annulled by the legislation of several of the northern States. Massachusetts, "the model Commonwealth, "has not only virtually nullified the act of Congress by her late legislation, but menac(!R with disffan- chisemenf. any lawyer who appears for the claim- ant of the slave; menaces with imptachment any judge who issues a warrant or certificate, or holds even the office of commissioner under the Fed- eral law, and menaces with infamous ininishment any ministerial oflicer, or officer of militia, who aids in its execution. Failure of the claimant to establish his claim by verdict of a jury, impan- neled under the direction of State officers, paid out of the State Treasury, and counseled by a State attorney, hired for that purpose, subjects that claimant to a heavy fine, and confinement from one to five years in the penitentiary ! Thus, in contempt of the compromises of the Constitu- tion, the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and that of Massachusetts, the slaveholder is, by her legislative enactment, de- nied his constitutional rights, aiul menaced with infamous punishment for their unsuccessful as- sertion; the seduction of southern slaves is en- couraged, and their reclamation accordi))g to the supreme law of the land is forltidd<'n ! Is it surprising, sir, that under the fostering Legislation of iVIassachusetts, and New York, and a few other northern Slates, companies of slave-stealers should have been organized in the non-slaveholding States, with branches in Can- ada, who make the theft or robbery of our pro- perty both their business and their boast? Tlieir predatory incursions rob us annually, according to the estimates of distinguished members of Congress from the South, of slave property of the value of $300,000. But this estimate is certainly far too low. The New York Times, the mouth -pi(;ce of the Senator from New York, boasts that, since the passage of the fugitive slave law of 1850, 35,000 slaves have escaped from the southern States, of the value, it says, of $35,000,000. "The most valuable slaves are those who escape," exclaims this honest editor. And he adds: "what interest in this country can survive an annual loss of »^4, 000,000? Here is emancipation without the help of aboli- tion." And tliese plundering forays of thieves and robbers, which, if committed by any foreign Power, would, in the days when the Union ex- isted in spirit, as well as form, have aroused the whole people. North and South, to war and re- prisals, not only escapes all punishment, or even rebuke, but receives the countenance and encour- agement of State legislators. State Governors, and their Senators on tliis floor! The champion and friend of the Senator from New York boasts and chuckles over an annual loss, by theft, of $4,000,000 of slave property ! I take his estimates as more reliable than those of southern men, because his associations doubtless afford him information we cannot procure. The Senator from New York, perhaps, can indorse his friend's statement. And the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] mentions, with i!l- disguisi'd joy and triumph, the expenditure of <>30,000 by the Governnifnt in recapturing An- thony Burns from Boston ! But, sir, Massachusetts shall not be tried upon the testimony, or convicted by the verdict, of 12 southern men. Neithor shall she be acquitted by the partial and prejudiced judgment of the Sen- ator from New York. By her own mouth shall she be accused, and by her own judgment shall she be condemni;d. Massaohu.setls, which in 1G43 covenanted with Plymouth, New Haven, and Connecticut, to re- store runaway slaves upon a mere ortificate, sent from those colonies, and secured for herself the same mode of recajUure of her runaways; Massachusetts, which in 1703, by legislative en- actment, restrained the manumission of negroes by exacting bonds of the master, to idemnify the town in wliieh he lived from all charge for, or about, the ni'gro liberated, because of his sick- ness, lameness, or other infirmity, and provided further, in case of manumission wltliout said bond, for pulling the negro to work for the benefit of said town: Massacliusetts, which in 17U7 j^un- ished with fine and imprisonment the harboring or entertaining of a slave without the master's consent; Massachusetts, whose own son, Na- than Dane, drew up and i))troduced into the Con- tinental Congress, that provision in the ordinance of 1787, for the return of fugitive slaves; Massa- chusetts, whose own State Convention, in 1788, adopted tiic provision for the return of fugitive slaves, provided by the Federal constitution, witli- out a single objection, and even with the approval of her patriot son. General Heath; Massachu- setts, which in 1788, in view of that same pro- vision in the Federal constitution, passed an act, inhibiting negro slaves from tarrying in her limits for a longer time than two months, and provided, in case of violation of it, punishment with s/ripes; Massachusetts, whose .son, George Cabot, as Senator from that State, assisted in drafting the fugitive slave law of 1793, whose Representatives in Congress voted for the same, and whose son, John Adams, as Vice President of the United States, signed the same; Massachusetts, whose Representatives and Senators in Congress voted for a law, suggested by the same John Adams, and approved by him as President of the United States, empowering and requiring the chief jus- tice of any district into which a slave might flee to cause his apprehension and delivery; Massa- chusetts, which in 1851, through her Legislature, while protesting against the fugitive slave law as abhorrent to her people, yet resolved — '■'That while Massachusetts entertains these views of I that law, slic claims no ri^ld under the Federal ConitUulion I to nuUifii, di^rc:^(ird, or Jforcifdy I'cvi-.f the j)7'o('j»!on.v of un \ act of Con^reis ; that she has alreaily, wliun such liglit was ' claimed by the State of South Carohna, oxpiessod iter I ojiiiiii^ii uimii it, iiwd she no:i' reajfirvis and rcjicats the follow- ! i ng resolution, then passed by her Lef;ishuure, viz : " 'Tliat the Constitution of the (Tnited States of America ' ' is a solemn social compact hy which the jicople of the said j ' States, in order to form a more perfect union, estahlissh ju,^- ♦ticc, insure domestic tranquillity, provide lor the common ' ' defense, promote the general vvelt'are,and secure the hiess- ; ' in;;? of libi'rty lor themselves ami their po>lerity formed '. ' themselves into one body politic, under a eiinnnoii ^overn- 'mcnt -that tliis (,'onstitution, and the laws of llnrUnited 'States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made ! 'under the authority of the same, arc the supreme law of *the land, anything; in the constitution or laws of any State \ < to the e(mtrary notwithstandiiru ; nudlhntiio citizen, State 1 ' or other mcinhcr of the liody politic, has aright, in anyihape, ' or under ally jiyi-lcj-t, to unnulor }ircrenl the e.rccutioii of the j ' said Von^tilution, laics, orticaties, or any ofthcnt,Cdxejdin« 1 < in such extreme cases as justify a riolent rcxislance to the « tdii's, on thejninciple of the natural and indefeasible preroga- ' tive of self defense uguinU intolerable ojjj/ressioii,' " — — This same Massachusetts, regardless of her public honor, of her solemn stipulations of com- pact and confederation contained in the Federal Constitution, repeatedly acknowledged by her, now solemnly and deliberately, by her legislative action, violates her pledged faith and international integrity. And in the face of all this — despite her own confession — the Senator from New York boldly denies that she has been guilty of any disrt^gard of constitutional obligation ! And the Soiator from New Hampshire, with affected gravity, denies there has been any eiggression on the part of the North. Indeed, sir, if 1 rightly interpret the sentiments avowed, and the puljlic acts of both those Senators, they not only excuse and justify the nullification of Massachusetts, but also tJie theft and robliery of our property. The Sen- ' ator from New York — if I mistake not — refused, ! while Governor of that State, to deliver up a I negro thief identified, and arrested there, on tho i deinand of the Governor of Virginia. ! And in 1848 that Senator suggested such nulli- I fication of Federal laws by State legislation, and robbery and resistance of the master, in an ad- dress to the people of New York , in which he say s : " Reform your own code, extend a cordial velcome to tha fugitive ti'ho lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gorfs — correct your own error, that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released and ou^ht not tobe relinquished, t^ay to slavery, when it shows its bond, [that is, the Federal Con- stiluti(Mi,] and demands its pound of flesh, that if it draws one drop of blood its life shall pay the forfeit." ' What Stronger commendation could he have furnished of the nullifying law of Massachusetts, or of organized slave-stealing, or of the murder of Kennedy, who perished in the effort to recover his slave in Pennsylvania? The Senator fronrj New Hampshire justifies both the act of Massa- cliusetts and robbery of our slave properly' in denying thi;re has ever been aggression on the part of the North; and, indeed, affects to find its warrant in the Holy Scriptures, judging from his quotation from Deuteronomy. Nor are nullification of Federal laws by State Legislatures, refusal to enforce them by State Governors, robbery and theft, the only expedients adopted to destroy the practical value of our con- stitutional right and legal inode for recovery of fugitive slaves. The general convention of Abo- litionists assembled in Buffalo, in 1843, resolved, that, wln.'uever called upon to swear to support the Federal Constitution, they would by mental reservation except that clause providing for fUgi- tive slaves ! Thus perjury and fraud are delib- erately resolved upon and proclaimed as pious- and proper means for wresting from us our prop- erly ! In fiict, the doctrine is commonly held by Abo- litionists, and perhaps by those Senators, that a slave becomes fVee by removal beyond the law which maintains his relation towards his master, and that the Federal Constitution does not recog- nize that relationship; and hence, that, whenever a slave escapes into a non-slavcholding State, he is thereby emancipated. If, sir, to violate the sacred compacts of the Constitution, or the solemn obligalionsof treaties, or tht^ laws of the land, designed for the protec- tion of our property in slaves; if to refuse us any share in territory, which was nominally free 13 soil when acquired, and to exclude us even from that which was slaveholding when acquired; if to invade and rob our border States of their slaves, and to refuse to deliver the fugitive, or the negro lliii'f, on demand, and to menace with the pe^ii- tejUiary the master who seeks his slave in your limits, bo aggression, then may the South justly complain of some northern States and their citi- zens. But aggression may be committed bywords no ^ less than by deeds — by Stales as well as by indi- ; vidnals. The slanderer or libeler is more detest- | able and dangerous tlian the robber or thief. The , laws of all countries give redress to the victims of the former, as well as of the latter criminals. | And does the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. ; Hale] know of no State or anti-slavery party, or ; man, in the North who has committed any aggres- ^ sion on the people of the South by words more i offensive and injurious than the predatory irrup- [ lions of those bands of robbers who hang upon ; our frontiers.' Is not our system of slavery ha- ] bitually denounced as & heinous crime in the sight : of God, which no human laws can justify, and no individual or State necessity can excuse or extenuate.' Has not this been done by solemn ; legislative resolves? Is it not represented as the ! most atrocious robbery and the most pitiless and cruel tyranny.' Are not the northern people ad- jured by their philanthropy, their patriotism, and their religion, *' lo trample .dllar, Constitution, the Union, under foot," if neccssavy to emancipate the negro.' Are not slaveholders painted as tyrants towards their fellow-men and traitors to God, as inhuman, infamous, and despicable as Algerine 1)irates, or South Sea Islanders .' Is not a cease- ess and persistent eft'ort made to prepare the public mind North to loathe them as lepers and treat them as outlaws.' Are not Christian sects required to close their churclies against them as profaners of the sanctuary; civilized communities to exclude, and avoid them as engenderers of moral pestilence? Are not the aid of t!ie pul|iit, tlie court, the press, the hustings, the legislative hall, and the school, invoked to heap odium and infamy upon the heads of slave-owners, and make their very name a byword of hissing and scorn? Are not the purpose and plan of abolition to in- voke upon the South the curse of Nineveh : " / will cast ahomimdile filth upon thee, and make thee vile, and set thee as a ga;i;i,g stock?" I need not quote authorities to establish the fact, that the reputation and renown of southern people are made the objects of systematic and persevering calumny and detraction. But, sir, as there are some recent illustrations in the speeches of men occupying seats on this floor, I will bring them to notice to-day. In a speech at Albany, New York, in October last, the Senator from New York [Mr. Sewaud] took as his text "the danger of extending slavery," and labors to prove that slaveholders are a '^priv- ileged class," whom he charges with fraud, perfidy, and dishonor — with controlling the Government, domineering over the North, and preventing her from receiving her due share of the territories, treasures, trusts, and offices of the Union. In the same month, in another speech, at Buf- falo, New York, the Senator from New York indulges in similar denunciations, and says: " The non-slaveholder in slave States is allowed no inde- pendence, no neutrality-^ * * * a yhipi^ pistols, knives, enforce not merely their silence, hut their active partisan- ship,^^ [for sliiverV.] " Tlie ri^ht of free speech is lost to them, ttie rizht of sulfrase is calnclcss to them, the honors and rewards of public offi.ce are denied to them." This, sir, is the assertion of one professing to speak from personal knowledge acquired by a residence in the South. There is no difference, according to law and good morals, between the assertion of that which one knows to be false, and the assertion of that which lie does not know to be true. I care not which horn of the dilemma the Senator chooses, but he must take one or the other. Sir, some of my predecessors — Senators from Alabama— were non-slaveholders. Some of her Representatives in Congress, in former days, were non-.slaveholders. Many of the members of her State Legislature, at this day, are non-slave- holders, and many of those of past years were non- slaveholders. Doubtless, the .same facts may be predicated of all the southern States. Non-slave- holders are as respectable, as proud of spirit, as independent and tenacious of their rights as slave- holders, and no less influential. I believe a ma- jority of the officeholders in Alabama at this day are non-slaveholders. Being a slaveholder or a non-slaveholder is no recommendation or disqual- ification for office there. The Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Wade,] speaking to a Maine audience in August last, denounces slaveholders as a " handful of aristocrats;" declares " there is nomore liberty for a white man in the South, unless lie owns slaves, than there is for the slave Iwn- .self;" complains that the South has gotten too much territory, and "is now smearing over ivitli her slime the whole of the northern portion of this continent, with the intention of swallowing that also;" and declares of slavery: " It is all a system of outrage, aggression, and wrong. Slavery founded' in violence must always he aggrcisicc ; and the moment it ccnies to be aggressive it ceasci to be at all. That is it.s very lite ; its being is outrage ; and the moniKnt it erases to commit thL-se oiurases, that main.'iu it runs down. Tlierefore, if yon will ■.'o aloii^ with ns to restore things to tlie condition lliey were in previous to 1850, repeal this infamous I'imitive slave law, and restore the rights in- vaded by the Kaiisas and Nebraska bills ; if this is done, then vou will not need to demand, what you have a right to demand, indemnity for the past and security for t!ie future. Let us reston^ thiiigs to their former position ; for, until we do that, ourhonor is not viiulieated ; the sense of justice of our fathers will not be appeased until we, their sons, have driven these vntulals hack and made them restore the rights they have stolen from us." The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sum- ner,] speaking in Boston in November last, made " the slave oligarchy and its usurpations" his theme, and after showing the paucity of slave owners, says: "Yes, fellow citizens, it is an oligarchy, odious heyoni precedent; heartless, grasping, tyrannical ; careless of hu- manity, right, or tlte Constitution) K-nnting that foundation of justice which is the essential base of every civilized com- i mun'ty; stuck together only by confederacy in spolialion ; and con^tiiuting in itself a miignum latrocinium ; while it de- srades the tVee States to the condition of a slave plantation, under the lash of a vulgar, despised, and revolting over- seer." After charging the oligarchy with taking the lion's share of offices and trusts of the Govern- mi'nt, and enumerating its usurpations, he says: " Fellow-citizens, r have said enough to stir you ; Kut this humiliating tale is not yet linished. Aw oligarchy t^Pekhig to maintain an outrage like slavery, and drawing its inspira- tion from this fountain of wickedness, is naturally base, false, and heedless of justice. It is vain to expect that men, who have screwed themselves to become the propagandists of 14 this enormity, uill he restrained ly any compromise, com- pact, harnfiin, or plizhtc Senator from Ohio, in the speech from wliich I have quoted, ridiculing the idea that the South can be driven by any aggressions to dissolve the Union, tells the people of Maine that "it is mean and con- temptilile in noi-thern peojile to yield, as they have yielded, Ijefore this handful of aristocrats. " " Yes, sir," says he, " the humbug of disunion has done more to cow down the spirit of the North than all other things put together. The fear of a dissolution of tliis Union ! J\Ty God ! only think of it for a moment! A dissolution of the Union coming from the puny arm of the South. Six millions of people, witli three mil- lions of mortal enemies in their very midst, and no mechanic arts — not even the mainifacture of a scow to row themselves across the rivers with ! And yet they say, if you do not come to our terms, we will dissolve the partnership. Why, sir, there is not a business man anywhere, who, if he had such a partner, would In sitate to kick him out at once and have done with it." The Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] in one of the speeches quoted, after speaking of the many bonds of the Union upon the J^urlh, says: " the slaveholders, in spite of all their threats, are bound to it by the same bonds, and they are bound to it also. by a hon A pecidiarly tlinir mm — titut of dependence on it for their own sajiiy. Three millions of slaves are a hostile force comtantly in their presence, in their very midst. The servile war is always the most fearful form of war. The world irithoul stjmpathizes irith the servile enemy. Against that war, the Amcrirnn Union is the only defense of the slaveholders — their only pro- tection. If ever tliey shall, in a season of mild- ness, recede from that Union and provoke that war, they will — soon come back again." While " the world without" is thus aroused against us, and to "sympathize with the servile enemy," and the slaves within our limits are promised the sympathy of " the world without," these same men appeal to the pride, ambition, and envy of non-slaveholders in our midst to ndress imputed wrongs by subverting the '' privileged class, "the " slave oligarchy. " TIk^ Senator frora Massachusetts tells them of the malign influences which bear with ojipressive force upon free labor. They are taunted by the Senator from Ohio with the assertion, " that there is no more liberty for the whiteman in the South, unless heov/ns slaves, than there is for the slave himself;" and by the Senator from New York with the assertion that "slaveholders enforce their silence and their partisan- ship with ivhips, pistols, and knives." Tliey are told by others no less credible, though less distin- guished — high ofiicials of the emigrant aid society — that their labor is unrewarded; that slavery taxes and degrades them; that the slave States are of small value indeed to the General Government, and southern trade is comparatively insignificant. And to bolster these calumnies, not only is his- tory falsified, but southern men are vouched as witnesses, and their speeches garbled, misquoted, or misapplied. And these are the foul libels and incendiary appeals, not of the scavengers of literature, who live like muck-worms upon corruption, but of grave and dignified men, who affect tlie honor, the decencies, and projirieties of gcn that slavery in the States is beyond the reach of Congress under tlie Constitution, and profess their luirpose to let it alone there, but yet avow their intention and their power to assail it in the Territories, this District, and wherever the national flag floats, less disposed or less determined to effect abolition in the States. They have the same goal in view, but propose to approach it by a circuitous instead of a direct path. They intend to constrain the States to do what radical Abolitionists propose to do by Con- gress or by force of arms. What is the purpose of nullifying the fugitive slave act, and the constitutional provision under which it was framed, by personal liberty laws? The Abolitionists respond: "Give the panting fugitive this inestimable right [trial by jury] and in every northern State he is safe; for where can you find twelve impartial men among us who will decide, on their oaths, that a man has not abetter right to himself than another has to him; that the blood which runs in his veins is not his own; that the right to liberty is not inalienable ? Secure this right to fugitives, and all the northeryi States of the southern pai t of the Conftderacy ivill be drained of their slaves." What is the object of abolishing the slave trade between the States? The Abolitionists reply: " Were it not for this grand canal of horrors — the 'infernal slave trade' — the dark waters would overflow and drown the;)j-o/ifa((/t'?icssof the system in these States, and compel them to emancipate in order to saii£ themselves from (Zes/?'itc((o»i." * * " Cut this infernal artery, the monster would die; starvation would slowly but surely consume him in his southeTn, and apoplexy in his northern, abode. Fifteen years would immber him among the dis- honored dead." Wliy aliolish slavery in this District ? The Abolitionists say, "The moral influence of it would pierce to the heart of the whole system. It would jironounce and sign its death-warrant. It would be the solemn verdict of the nation, decreeing the annihilation of this dark abomi- nation. Tlie highest legislative body of the Union representing the whole people would de- clare slavery unfit to live, — for let us not forget that Congress will abolish it, not because it has the j power, but because of its intrinsic wickedness. The act would speak in authoritative tones to every elaveholding State, ' Go thou and do likeivise !' It would write in letters of flashing fire, over the gateway of the national Capitol — ' JVo admittance for slavery !' The whole system would thus be outlawed, branded with ignominy, consigned to exe- cration and ultimate destruction.' " Why prohibit slavery in the Territories ? The Abolitionists say, " It is our Jinal hope for the extermination of slavery. Six or eight large States shall yet march into the Union with free bamiers Jloating in the breeze. Open the doors wide, and beckon in State after Slate from the J^'ortlnccst, and the General Government is in our hands. Then the peipelualion of freedom will be the great idea of national legi4ation. Slavery will melt away before its burning action, till the last vestige of it shall have disappeared." Thusare weassured by the anti-slavery societies in their annual addresses, that in all these meas- ures they have the same end and object in view — THE ABOLITION OF SLA V KRY IN THE StATES. They also assure us that they esteem as most eflicicnt of all these measures, the increase of non-slave- holding States in the West. What is the avowed purpose of those who, on this floor, oppose the admission of slaveholding States into the Union ? The Senator from Mas- sachusetts, [Mr. SuMKER,] if my memory serves me, said: " Confine slavery to iis presoit limits, and it will die of inanition like a spider under an exhausted receiver." Governor Cliase, of Ohio, said " it would localize and discourage it." The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Collamer] said the northern people "consider that the extension of slavery over more country is to encourage and perpetuate it. That the more it is circumscribed the less is it productive, and the sooner tvill it be emanci- pated." And, sir, I might multiply quotations from numerous high authoriiies affording cumulative evidi'nce of the same fact, that all of the measures proposed by those who disclaim a purpose to interfere with slavery in the States, but intend merely to denationalize and localize it, are con- ceived in the wish, and exerted with the expect- ation, that they will overthrow slavery in the States. The indirect consequences of the acta are the direct objects they hope to achieve. They seek the same end with radical Abolitionists, but by different means. The coursi; of the latter is less odious and dangerous than that of the former. The one is open, direct, and manly; the other, insidious and dastardly. The one wouldafTordan opportunity to repel the aggressor, or perish in the effort; the other would bind and paralyze us, and then starve us to death. The one offers no false hojies, but would destroy by one fell blow; the other eludes us with promises of mercy while flaying us alive. The one denies the obligations of the Constitution, or, admitting them, insists on a rescission of the contract, ana a dissolution of the Union, in order that they may give free vent to thiar hostility, unrestrained by pledges of faith; the other, thinking they can accomplish abolition in the Union, and still enjoy navigation acts, fishing bounties, tariffs, and in- ternal improvements, affect to love it, and rever- ence the Constitution, while accepting all the ben- efits it confers, and evading the duties it enjoins. An army with banners is preferable to a Trojan horse. All the anti-slavery measures which have been suggested are legitimate fruits of abolition, upon which avarice and ambition feed and batten. The first general abolition society in the United States was formed in Boston in 1832. They de- clared their object was " to eflect the abolition of slavery in the United Stales, and to obtain for free people of color equal civil and political rights [and privileges with the whites." They presented j to the slaveholder the alternative of '^ life or death." They said, " The master must manumit ! his slave, or the slave will manumit himself" — j to manumit him is " to shut the flood-gates of ' human woe and human blood" — to hold him in vassalage will " have a direct tendency to unsheath ithesivord of vengeance, revolution and death." Such were their avowals of purpose — such their somber vaticinations. Yet they only proposed to exert moral means. The next year the American Anti- Slavery Society was formed in New York. They 17 professed the same purposes, but proposed the exertion of po/int oppression of the people of the Territory. Whom do they mean by the people of Kansas? — the Free-Soil and free- State men, who have endeavored to extemporize an independent and equal member of the Union. And what is their number? Seven hundred and nineteen men, by their own counting! So said their own organ — the Herald of Freedom— pub- lished in Kansas, instating the vote for the Free constitution. This fact was presented by the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jones] nearly two months ago; and it has never been disproved, or, I believe, contradicted, brought in question, ov alluded to, by the opposition. The Red or Black Republican party in Kansas is composed of a small minority of the people, by their Own con- fession — of scarcely more than one tenth of the legal voters of the Territory ! To give this mi- rity the control of that Territory, is the imme- diate object of all the clamor, the weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, which we have heard. To obtain for that party the control of this Government in order to satisfy the avarice and ambition of its leaders, is the ulte.ior purpose. The ofT.'nse of the President and the Democracy is, that they will not yield to the arrogant de- mands of that minority and their leaders upon this floor. [Here Mr. Clay was obliged, by hoarseness of voice and physical exhaustion, to suspend his remarks. He said he had something more to say in reply to the Senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] which, if his health permitted, he would deliver hereafter. He asked to print some con- cluding reflections, which he had not now tlie voice to utter.] Yes, sir, it is the avarice and ambition of the feui that has aroused and is stimulating the spirit of abolition and of sectional domination to seize upon Kansas and wrest it from southern settlers by fraud or by force. Fanaticism and sectionalism serve as waves in the sea of popular passion, which selfish aspirants are lashing into fury, that they may ride upon their crests into ofiice. It is not the elevation of the negro to perfect equality with the white man they seek, but the elevation of themselves to the high places of the Government. It is not for the 21 defense of the North against the aggressions and usurpations of the South that they labor, but for the destruction of the South, which stands as a hon in the pathway of their preferment to the Presidency, the Cabinet, and our foreign Ministry. It is not to secure Kansas for free labor that they struggle, but to secure it as a stepping-stone for their own self-aggrandizement. Through all the habiliments of language, with which they cloak their designs, se//is as apparent as was the person of the Greek courtesan beneath the gauzy veil with which she was invested. To satiate their lust to shine and rule, they will imperil not only present peace and prosperity, but blast the bright nopes of the future greatness and glory of our common country. Determined to rule or ruin, they strive to consolidate the North to struggle for sectional dominion over the South, not only under the forms of peace, but to enter the listed field, and, by civil war, to enforce its mandates at the point of the sword. But, sir, I hope that the smooth and insidious pretenses by which they are striving to enkindle a war of opposing sectional interests, more dread- ful than foreign invasion, will be exposed and seen by the northern people in time to forestall their efforts, disappoint their selfish hopes, and defeat their traitorous designs. There is, I trust and believe, in the Democratic party and the few remaining national Whigs of the North, an enlarged patriotism which no ap- parent sectional interest can corrupt, and a love of justice which no selfish sophistry can seduce. They know that the assertion that the men of the North and the men of the South are enemies, is a libel upon both, and an attempted fraud upon both, in order to serve the selfish ambition of pretended friends of one and undisguised foes of the other section of the Union. They know that in war southern blood has been freely shed in defense of northern soil, northern shipping, and northern seamen; and that southern men never paused to count their costs or calculate their gains when the interest or the honor of any portion of the Union was assailed by foreign foes. They know that in peace the South has lavished her golden treasures upon every industrial interest of the North, while neither claiming nor asking Federal bounties for any industrial interest of her own. They know that the South has yielded her own territory, as well as the common territory won mainly by her diplomacy or valor, to the North, with an unselfishness and generosity for which no parallel can be found in the history of any other confederate States. They know that the South has never claimed or enjoyed more than her share of the trusts and honors of the Federal Government; and that, if her sons have oftener filled the presidency, it was by the will of north- ern no less than southern freemen. They know that the South asks nothing that the North cannot grant and ought not to grant. They know that the South is, and will ever be, in a minority in both Houses of Congress, and is powerless for aggression on the North in peace and under the forms of law. They know that, if Kansas should become a slave State, the balance of power will be, and forever continue, with the North. They know that northern interests and northern rights are neither menaced nor endangered by the South. And, above all, I trust they not only know, but feel, that the freemen of the South are j fellow-countrymen, friends, and equals, with ■whom they are affiliated, not only by compacts under the same Federal Government, but by re- ciprocal interests and congenial principles; and not only by those but by mystic chords of sym- pathy — as strong, though not so sacred, as solemn pledges of faith — growing out of kindred blood, a common language, historic recollections of united trials and united triumphs in the past, and a cherished love of their undivided heritage of glory in the present. But, sir, if, contrary to my hopes and expect- ations. Black Republicanism shall achieve the triumph at the North it so vauntingly predicts; if its leaders shall succeed there in identifying patriotism with sectionalism, liberty with licen- tiousness, loyalty to the Constitution with dis- loyalty to the rights of man, justice to the South with injustice to the North, southern men with enemies, and their northern friends with traitors; if its loaders shall raise a storm of infuriate fanaticism and vindictive sectional malice, which, sweeping over the North, shall overwhelm and prostrate the few heroic champions of the Con- stitution, of the equality of the States and the equality of their citizens,who now stand sentinels over the sacred trust of popular and State rights; if its leaders, fresh from fields of sectional victory, shall possess themselves of the executive and legis- lative branches of this Government — 1 know not what the South will do, but I think I know what she ought to do, in resenting insult offered and resisting injuries meditated, in vindicating her honor and preventing her humiliation. I trust, sir, despite the insolent and insulting taunts of poverty, weakness, and dependence on the Union, hurled at her by her enemies even on this floor, that she will not take counsel of her fears but of her hopes, rather — hopes inspired by proud recol- lections of past heroic achievements, by exulting consciousness of her present power, by glowing visions of her future greatness, and by that indig- nant fervor of soul which her wounded honor and imperiled independence must enkindle. I trust, sir, that, whenever Black Repubhcanism shall take possession of this Government, and weigh in its balances, and against its avarice and ambi- tion, the honor and the rights of the South, she will no't stoop to impetrate justice or pause to ex- postulate, but will boldly throw her sword into the scale and assert her natural privilege of self- defense. d o: S( ei ta P» a* w tt m cc h. uj Br q a tS£„.P^ CONGRESS 016 085 231 8 / / i