F 685 S53 Copy 1 THE KANSAS QUESTION. SPEECH HON. HENRY M. SHAW, ^ tect her in her slave property, nullified and tram- pled under foot in several of the northern States; efforts made by a powerful party, sectional in its. character, and led on by talented, sagacious, and ; unscrupulous men, to deprive the South of her just participation in the administration of the Federal i Government, and openly declaring it to be their . settled determination to prevent the admission of any more slave States; when we have been com- , pelled to sit here, day after day, week after week, ' and month after month, and hearthe slnveholding . States held up to the scorn and detestation of the : world, our people stigmatized as infidels, vilified and abused in the coarsest billingsgate to be found ! in the Black Republican vocabulary, by the fa- j natics who crowded around my colleague, and cor- j dially congratulated him, at the conclusion of his I speech; is it strange, is it to be wondered at, that southern members of this House, thus goaded, ! should be found sometimes yielding to the honest | impulses of their nature, and denouncing, in severe I but just terms, those common disturbers of the 1 public peace, and traitors to the Constitution and I the Union? Mr. Chairman, unlike my colleague, I I can forgive something to the spiritof patriotism; and while 1 may not approve the intemperate speeches sometimes made by gentlemen on this side, 1 cannot but contrast their course with that of my colleague; while I admire the zeal and de- I votion to the rights of their own section which I prompt them, especially as i feel and know that it is only by an uncompromising adherence to their rights that the Union can be maintained. Mr. CAMPBELL. Will the gentleman from North Carolina allow me to put an interrogatory to him? Mr. HOUSTON. I object to any questions. Mr. CAMPBELL. It'ia a'very brief one. I desire to inquire whether the gentleman knows that his colleague [Mr. Calmer] is absent, hav- ing paired off with Mr. Caruthers, who is in bad health; and that he is not present to respond to his remarks ? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I am aware cf that fact; and some of my friends know that I sought earnestly to obtain the floor while my col- league was still here. And I desire to say to the gentleman from Ohio, that no word which I utter here, will I refuse to proclaim in the face of my colleague here, or elsewhere. Mr. CAMPBELL. I do not question that, at all. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. What I say here will be published, and will reach the eye of my colleague. I will therefore be doing him no sort of injustice. I would have preferred that my colleague were present. But — lie having dis- charged his Parthian arrows— because he is now absent, I cannot consent to lose the first opportu- nity which presents itself, and no dbuhti,he only one I shall have, to make my reply. The poison which he has emitted is, even now, being circu- lated in North Carolina; and I am unwilling it should be administered without the antidote I in-' tend to prescribe. Mr. Chairman, if I have correctly compre- hended the speech of my colleague, he bases his opposition to the admission of Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, in other words, to her admission as a slave State, upon three points of objection: first, that the Green amend mentaffirms the right of a majority of the people to change the constitution at anytime they please; and that, by the establishment of that principle, slavery may be excluded whenever a majority of the people choose; second, that the population of Kansas is not sufficient to entitle her to admission; and, third, that the constitution framed at Lecompton is not the will of the people of that Territory. I propose to examine these several points. Now, sir, with all due respect for my colleague, I SL.y the Green amendment affirms no such thing. Here is the amendment, word for word, and letter for letter: ' : And that nothing in this act shall be construed to abridge or inline,'!; any ri'_'ht of tin: people asserted In the constitu- tion of Kansas at all times to alter, reform, and abolish their form of government, in such manner as they may think proper, Congress hereby diselaimiim any authority to inter- vene or declare the construction ot the constitution of any Slate, except to see that it be republican in form, and not ill conflict with the Constitution of the United States." What is a fair construction of that amendment? Simply that we do not intend by the act of ad- mission to deny, as we do not affirm, any right of the people of Kansas, as asserted in their constitution, to alter or abolish their form of government; at the same time it. unequivocally declares that Congress has no right to intervene other- wise than to see that the constitution presented is republican in form, and no: in, cunjlietirith the Con- stitution of tne United Stales. This question re- quirca no argument — it admits of none — the lan- guage is so plain that to state it is to explain it. Now I am free to confess that I preferred the bill without that amendment; not for the reasons as- signed by my colleague, but because the premises amount, in my judgment, to a truism which no man who understands the true theory of our sys- tem of government would ever think of contro- verting. 1 therefore voted to strike it out. Mr. Chairman, the Congress of the United States might solemnly resolve, every legislative day in the year, from now " till the crack o' doom," ! that the people of North Carolina had, or had not, the right to alter, amend, or abolish their present I form of government to suit themselves; but, sir, would their rights be thereby affected one way or another? Not at all; not at all — every State hav- ing the unquestionable right to alter or amend her constitution in her own way. But suppose my colleague's construction of the Green amendment is correct; admit, for the sake of the argument, that it does affirm the right of the people of Kansas to alter their constitution at any time they please, regardless of the restrictions in the instrument itself: does my colleague repudiate the principle? If he does, I call upon him to say how, as a member of the Senate of North Caro- [1 lina, solemnly sworn to support the constitution I of that State, he voted for the proposition of Gov- ernor Graham to call a convention to amend the const; mi ion, in a manner totally different from that prescribed in that instrument? Then let my col- ; league yield his objection to the Green amend- ment, or acknowledge that he is but availing him- I self of that "policy," which, to use his own language, " is practiced in our little electioneering scufflesln our country, and which ought not to obtain in the Congress of our nation." Having listened to the gentleman's denuncia- tion and ridicule of the Green amendment in his j speech of the 30th March, who, Mr. Chairman, I could have supposed that in two days thereafter I he would have been found voting for it ! And yet j he did ! On the 30th of March it was wrong in i principle, and rendered the Senate bill worthless to the South; on the 1st of April, only two days, I repeat, after ho denounced and ridiculed it, when the gentleman from Mississippi moved to strike i it out, he voted with the whole body of the Oppo- ! sition against the motion ! Voted against striking out an amendment which, in his opinion, so com- pletely emasculated the bill that it was deprived of every power of generating a single principle of the least value to the South ! But the gentleman may say that he voted against the Green amendment in order to save, if possible, the House bill. I do not by any means admit that he can thereby find a sufficient justification of his vote; but I am willing, for the sake of the ! argument only, to give him the benefit of that . position; and now let us see whether he is justi- j liable in taking the Crittenden amendment in pref- erence to the Senate bill. The gentleman, in the | outset of his remarks, charged the Democratic [ party with praticing the unwise policy of encour- aging foreign immigration into the new States and Territories, by granting to aliens not naturalized | the right of suffrage, and by making them eligible ; to offices of emolument and honor; and he held j up this policy as one that ought to receive the 1 unqualified condemnation of the people, especially of the South, as it was injurious to her best in- 3 terests. Now let us compare the two hills in reference to these questions which my colleague thinks so vitally important. The Senate bill, which he condemn sand voted against, proposes to admit Kansas under the Lecompton constitution, ■ which, in the first section of the eighth article, defines the right of suffrage as follows: '*Sec. 1. Every mule citizen of the United States, above ] the age of twenty one years, having resided in this Stale one year, and in the comity, city, or town in which he may offer to vote, three months next preceding any election, shall have the qualifications of an elector, and be entitled to vote at all elections." Here, then, is a principle which he deems j of vital importance to the South fully secured in this constitution. The Crittenden bill, which he voted for, proposes to refer the whole subject back to the people of Kansas. My colleague says Che majority in that Territory is opposed to the Le- compton constitution; of course, then, the Black Republicans would frame and establish a new con- stitution, incase he should succeed in crushing out Lecompton; and what kind of provisions, think you, that constitution would contain in reference ' to this question, which, he tells us, deserves the serious consideration of the South ? Why, sir, \ the latest intelligence from thatTerritory, fruitful of constitutions as Niobe of tears, represents that j the Black Republicans, anticipating the action of 1 my colleague in the rejection of the slaveholding j and anti-alien-suffrage constitution of Lecompton, have already made another, which, as we are in- formed, not only confers this inestimable privilege upon foreigners, but upon negroes also! Now, what becomes of my colleague's Know-Nothing principle in reference to this subject? It has clearly been sacrificed to something; I leave him to say what. The Lecompton constitution contains the fol- lowing provisions in regard to eligibility to office, (article four:) " Sec 3. The Governor shall be at least thirty years of age, shall have been a citizen of the United Stales for twen- ty years, shall have resided in this State at least five years next preceding the day of his election," &c. '• Sec. 17. A Lieutenant Governor shall be elected at the same time and tor the same term as the Governor, and his qualifications, and the manner of his election, shall be the same in all respects." Here, then, is another principle which he com- mends to southern politicians. Now, I leave it to ! my colleague to say whether, judging from what we have already heard of the constitution lately j framed atLcavenworth, he hasany good reason to j expect that any other which may be adopted, j should he succeed in defeating the Lecompton constitution, will be likely to come up to his stand- ard of excellence in this regard ? In reference to this quest ion, however, I am inclined to think, not- withstanding what my colleague- has said upon this subject, he does not, after all, look upon it as ; anything mote than that sort of ''policy practiced in our little electioneering scuffles in our country;" for 1 well remember that when he was a member of the North Carolina State Senate, he recommended a j regular, full-blooded Milesian, one PatMcGowan, ; for a Federal office under General Pierce, thereby proving very clearly that, in reference to thisprin-: ciple which he so seriously commended to south- j ern politicians — and the same may be said of his { opposition to the Green amendment also — he is, if he will permit me, by way of illustration, to use I one of the elegant anecdotes with which he em- bellished his speech, " a sorter so, and a sorter not so, and rather more a sorter so than a sorter not so." He commends the principle of exclud- ing foreigners from office, and gives the influence of his name toward procuring office for one of that class. He denounces the Green amendment in his speech, and then votes for it ! But, Mr. Chairman, there is another of my col- league's long cherished principles which I think he sacrificed to his hostility to Lecompton. For many years he and his party in North Carolina, have contended that the public lands were waste- fully squandered upon the new States, to the great prejudice of North Carolina and the other old States. This matter has been presented to the people of our •• beloved South, I (to borrow the gentleman's term of endearment,) and enforced with an array of statistical tables that would appal old Mr. Dabnll himself. With the most eloquent and disinterested appeals, the people of North Car- olina have been urged to send to Congress gentle- men of my colleague's political faith, who would be sure to guard the public domain, and see that they got "their full share." Now, sir, how has my colleague proposed to secure for North Caro- lina her just and rightful interest in the immense public domain in Kansas, amounting, as I think, to about eighty millions of acres? -'•Sec. '2. And he it further enacted, That the State of tiou that said State shall never interfere with the primary United States within the limits of said State." Here is the just and rightful claim of the Gov- ernment of the United States to all the unsold lands in Kansas, fairly " nominated in the bond," and thereby secured for the benefit of North Car- olina and ail the other States alike My colleague voted against this just and necessary measure of security; and while he told us that the President is unworthy of our confidence, he nevertheless proposed not only to depart from the constitu- tional mode of admitting Kansas by act of Con- gress, but to confer upon the President the power to bring her into the Confederacy by his own mere ipse dixit, so.soon as she should offer to him a con- stitution, regardless of its provisions. Now, sir, suppose that the people of Kansas (the bill for which my colleague voted having become a law, and the President invested with that stupendous power) should reject the Lecompton constitution, and my colleague takes the ground that they would, for he voted against the Senate bill because he says it is not the will of her people, and then proceed to frame another constitution, in which they solemnly declare that the entire public do- main within her borders belongs of right to the sovereign State of Kansas, and can be used for her benefit alone — that constitution being pre- sented to the President, he will be compelled, in obedience to the Crittenden bill, to induct her into the Confederacy: would my colleague, as a law- yer, undertake to prosecute the claim of North Carolina to her just and eqtial share of those public lands? Sir, how would he bring his action, and in what court, pray ? Another objection to the admission of Kansas (under the Lecompton constitution, mark you) is the insufficiency, of her population. To this objection 1 shall devote but few words. Admitting very fully the general principle that a State ought to have the number of population fixed by the law for the time being as the representative ratio, I am not. prepared to deny that, under peculiar cir- cumstances, acting under a sound discretion, Con- gress may depart from the rule. In the present case, Kowerer, it appears to be admitted on all sides, so far as I know, that Kansas has the requi- site population. General Pierce seems to have been of that opinion as far back as the last Con- gress. Mr. Buchanan is evidently of the same mind. It is not controverted either in the report of Judge Douglas, or that of Messrs. Collamer and Wade, made during the present session; and I know of no one, except my colleague, who has raised the question. So far as he is concerned, I shall dispose of it in a very few words. My col- league offered a bill himself for the admission of Kansas; and I have only to say, that if the pop- ulation of that Territory be sufficient to justify her admission under his bill, it strikes my pool- judgment that it is equally sufficient to justify her admission under the Senate bill. The other point made by the gentleman from North Carolina is, that the Lecompton constitu- tion is not the will of the people of Kansas. In order that I may be properly understood in what I shall say upon this point, it is necessary that I should refer, as briefly as may be, to the legisla- tion of Congress in reference to slavery, and to the events which have transpired in Kansas. On the application of Missouri to become one of the States of the Union, she was refused admission on account of the slavery feature of her constitution. In vain did southern members, and the conserva- tive portion of northern men, urge that Congress had no right to reject a State for any other reason save that her constitution was anti-republican. A bitter contest arose, which excited serious appre- hensions on account of the safety of the Union. At length the proposition contained in the eighth sec- tion of the act of March 6, 1820, by which slavery was to be excluded from all the territory of the Uni- ted States north of the line of 36° 30', was offered, and, in an evil hour, accepted by the South. This was to be a compact, a bond of peace! and yet, in the very next year after its adoption, it was set at defiance by the North. Again and again, sub- sequently, when the South applied for the admis- sion of new slave States, this sacred compact, as it has been called, and for which iny colleague has so much veneration, was utterly repudiated by that section which had forced it upon the South as a measure of peace and harmony. At length, after the conclusion of the war with Mexico, by which we acquired extensive territory , some of which was south of the Missouri restriction line, in utter violation of that compromise, and in total disregard of every principle of justice, an effort was made to exclude us from a just and equal par- ticipation in the fruits of that glorious war by the application of the Wilmot proviso, thereby in- tending to exclude us from all that vast territory, acquired, as it had been, by a common expend- iture of blood and treasure, of which — and I do the North no injustice when I say it — the South contributed her full share. At this crisis the South agreed to run the Mis- souri line through to the Pacific, and thus forever settle the dispute: this offer was persistently re- jected by the very men who have since proclaimed that compromise a sacred compact, binding as the Constitution itself! Denied even this small con- cession to our just demands, nothing was left the South but to fall back upon her constitutional rights, and to insist upon equal privileges in all the Territories. Aftera struggle which shook this Republic to its deep foundations, the question was disposed of, so far as Utah and New Mexico were concerned, by the legislation of 1850. I shall not stop here to inquire into the wisdom of the com- promise measures of that year. I may say, how- ever, enpassant, that according to my honest opin- ion, the South fared in this as she had done in every other compromise to which she hasgiven her assent. Peace, or rather a truce, was obtained for a brief period, until at length Congress undertook to organize the Territories of Kansas and Ne- braska, in 1854. In the mean time both the po- litical parties then struggling for power, adopted in their platforms the principle of non-interven- tion asserted in the legislation of 1850. In order fairly to carry out thai principle in organizing the Territories of Kansasand Nebraska, it became ne- cessary to repeal the Missouri restriction, which excluded slave property from those Territories. The time had now come when the soundness of the two parties, and their fidelity to the principles asserted in 1850, and affirmed in both party plat- formsin 1852, were to be tested. Theresultproved that the northern wing of the Whig party, which in the days of its great leaders, Clay and Web- ster, had always given evidence of the possession of some conservative principle, was utterly un- sound, and it soon fell into that grave to which it was so justly consigned. The Democratic party, aided by most of the southern Whigs, repealed the Missouri restriction, and firmly established the principle of non-intervention. The Territory of Kansas was thus opened up for settlement by southern as well as northern men, and the Black Republican party, which. had crawled forth from tm5 ruins of the Whig party, like a huge serpent from among the fallen columns of some magnificent temple, soon found that if left to herself, and emigration permitted to flow through its natural channels, Kansas would be- come a slaveholding State. An emigrant aid so- ciety, with a capital of $5,000,000, was chartered by theLegislatureof Massachusetts, whose object was the settlement of Kansas with a free-Soil pop- ulation, to wrest that fine Territory from the South, and thereby prevent another slave State from being admitted into the Union. Maddened by the pious eloquence of such fanatics as Parker and Beecher, and inflamed by the vehement dec- lamation of the Black Republican leaders, thou- sands of Kansas-shriekers, armed with rifles and revolvers, rushed into the Territory. The laws passed by the Territorial Legislature were repudiated; the regularly constituted author- ities set at defiance; and a spurious government set up by these traitors, who placed themselves in a state of open rebellion. Sir, is this picture over- drawn ? Will my colleague deny that the Free- Soil party in Kansas, whose violated rights he so feelingly deplores, was in a state of rebellion against the government established by Congress ? We have the official evidence of Governor Walker i to sustain the declaration. In his proclamation to the people of Kansas, after making most earnest appeals, he says: "A reiicllinn so iniquitous, and necessarily involving such awful consequences, has never before disgraced any age or country. " Permit me to call your attention, as still claiming to be citizens of the United States, to the results of your revolu- tionary proceedings. You are inaugurating rebellion and revolution ; you are disregarding the laws of Congress and of tin' territorial government, and defying their authority ; you are conspiring to overthrow tl|e Government of the United States in this Territory. Vour purpose, if carried into effect, in the mode designated by you, by putting your laws forcibly into execution, would involve you in the guilt and crime of treason." He further says: " Under these circumstances, you have proceeded to es- tablish a government for the city of Lawrence in direct defi ance of the territorial government, and denying its existence and authority. Yon have imposed upon all those officers the duty of taking an oath to support this so-called State constitution ; thus distinctly superseding, so far as in your power, the territorial government created by the Congress of the United States." Governor Walker, in his letter to the Secretary of State of July 20, 1857, says: "There is imminent dnmrer. unless the territorial govern- ment is sustained by a large body of the troops of tbfi United States, that, for all practical purposes, it will be overthrown, or reduced to a condition of absolute imbecility. I am eon- strained, therefore, to inform you that, with a view to sustain the authority of the United States in this Territory, it is indispensably necessary that we should have inn liately stationed at Fort Leavenworth at least two thousand regu- lar troops, and that General Harney should be retained in command." If this evidence is not complete, I will add that which my colleague cannot gainsay. In his issue of the lOtli February, 1858, the editor of the Ra- leigh Register says: "The unreasonable, unjust, and treasonable course of forth by the President, who. when he denounces them as rebels, uses the word best calculated properly to character- ize their conduct. These men have committed the very offense in Kansas which the Mormons perpetrated in Utah. They have defied the authority of the laws and the Gov- ernment, and attempted to set up an imperiun in imperio in Kansas. To say, th traitors and rebels she eompton constitution reward treason." Discord then reigned in that unhappy Territory, and it became evident that the only mode by which quiet could be gained, and peace restored to Kan- sas and the country, was by procuring her ad mis- sion as a State into the Confederacy. An act was therefore passed by the Territorial Legislature to provide for taking the sense of the people as to the expediency of calling; a convention to frame a constituiion. At a regular and fair election thus legally authorized, the' people voted with great unanimity in favor of a convention. The next Legislature passed an act to provide for the elec- tion of delegates to a convention to be composed of sixty members, who were to be apportioned among the several counties of the Territory in pro- portion to their population, which was to be as- certained by taking a census. This act was vetoed by Governor Geary because it contained no pro- vision for submitting the constitution to the peo- ple for ratification or rejection. The Legislature then passed it over the Governor's veto by a two- thirds vote, and it thus became a law. The convention thus elected assembled at Le- compton, and framed the constitution under which Kansas now asks for admission into the Union. My colleague says it does not embody the will letup an imu.Tinm in e. that the bowlings countenance lawlessr of the people, and he therefore is against it. His language is: " I must say that when T hear it asserted here, and every- where, and the proofs strongly tending to show that the government of Kansas was, in the first instance, ruthlessly snatched from the people, unconstitutional test oaths ap- plied, by which the minority, who by fraud obtained the control of the government, and by which the majority were ; kept from participating in the government ; when I am told, ] and the proof tends that way, that not more than one half of the counties of the Territory were permitted to be repra- ; sented in the convention, I doubt the propriety of support- ing the constitution framed thus." Government of Kansas ruthlessly snatched from the people! test oaths! majority kept from a par- ticipation in the government ! not more than half the counties permitted to be represented in the convention ! These are the charges which have been made and so often repeated through all the different moods and tenses by the whole Black Republican school, and now gravely affirmed by my colleague. Sir, if the name of the senior mem- ber from Ohio had been affkeed to the above ex- tract instead of my colleague, would any one have doubted its authenticity? Says Mr. Giddings: " Usurpations and brute force were resorted to for the purpose of extendingand supporting slavery." Says Mr. Wilson: " In this contest, slavery has startled the nation by a series of acts of violence and frauds," &c. So said Mr. Seward, Mr. Har- lan, and other Black Republicans who have spoken upon the question. These are the author- ities, I suppose, upon which my colleague relies [ to sustain his charges against the pro-slavery party j in Kansas ! Why, sir, this cry was commenced in 1854, immediately after the passage of the Kan- I sas and Nebraska bill, and it has been kept up j ever since. Sorry am I that southern men are j now found to join in it. That the pro-slavery j men have committed no wrongs, I am far from saying. Assailed, as they have been, by lawless bands of Abolitionists, who boasted of their in- I tention, first to abolitionize Kansas and then over- run Missouri, they would have been more or less than men had they borne themselves faultless in such a contest. But, sir, can the changes against the pro-slavery party, made by my colleague, be sustained by any other authority than that to which I have alluded? I have already proved by Governor Walker, I as well as by the Raleigh Register, that these dis- I organizers were in a state of rebellion and resist- | ance to the laws. That they refused to register j their names and establish for themselves such | form of government as they desired, the evidence is equally abundant. In the affidavit of George Wilson , contained in Senate report by Mr. Green, J he says: " At the time when the census was taken under the law providing for the Lecompton convention, 1 was the acting I judge of probate for Anderson county, Kansas, and am aware of the fact that the two wings of the tree State party of that county, composed of more moderate Free Snilers and the adherents of Lane, threatened the life of any who should attempt to take the legal census ; and I can say, under oath, that the life of any one making the attempt to execute the law in that particular was in danger, and the foregoing threats were the cause which prevented the taking of the census in Anderson county within the prescribed time." * * * * " In regard to Passmore Williams, judge of probate for Allen County, members of the so-called free State party stated to me in person that ifhe attempted to execute the law, and did not leave, they would kill him ; and I know the fact that he did not so exi cute the law, and left the county because he believed bis life in danger. Mr. Williams is from Illinois, and is a free State man, but be- longs to the Democratic party." * * * * " Tn regard to Esquire Yocum, judge of probate for Frank- lin county, he left the county and the Territory on account of losing his negro property, and having his life menaced. The office being vacant, the Legislature which passed the census law appointed th of January, and manner prescribed hy the constitutional Why, then, should not Kansas be admitted un- der it, this whole subject localized, and she left to manage her own affairs in her own way? Twice have Jim Lane and his myrmidons had an op- portunity of voting upon this question. Will my colleague still insist upon giving them a third chance? He speaks of bringing two Jim Lanes here as Senators; if the Black Republicans have the Legislature, two Senators of that stripe will be sent any way, it may be. My colleague is not satisfied with that; his action, if successful, would abolish a constitution which has made Kansas at tiiis moment, to use the language of the President, " as much a slave State as Georgia or South Caro- lina," and with equal certainty he would make it a free State, provided he is right in saying the Abolitionists are in the majority. Says Mr. Bur- ungame, in his late speech in the House: " I will vote for it [Crittenden bill] because I think that it will make Kansas a free State. The Administration savs it is a slav,' Territory trf-dav— the Leeompton constitution forin, and that Kansas would he a slave State under it." Sir, does not my colleague see and know that the object of the Black Republicans is to give the Abolitionists in Kansas another chance, and to keep alive this question, which is the very aliment upon which the monster Black Republicanism feeds, to aid them in bringing into this Hall a Black Republican majority in the next Congress, and so strengthen themselves for the mighty struggle they are to make in I860? And this " unparalleled outrage," as the Raleigh Register styles it, is to be perpetrated by the agency, in part, of southern Representatives. The mem- ber front Massachusetts [Mr. Burling'ame] tells us the alliance has been formed, and he, a prophet of evil, vauntingly predicts the result! What is it? I will let him speak for himself. Listen: " I also felt proud to hear the speech of the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, [Mr. Bell.] I was glad to hear Uieir confreres on this floor, Messrs, IInderwood of Ken- tucky, Gn.Mi-K of North Carolina, Kicaitd and Harris of Maryland, and Davis, with hi- surpassing eloquence, wor- thy of the best days of Pinkney and Wirt ; and 1 also ex- press my grstiiude to Mr. Marshall, of Kentucky, who has labored so long to secure this union of patriotic men. 1 owe it to these men, and to myself, to say that [ do not agree will] them on the subject of slavery, and 1 know thai they do not agree with me. Neither do I agree with the Doug- las men ; I take what I think is a'higher portion. I hold to the power of Congress over the Territories; they do not. But while I oppose the Leeompton ( 'o, , solution for one rea- oi!i,V. the South Americans may oppose it for still another. minds. 1 trust that this may he an omen of what may hap Here we have the triple alliance of Black Repub- licans, Douglas Democrats, and southern Know Nothings ! Now for the results of that unnatural combination! Addressing himself to the thirty' patriotic and fearless Democrats who have dared todo their duty here by standing up for the consti- tutional rights of the South, he says: "They will ask you why the Army of the United States j have shot down American citizens in the streets of Wash- j irtgton, and why it was held in terrorem over the people of | Kansas so Ions." And they will ask you, doughfaces of the North, why you sat still in your seats, and allowed men to j call your constituents, because they toiled, mud-sills and | slaves? You will have to answer all these things. You cannot do it, and we shall heat you like a threshing floor. We shall hereafter have a majority in this House. We shall strengthen ourselves in the Senate, anil we are to-day fill- ing all the land with the portents of your general doom in 1880." Sir, the thing is plain to the dullest eye! It stands out gross and palpable, and no man can fail to see it who is not blinded by his prejudices against the Democratic^ party, that party upon which the hopes and the destinies of this mighty Republic hang ! Witness the efforts they are mak- ing to defeat the Leeompton constitution; look at the solid front they present here whenever a vote is taken on the question; read their speeches and listen to the shouts of exultation that have already been sent forth from their party press in anticipa- tion of the defeat of this great measure ! 1 quote from the Albany Evening Journal: '•Tim vote in the House of Representatives virtually re- pudiating the scheme of villain) inaugurated by the border ruffians of Missouri, with the connivance of President de-|r the It arid courage to those who began to . Conscience seems about to resume n whence it never should have been banished. For ten lone years, nearly, the moral sentiment of the nation has been deteriorating. The sense of justice, the love of liberty, and allegiance to God. have all been wan- ing. Neighboring nations have been rubbed, men have been reduced to slaves within the shadow of Faneui] Hall, and the higher law has been denounced and derided. Intidels to humanity. Scoffers at the law of God, and recreants to freedom, have reveled in power ami plunder. But a day of reckoning is at hand. The nation-s heart throbs with new feelings. Hope is 'jiving place to despair, and freedom is asserting its claims to reverence Every wher tat the North, and even in the SatrfA, we see that the spirit of liberty (Abolitionism) is working among the people, and the recent vote in Congress is hut "an index of that feeling. This awakening n f the conscience of the people should inspire us with new zeal, and lead to redoubled efforts in the cause of freedom (Black Republicanism.) The overthrow of the slave power is approaching." Mr. Chairman, I have not said all that I desired to in reply to my colleague. My timq/will not ad- mit. 1 am admonished that it has already nearly expired; but I cannot resume my seat without giving expression here in my place to the indig- nation I felt on seeing the senior member from Ohio offering his congratulations to my colleague at the close of his speech. Onco before, during my legislative experience here, it has been my lot to witness a similar exhibition. Once before have I seen the enemies of the South congratu- late a southern man on account of a speech he had made upon a question in which the rights of the South were involved. Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Did I understand the gen- tleman to say that I went to Mr. Gilmer and congratulated him? May I correct him in that statement? Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I am aware that the gentleman from Ohio congratulated him upon his speech. I saw the gentleman approach my colleague as he approached another gentleman upon a former occasion, who had made a speech in reference to southern rights. I saw the gentleman approach him with both hands extended, and I im- agined that he was pronouncinga benediction upon my colleague, which would be a withering curse upon him to his grave. Mr. GIDDINGS. Does the gentleman intend to represent me as congratulating Mr. Gilmer ? Does he understand that I went towards Mr. Gilmer to congratulate him? HBKHRY OF CONGRESS 8 Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I say that the gentleman did go towards him, shake him by the hand, and, I suppose, congratulate him. Mr. GIDDINGS. Let me say that the gentle- man is entirely mistaken. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Why, sir, I saw it with my own eyes, and there were gen- tlemen upon this side whose attention was called to it. Mr. GIDDINGS. I will correct the gentleman. Let me explain it. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I beg the gentleman not to interrupt me. Mr. GIDDINGS. I wish to correct the gen- I tleman. [Loud cries of " Order!"] Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I ask the j gentleman from Ohio, then, if he did notapproach I my colleague, at the conclusion of his speech, shake him by the hands, and offer his congratu- lations? Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not. Mr. Gilmer was | in his place, and I was in the aisle. I inquired of him if he intended to compare my name with that j of James Buchanan. I neither gave him my hand j nor took his. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I know not, nor do I pretend to say, what occurred between the gentlemen. I say, again, that I not only saw the gentleman approach my colleague and extend towards him both hands Mr. GIDDINGS. I did not. The gentleman is mistaken. I did not. [Loud cries of " Order! 1 '] Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I not only saw him, but some fifteen or twenty others saw him approach my colleague; and I must be per- mitted to say that, when I witnessed that spec- tacle, I felt, as I feel now, that whenever the time should come Mr. GIDDINGS. I say the gentleman is en- tirely mistaken. [Renewed and deafening shouts of "Older!" from the Democratic side of the House.] 016 089 346 1 Mr. CLINGMA order. Mr. KEITT. I insist that order shall be pre- served in the committee. The gentleman from North Carolina is entitled to the floor, and declines to yield it. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from South Carolina is out of order. Mr. KEITT. The gentleman from Ohio- [Loud and continued shouts of " Order!" from the Republican side of the House.] Mr. KEITT. Let the blackguards over there act thus outside of the House. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from North Carolina is entitled to the floor, and will pro- ceed. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. As I said be- fore, I do not undertake to say what passed i«o tween the gentleman from Ohio and my colleasrn- I know not what the gentleman from Ohio s»n i. but I know he said something very grateful t my colleague's feelings, for there was a smile > complacency on his face. Mr. GIDDINGS. I say I did not take Mr Gilmer's hand. [Cries of " Order!"] Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. Many gen- tlemen here know that the scene occurred as I have described it; and, sir, as I was about to say when I was interrupted, when I witnessed it, I felt, as I feel now, that if ever the time should come when I should be so far capable of misrep- resenting the honorable and confiding constituen- cy which had sent me here to protect their rights and defend their honor, as to make a speech that would bring down upon my head the approbation and congratulations of the gentleman from Ohio and his allies upon that side, I should instinctively raise my hands to Heaven and. in the language of the Indian prince exclaim, " What have I done that the enemies of my country should praise me ?" [Here the hammer fell.] Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 016 089 346 1