jr a 
 
 
 N, YORK, 
 
 ov 
 
 THE SLAVE QUESTION, AND THE POSITION OF PARTIES. 
 
 Tdeliveree 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 17, 1852. 
 
 Washington 
 
 Printed at the congressional globe office. 
 
 1852 . 
 
.1 
 
 
 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/speechofhonmschoOOscho 
 
THE SLAVE QUESTION, &c 
 
 The House being in the Committeof the Whole 
 on the state of the Union— 
 
 Mr. SCHOONMAKER said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: A few days since we heard the 
 gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Faulkner] define 
 his position on the presidential question, and give 
 to the country his reasons for withholding his sup- 
 ort from the Whig nominee for the Presidency, 
 desired, at the time, to reply to a portion of his 
 remarks, but failed to procure the floor. Had the 
 gentleman confined himself to a consideration of 
 the views of General Scott upon the compromise 
 measures, and of his qualifications for the Presi¬ 
 dency, I probably should not have felt called upon 
 to say a word in reply. But, sir, when I hear 
 the Whig party of my State, of which party I 
 cJaim to be an humble member, repudiated, and 
 their support of the Whig nominee put forth as 
 the ground why General Scott should not receive 
 the support of other Whigs, I feel bound to say 
 a word in reply. And again, sir, when I hear 
 the cry of censure and condemnation unjustly 
 raised against one of the distinguished represent¬ 
 atives of my native State, in the other wing of 
 this Capitol, [Mr. Seward,] I would do injustice 
 to that State by keeping silence. 1 therefore now 
 ask the indulgence of the committee for a few mo¬ 
 ments. 
 
 The gentleman, [Mr. Faulkner,] in his intro¬ 
 ductory remarks, for the purpose, probably, of 
 smoothing his way to new and more congenial 1 
 associations, speaks of the old issues between the 
 two great political parties as having passed away, 
 and yielded to another class of questions relating 
 wholly to the slavery issue. He says “the tariff 
 ‘ policy, looking to protection as its primary and 
 * leading object, is now without an advocate in the 
 ‘country.” Upon that point, sir, he may, for 
 aught 1 know to the contrary, speak the sentiments 
 of a portion of the Whigs of Virginia, but they 
 are not the sentiments of the Whigs of the Union. 
 
 Mr. FAULKNER. Will the gentleman from 
 New York allow me to inquire whether my view 
 of the present position of parties, in reference to 
 the tariff policy, is not fully borne out by the action 
 tional Whig Convention of Baltimore? 
 
 O 
 
 Mr. SCHOONMAKER. I do not recollect the 
 precise character of the tariff resolution passed at 
 that Convention. But I deny the right of a body 
 of men, assembled with power only to nominate 
 candidates, to determine what shall or what shall 
 not be the doctrines of the Whigs of the Union. 
 An appointment to perform one duty, gives them 
 no power to usurp another. 
 
 Mr. FAULKNER. Then 1 understand the 
 gentleman from New York to repudiate the plat¬ 
 form of principles announced by that Convention ? 
 
 Mr. SCHOONMAKER. I deny the authority of 
 that Convention to determine the creed or principles 
 of the Whig party. The Whigs of the Union have 
 still, and I trust ever will have, inscribed upon their 
 banner and sustain among their leading principles, 
 protection to American industry. They, sir, claim 
 that the great interests of our country—the agricul¬ 
 tural, the mechanical, the manufacturing, and the 
 commercial—are mutually dependent upon each 
 other; that whatever tends to promote the succesr 
 or paralyze the interests of the one, will earlier o 
 later have a like effect upon the other; and that, 
 therefore, the protection of our manufacturing, iron, 
 and other interests, by adequate impost duties, 
 would add to the prosperity and promotion of all 
 the interests of the country. Such protection 
 would not only drive the spindle and the loom, 
 heat the forge and propel the trip-hammer, but 
 would nerve and give employment to the arm of 
 the laborer, the mechanic, and the artisan; provide 
 consumers and a market for the productions of 
 our farmers and agriculturists, give increased em¬ 
 ployment to our commerce, create a home compe¬ 
 tition, call forth and give activity to the inventive 
 genius of our citizens, and in the end reduce the 
 price and cost of the manufactured articles far be¬ 
 low the standard, when alone dependent for sup¬ 
 plies upon foreign monopolists. And claiming 
 this, the Whigs insist, that government, instituted 
 for the protection of the people, as well in their 
 individual as their corporate capacity—as well in 
 their property, industry, and ingenuity, as irt their 
 lives and liberty, is under solemn and imperative 
 obligations to sustain by a protective tariff th e 
 manufactures and productions of our people and 
 
our country against the ruinous competition of ; 
 the pauper labor and overgrown monopolies of 
 Europe. Sir, that is Whig doctrine; while, on 
 the other hand, the Democratic doctrine is tariff 
 for revenue to aid the Government, not for protec¬ 
 tion to benefit the governed. 
 
 Neither is the internal-improvement issue among 
 the things that have been. That issue still divides 
 the two great parties. The Whigs, on the one hand, 
 claim that it is the duty of the Government to | 
 make liberal and necessary appropriations for the 
 improvement of our harbors, lakes, and rivers, 
 and for the development of the resources of the 
 country. While, on the other hand, our oppo¬ 
 nents read in the organic law, inscribed as with a i 
 pen of iron, and the point of a diamond, a prohibi¬ 
 tion against the appropriation of money for any | 
 such purpose, unless it operates for the protection 
 and accommodation of foreign commerce. 
 
 Neither is the issue in relation to the public 
 lands wholly obsolete, as between the two great 
 political parties. The Whigs still claim and in¬ 
 sist upon the policy and duty of the distribution 
 of their proceeds, and equalization of their bene¬ 
 fits. While the Democracy repudiate such doc¬ 
 trine, and shelter themselves against the unan¬ 
 swerable arguments in favor of its expediency, 
 and justice, by a denial of constitutional power. 
 In this instance, as in all others, the Constitution 
 and constitutional power being ever foremost and 
 ready, on the lips of the Democracy, to justify a 
 denial, and neglect of the proper rights and inter¬ 
 ests of the people. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia, after having sum¬ 
 marily disposed of the old issues between the two 
 great political parties, appears most strangely to 
 settle upon the conviction that the principle of sla¬ 
 very itself is not only in question now, but that 
 it is the only issue. And instead of looking upon 
 that question as totally and finally settled and ad¬ 
 justed by the so-called compromise acts, those 
 acts pass for nothing, and he raises the slavery 
 issue anew by demanding guarantees of their final¬ 
 ity, and oaths of fealty to the principles of sla¬ 
 very itself, and makes the yielding to this new 
 demand the test of orthodoxy in the Whig party 
 of the Union. Not content with the fact that the 
 laws are passed, and that the country has acqui¬ 
 esced in them, he even insists that those who ; 
 questioned the wisdom of those measures shall 
 come up and confess that the laws are the perfec¬ 
 tion of human wisdom, or he will hold no further 
 political communion with them. Man, sir, can¬ 
 not be so easily forced to acknowledge himself to 
 have been in the wrong when he acted under the 
 dictates of an honest heart and conscientious obli¬ 
 gations,. In our system, an admission of the jus¬ 
 tice or expediency of a measure is not essential to 
 an honest acquiescence in it practically. Every 
 act of Congress, of aLegislature, of a court, every 
 election, is a triumph of a majority over a minor¬ 
 ity; the minority always acquiesces, never con¬ 
 fesses; it raises the issue again whenever it sees 
 fit, and ean do so constitutionally, by appeal or 
 reconsideration. 
 
 Thus, sir, the gentleman from Virginia, and 
 those who think with him, press forward the 
 slavery question again, as the main and, in fact, 
 the only issue for national politics. Has the gen¬ 
 tleman counted the cost of such doctrines? Has he 
 reflected upon what must be the legitimate and in¬ 
 
 evitable result to arise from the prevalency of his 
 views? If he has not, let us for a moment reflect 
 upon it. We have now, at the North, the great 
 bulk of the people divided into two great parties 
 upon questions, some of a national, and others of 
 a local character, irrespective and independent of 
 any issue on the subject of slavery". I have 
 already adverted to the doctrines of protection, 
 internal improvements, and the disposition of the 
 public lands, as being some of the great questions 
 upon which they are thus divided. There are 
 many, and their number is not small in any of 
 the free States, who are in sentiment opposed 
 to slavery; but making no party issue of it, they 
 remain and act with one or the other of such great 
 political parties. The liberty and anti-slavery 
 organizations of the North, being small and lim¬ 
 ited in numbers and extent, present no sufficient 
 appearance of strength and prosperity to induce 
 men to break from their old party allegiance to 
 form new associations, in the hope of advancing 
 even the cause of freedom and humanity. The 
 old parties are practical parties, dealing with ex¬ 
 isting practical interests. Those new parties would, 
 if successful, be agitating and disturbing parties, 
 devoted to the uprooting of slavery, irrespective of 
 all other existing practical interests. Dangerous 
 agitation of the slavery question by men retaining 
 their allegiance to one or the other of the great 
 political parties, is stifled and kept in subjection, 
 by reason of the generality and complex variety of 
 the party issues, and the necessity of maintaining 
 them. 
 
 But, sir, let us annihilate those great parties. 
 Let us carry out the principles of the gentleman 
 from Virginia—make the slavery issue the only 
 test for national politics, and call upon the free 
 voters of the North, without reference to any other 
 question, to rank themselves on the one side or the 
 other of the slavery issue: what think you would 
 then become of the anti-slavery and liberty parties 
 of the North?—parties whose very life and exist¬ 
 ence depend upon the slavery question—parties 
 which feed, grow, and fatten upon such agitation? 
 Yes, what would become of these parties, if the 
 old ligaments which respectively bind the Whig 
 and Democratic parties should be sundered, and 
 such simple issue presented ? It needs no extraor¬ 
 dinary prophetic vision to answer that question, 
 and see that such anti-slavery associations would 
 and must then necessarily become the predominant 
 political organizations in the North, and would 
 soon be in the ascendant in every State north of 
 Mason and Dixon’s line. With such parties con¬ 
 trolling at the North, does the gentleman from 
 Virginia suppose that the security and permanence 
 of the slavery institutions of the South will be in¬ 
 creased and established? If he does, and he and 
 other southern gentleman desire to force such 
 issue upon us, all we can say is, beware lest you 
 discover too late to benefit you that your safety in 
 fact depends upon the prominence and interest of 
 the other great political issues. 
 
 But, sir, we may be told by the gentleman from 
 Virginia that he does not desire to bring about a 
 disruption of the two great political parties, but 
 his object is simply to purge them of all such 
 members as will not subscribe to an act of perpet¬ 
 ual moral and political amnesty towards slavery, 
 or, as he would express it, the wisdom and finality 
 of the compromise acts in all their parts and de- 
 
tails. Such recusant members only are to be read 
 out of the party, and virtually disfranchised, so 
 far as advancement or connection with the party 
 is concerned, as are not healthy and sound on the 
 slavery issue. Such bull of excommunication is 
 to be issued for them; and its effect will be to 
 drive those men with such convictions of right 
 and wrong from the bosom of a party whose in¬ 
 terest and policy have been, as farjxs possible, to 
 suppress agitation, into full communion and fel¬ 
 lowship with the anti-slavery and liberty organi¬ 
 zations; thus to aid in swelling the notes of 
 agitation and alarm, which need only the chorus 
 of numbers to make the South to quake and trem¬ 
 ble for the perpetuity of her peculiar institutions. 
 If the South desire thus to repudiate the action of 
 the North, and force the increase of the anti-sla¬ 
 very organizations, so be it. Let them take the 
 responsibility, as they are the ones who are to 
 bear the burden. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia went into a par¬ 
 tial history of the Whig party of the State of 
 New York, in order to exhibit his views of their 
 principles upon the subject of -the compromise 
 measures, and thereby justify his repudiation of 
 the Whig nominee. The gentleman thus acting 
 upon the basis that General Scott’s principles are 
 to be judged of and measured by the principles 
 and doctrines of some of his supporters. It is 
 true, that General Scott is the favorite candidate 
 of the Whigs of New York; but it is not true that 
 he is to be held accountable for all their acts. It 
 is with General Scott in this respect in the North 
 as in the South. He is the favorite candidate of 
 all Whigs in the South who are Whigs; but he is 
 not responsible for all their opinions and acts on 
 the subject of slavery, or any other subject. It 
 is true, that the Whigs of New York, in State 
 conventions, and in the Legislature of their State, 
 anterior to the passage of the compromise acts, 
 did pass resolutions at different times, declaring 
 their opposition to the extension of slavery in the 
 Territories, and in favor of the abolition of the 
 slave trade in the District of Columbia. In these 
 points, among others, they differed in sentiment 
 from their brethren of the southern states; Such 
 differences of opinion extending to both political 
 parties, and throughout the Union; and the reso¬ 
 lutions and action on the part of the North on the 
 subject, gave rise to the proceedings in Congress 
 which resulted in the passage of the several com¬ 
 promise acts. It is true, that immediately after 
 their passage the Whigs of New York, assembled 
 in convention, refused to pass resolutions giving 
 their approval to those acts, and declaring them 
 wise and right. But, sir, I allege that they have 
 never denied their validity. 
 
 It would be deemed singular to judge of a man’s 
 adherence to a contract after it was executed, by 
 what he might have said before the contract was 
 made or the terms agreed upon. Equally strange 
 is it to pretend to judge of the position of the 
 Whig party of the State of New York upon the 
 compromise acts by their resolves anterior to its 
 being dreamed of. But the Whigs of New York 
 have been unwilling to pass resolutions or vote 
 for resolutions declaring those compromise acts, 
 like the laws of the Medes and Persians, irre- 
 pealable and unalterable. So they have, and I am 
 sure they never will pass such resolutions about 
 any laws. Laws that are irrepealable need no | 
 
 such resolution; while, on the other hand, it is ab¬ 
 surd to pass such resolution in relation to laws 
 which are, like the fugitive slave law, confessedly 
 repealable. Such resolution would in itself be 
 the most effectual wry of opening agitation for 
 the repeal of the la v. Such position of the 
 Whigs of New Y< rk, therefore, augurs no want 
 of obedience to the laws. I have ever found that 
 those who are Ion§ est and loudest in their profes¬ 
 sions are the least to b relied on and the first to 
 falter. The firmness of the New York Whigs, in 
 refusing to join in resolving a constitutional ab¬ 
 surdity, is the best guarantee of their practical 
 good sense and judgment, and of their adherence 
 to principle rather than to empty professions and 
 idle pretenses. 
 
 Again, the Whig party of the State of New 
 York is to be repudiated, because, forsooth, Wil¬ 
 liam H. Seward is of them, and been honored 
 by them with the high office which he now fills 
 with so much distinction and ability. And where, 
 I will here ask, could the Whigs of New York, 
 either within the confines of their State, or, I might 
 say, of the United States, have selected a man who 
 would have filled the office, and discharged its 
 i duties, with more distinguished ability than that 
 Senator? But, says the gentleman from Virginia, 
 he holds sentiments adverse to slavery, adverse to 
 its extension, adverse to the increase of its power, 
 
 ! and in favor of its eradication. So he does, sir; 
 and his feelings on those subjects, it is well un¬ 
 derstood, have undergone no change. And it did 
 not need the quotation made by the gentleman 
 from Virginia, from the speech of Mr. Seward, 
 delivered before his election to the Senate, at 
 Cleveland, to inform the country of that fact. But 
 his speeches and his acts show that he holds those 
 opinions in subservience to the Constitution. He 
 has, it is true, frequently, and in no measured 
 terms, expressed his conviction that slavery was 
 erroneous in principle, and injurious to the wel¬ 
 fare and prosperity of the nation, and the stability 
 of its free institutions. He has expressed an anx¬ 
 ious desire for its eradication; but not by violence 
 or fanaticism, or by unconstitutional means, and 
 only by the acts of those States which have con¬ 
 trol over the subject. He has, as he did in his 
 speech from which the gentleman from Virginia 
 quoted largely, urged upon the opponents of sla¬ 
 very at the North, that they should, under the pa¬ 
 ternal roof, in churches, and in schools, “ incul¬ 
 cate the love of freedom and the equal rights of 
 man;” inculcate the principle that Congress can 
 debate, that Congress can mediate, that future 
 generations might be bought , and given up to free¬ 
 dom, and thus inculcate “ in the spirit of modera¬ 
 tion and benevolence, and not of retaliation and 
 fanaticism.” Surely the inculcation of the love of 
 freedom, and the equal rights of man, in the spirit 
 of moderation and benevolence, at the fireside, in 
 ' churches, and at schools, cannot be treason in 
 this land of liberty, universal education, and free 
 institutions. 
 
 But, sir, the gentleman from Virginia, after 
 quoting largely from that speech, states that, 
 within three months after its delivery, Mr. Sew¬ 
 ard was elected by the Whigs of New York to 
 the Senate of the United Slates, and that“ on the 
 ‘ 5th of March, 1849, he took his seat in that body 
 ‘ to advance the great mission for which he was 
 ‘ elected; and from that duy to the present has he 
 
6 
 
 ‘ stood forward, before the country, the imper- 
 * sonation of every sentiment hostile to the inter¬ 
 ests and institutions of the South.” 
 
 Sir, that Mr. Seward was thus elected by the 
 Whigs of New York, and that he took his seat to 
 discharge the responsible duties or mission of a 
 United States Senator, is true. That he has been 
 faithful to that mission, and to his own convic¬ 
 tions, and to the rights and interests of the people 
 of New York, is also true. When was Senator 
 Seward unfaithful to any mission, or any trust, 
 or any principle? It is his fidelity which marks 
 the character of the man, and has given him the 
 confidence of the people. But, sir, in the allega¬ 
 tion that that Senator has, since he took his seat 
 in the Senate, “ stood forward before the country 
 the impersonation of every sentiment hostile to 
 the interests and institutions of the South,” the 
 gentleman from Virginia is greatly mistaken, and 
 has grossly misconceived the position and conduct 
 of that Senator. 
 
 We, of the State of New York, are familiar 
 with a letter of that Senator, which appeared 
 about the time of his election to the Senate, sub¬ 
 sequently found its way into the public prints, and j 
 was widely published and circulated throughout the 
 State. In that letter he substantially stated, that as 
 to slavery he should never be found its defender or 
 apologist; nor should he unnecessarily or unrea- ! 
 sonably agitate against it; that whenever he met j 
 it as a practical subject of legislation, he should ; 
 discuss it like every other subject, fully, frankly, 
 and fearlessly; and that whenever it did not come i 
 before him in that way, he should leave it as he ; 
 should every other subject that was foreign to the 
 subject in hand. 
 
 Such was the course of conduct which he seemed I 
 to have laid down for himself, and which it is pre- j 
 sumed, and his course in the Senate proves, it was 
 his intention to follow. 
 
 Immediately, however, upon his introduction 
 into the Senate, Mr. Seward was assailed by 
 southern Senators for his opinions and sentiments 
 on the subject of slavery, and attacks of a like 
 character werecontinued and repeated almostdaily. 
 Although his friends and others were impatient 
 and urgent for his reply, the subject of slavery j 
 was not practically in question, and he was silent, 
 and chose, for a long time, to let the southern 
 Senators assume to themselves the credit of the 
 slavery agitation, and listened to their attacks w T ith 
 dignified silence. When the slavery question was 
 presented by the resolutions of Mr. Clay, and 
 the bills embodied therein before the Senate, and 
 the compromise measures, as reported in the Sen¬ 
 ate, were under consideration, he met the ques¬ 
 tions, each and all of them, as it was his duty to 
 do, and gave the expression of his views upon 
 them. He was willing and desirous to “ vote for 
 the admission of California directly, v/ithout con¬ 
 ditions, without qualifications, and without com¬ 
 promise;” but he was unwilling, for the purpose 
 of obtaining freedom in California, thus offered, 
 to yield to the demands of the southern States, for 
 the extension and perpetuation of slavery in the 
 other Territories. That compromise, dove-tailed 
 into a single measure, was defeated; but subse¬ 
 quently, a series of separate and distinct acts were 
 passed, together covering the same grounds as the 
 original compromise proposition, and received the 
 Executive sanction. Since the passage of those 
 
 laws, when and on what occasion has he idly or 
 unnecessarily agitated the slavery question in the 
 Senate? He knows better howto promote the 
 cause of freedom—better how to promote the 
 varied interests of this great Republic. The de¬ 
 bates and minutes of the proceedings of the Senate, 
 since the passage of those laws, may be searched, 
 and will be searched in vain, to find the record of 
 any voluntary action or unnecessary agitation on 
 the part of that Senator for the disturbance of 
 those laws, or for any voluntary or unnecessary 
 agitation of slavery before or after their passage. 
 Of their merits he is understood to think now as 
 he thought before their passage; and I suppose 
 that he considers them like all other laws to be 
 executed by the Executive, and yet, nevertheless, 
 subject to examination, scrutiny, amendment, and 
 repeal, if found unwise, defective, or improper. 
 As for agitation, whose course in either House is 
 ess obnoxious to such a charge? While the south¬ 
 ern press, and the northern press in southern in¬ 
 terests, sustained by the agitators from the South, 
 have been loud and long in his condemnation, 
 there is no man who has censured others less, and 
 at the same time borne the unmerited censure of 
 others more patiently. Who is there, who has 
 spoken at all in the Senate, who has spoken less 
 on the slavery question? Who is there who has 
 spoken more, who has spoken more nationally on 
 all, nay, more nationally on that very subject? 
 It is proof of this, that no one of his associates, 
 with the Globe on their tables, ever quotes any of 
 his speeches in the Senate to justify their assaults. 
 His speeches, in respect to their national char¬ 
 acter and patriotic sentiments, are models for im¬ 
 itation and instruction ! 
 
 But the gentleman from Virginia, at a loss for 
 proof in his senatorial action to sustain the charge 
 of agitation and fomenting resistance to the laws, 
 is driven to extracts from a letter of Mr. Seward, 
 dated in April, 1851, in reply to an invitation re¬ 
 ceived by him to attend aconvention of “ the peo¬ 
 ple of Massachusetts in favor of constitutional op¬ 
 position to the fugitive slave law.” In that letter, 
 Mr. Seward declines attending the convention, 
 and declares that he has “ earnestly desired not to 
 mingle in the popular discussion of the measures 
 of the last Congress.” But being requested in 
 the letter of invitation, to give his opinions on the 
 fugitive slave law, he took occasion to declare that 
 the opinions expressed by him in debate had under¬ 
 gone no change, and to repeat some of the positions 
 which he had assumed and expressed in his speech 
 in the Senate against that law. This, as a good citi¬ 
 zen, and as a public man, he had a right, and it 
 was proper for him to do. He counseled none to 
 the disobedience or resistance of the law; but on 
 the contrary, near the close of the letter, used the 
 following patriotic language and counsel in refer¬ 
 ence to future action upon those laws: 
 
 “ Whatever is irrepealable in any of the acts of the lata 
 Congress, no one will be mad enough to attempt to repeal. 
 Whatever is repealable in those acts, and whatever shall 
 be repealable in future acts of Congress, whether it shall 
 favor freedom or slavery, no matter under what circum¬ 
 stances, nor with what auspices, nor with what solemni¬ 
 ties it may have been adopted, must abide the trial of ex¬ 
 perience, of reason, and of truth. It is only in this way 
 that the Constitution can be maintained, and the Union can 
 be saved. Its security consists in the adaptation to the phys¬ 
 ical and moral necessities of the broad and ever-extending 
 empire which it protects and defends, and in the facility 
 with whichj without violence , or sudden change, errors of 
 
7 
 
 administration can be corrected, and new exigencies can be 
 met, so that the State, free or slaveholding, which may at 
 any time be least favored, will be at all times safer under 
 this Government, when worst administered, than it would 
 be under any other, however wisely administered, or favor¬ 
 ably conducted.” 
 
 It has, at times, not, I believe, by the gentle¬ 
 man from Virginia, but by others, been urged as 
 an accusation against that Senator, that he has 
 been bail for persons charged with the act of res¬ 
 cue. So he has; and the law recognizes the right, 
 it recognizes the propriety of citizens becoming 
 bail for the accused. Until conviction the pre¬ 
 sumption of law is in favor of innocence, and there¬ 
 fore it encourages the bailment of prisoners before 
 trial. Such acts of the Senator have been in strict 
 accordance with one of his leading and openly- 
 advocated principles: “ that every man has aright 
 to do for the cause of humanity that which no law for¬ 
 bids. ’ ’ 
 
 Sir, I will unhesitatingly venture the assertion, 
 that there scarcely ever was a man more unjustly 
 accused, and without just cause more violently- 
 assailed, than that Senator from New York. A 
 systematic effort appears to have been started at 
 his first entrance into the Senate, by accusations 
 and misrepresentations of actions and motives, to 
 prevent the influence he was sure to gain; and 
 with so much vehemence was the war carried on, 
 and with so much boldness of assertion, that in 
 many sections of the country the falsehood gained 
 the credence of truth. While all this was pro¬ 
 gressing, the Senator went on in the even tenor of 
 his way, and in the honest and faithful discharge 
 of his public duties, carrying out and fulfilling the 
 course of action he had laid down for himself. 
 While others discussed and agitated the slavery 
 question, he remained silent. While others and 
 southern Senators discussed the value of the 
 Union, gave prominence to, and created excite¬ 
 ment upon questions which they professed it was 
 of vital interest should be quieted, he was engaged 
 in advocating and urging the passage of measures 
 for the promotion of our national prosperity and 
 greatness, and securing the Union against all real 
 danger. I believe, sir, that the time is coming, 
 and not far distant, when, having outlived the mis¬ 
 representations of his opponents, not only the tal¬ 
 ents, but also the position and the course of that 
 Senator will be fully appreciated by the country. 
 
 Sir, the gentleman from Virginia, and those 
 who sympathize with him, may repudiate Gen¬ 
 eral Scott because he is supported by northern 
 Whigs, and, in doing that, they may enter into 
 the support of General Pierce in cordial coopera¬ 
 tion and fellowship with the Van Burens and their 
 associates of the North. It is their right, if they 
 choose so to do, to repudiate political association 
 with northern Whigs, and enter into full political 
 communion and fellowship with John Van Buren, 
 the acknowledged leader of the Democratic party 
 in New York, who, at Cleveland, in 1848, used 
 the following most emphatic language: 
 
 “ I am, however, the unmitigated enemy of slavery, and 
 would have it abolished without delay. J say, there¬ 
 fore, for myself—and I wish to be understood as speaking 
 for myself alone—that, let what will come,/ shall, under 
 no necessity whatever, support a man who does not be¬ 
 lieve SLAVERY TO BE AN UNMIXED CURSE, and whj U'ill 
 not, by virtue of his oflice, use all constitutional power to 
 abolish it.” 
 
 And who, also, at the great mass meeting at 
 Syracuse in J849, declared, as the special leader 
 
 and champion of the united Democracy, that they 
 “ expected to make the Democratic party of this State 
 ‘ [New York] the great anti-slavery party of 
 ‘ this State, and through it, to make the Demo- 
 ‘ cratic party of the United States the great anti- 
 ‘ slavery party of the United States.” 
 
 And who, also, in his letter dated the 4th of 
 August, 1851, written in reply to the invitation 
 sent him to attend the Massachusetts convention of 
 those opposed to the fugitive slave law, declared 
 and argued that the fugitive slave law was uncon¬ 
 stitutional, “ because Congress had no power to 
 legislate on the subject;” because, conceding the 
 legislative power, “it did not give the person 
 seized a trial by jury at the place where he is 
 seized, and before he is put in the custody of the 
 claimant;” and because its provisions “ intrepidly 
 defy the provisions of the United States Constitu¬ 
 tion, which declare that no person shall be de¬ 
 prived of life, liberty, or property without due 
 process of law;” and who, also, in such letter, in 
 striking contrast with the patriotic suggestions of 
 the Senator from New York above quoted, thus 
 urged and encouraged resistance to the law: 
 
 “ But I have referred altogether to its [the fugitive slave 
 law] unconstitutionality. How are its consequences to be 
 : avoided? So far as this is to be done by legislation, it 
 seems to me the remedy is with the State Legislature. An 
 excellent bill for that purpose has been introduced into our 
 Assembly by Mr. Coffin, of Otsego, and 1 trust it may be¬ 
 come a law. It does not assume to legislate for fugitive 
 slaves. It protectsthe/ree inhabitantsofour own State, and 
 presumes all the inhabitants to be free. Other States will, 
 of course, legislate as they may deem wise. In the mean 
 time, every individual should determine for himself what 
 respect he will pay to the act of Congress in question. 
 There is a distinction between an unjust and an unconsti¬ 
 tutional law. The former must be obeyed until it is re¬ 
 pealed. Disobedience to the latter is frequently the only 
 mode of testing its unconstitutionality.” 
 
 Such are the southern sentiments held by the 
 leading Democratic supporters of Messrs. Pierce 
 and King in the State of New York. It is, I re¬ 
 peat, the right of the gentleman from Virginia, 
 and his associates, to repudiate their former Whig 
 allies, and select such new Democratic political 
 associates; and in doing that,it is proper that they 
 should reap a fair degree of consolation in the 
 perusal and due consideration of the choice and 
 j select paragraphs and sentiments put forth in the 
 organs of the Free-Soil Democracy of New York. 
 It is peculiarly right and proper, also, that they 
 should read and ponder with cure and approbation 
 the declarations of such of the organs of their new 
 political allies, as, like the Buffalo Republic, follow¬ 
 ing in the wake of the Albany Atlas, and the 
 New York Evening Post, declare that— 
 
 “ We affirm that we and the Republic cling to our Freo- 
 Soil principles, and cherish them as the apple of our eye. 
 And we not only cling to them and cherish them, but de¬ 
 fend them as manfully as we can, whenever an enemy 
 worthy of notice presumes to lift his pen or wag his tongue 
 against them.” 
 
 ******* 
 
 “ But, say some of the grumblers, by supporting Pierce 
 and King, you are supporting the platform which wasmado 
 when they were nominated, and which you repudiated. 
 We deny that we ever repudiated the platform. We re¬ 
 pudiated THE ROTTEN PLANKS THAT WERE FOOLISHLY 
 PUT IN TO WIDEN IT; AND WE REPUDIATE THEM STILL. 
 
 We say the old Democratic platform was wide enough, 
 and good enough, and the meddlesome fellows who put in 
 those rotten plunks did it without authority, and deserve to 
 be booted by those who employed them for meddling with 
 that which was none of their business. We support Pierce 
 and King, nnd recognize ns ours the old Democratic plat¬ 
 form— not the rotten planks.” 
 
Sir, the gentleman from Virginia, and his asso¬ 
 ciates, in thus forming new political associations, 
 repudiating Whigs on account of alleged Free- 
 Soil principles, and taking to their embrace and 
 confidence the Free-Soil Democracy, are, undoubt¬ 
 edly, exercising their unquestionable rights as 
 freemen, and they are, of course, the proper judges 
 of their own consistency. It is, however, equally 
 
 our right, as northern Whigs, to support the can¬ 
 didates of our choice; and, if such support has 
 the effect to drive off others to the opposition, we 
 can only regret that our companionship is deemed 
 so disreputable, and then enter into the canvass 
 with increased zeal, and a bold determination that 
 our candidates shall be successful. 
 
 [Here the hammer fell.]