SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN TIIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 31, 1852, 
 
 THE DEMOCRACY OF CONNECTICUT—THE SLAVE QUESTION. 
 
 ( 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 
 1852 . 
 

 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/speechofmrcmingeOOinge 
 
 > 
 
Jr 
 
 /w 
 
 326 
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 The House being in the Committee of the Whole 
 on the state of the Union (Mr. Hibbard in the 
 chair) on the Homestead Bill— 
 
 Mr. 1NGERSOLL said: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: It is not my purpose to discuss 
 the subject-matter now before the committee. 
 
 If an apology were necessary for the course of 
 debate which I shall pursue, all will admit that it 
 might be found in the line of safe precedents set 
 by older and more experienced members who have 
 addressed the House at its present session. 
 
 My remarks may take somewhat of a personal 
 turn, and if an apology for this were necessary, 
 gentlemen will, I trust, be disposed to grantit, when 
 they consider that 1 have been honored with a seat 
 in this body without any public pledges, written 
 or oral, and without a public address delivered 
 upon the great questions which have so recently 
 occupied the public mind both North and South. 
 
 It seems to me, therefore, due to the constituency 
 I have the honor to represent—a constituency 1 am 
 proud to say unsurpassed by any in this Union in 
 point of learning, intelligence, industry, patriotism, 
 and morals—that I should at least give them some 
 acknowledgment for the generous support with 
 which they honored me on my election to this 
 body. 
 
 In the remarks which I shall submit, I shall en¬ 
 deavor to respond to what I believe to be the sound 
 opinions of my own district and State in regard to 
 that “ vexed question” which has for years past 
 so unhappily produced animosities and heart-burn¬ 
 ings between the two great divisions of our com¬ 
 mon country, and which I sincerely believe has 
 recently brought this Union upon the verge of dis¬ 
 solution. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the Democratic State Conven¬ 
 tion of Connecticut, which met recently at New 
 Haven, among other resolutions, adopted the fol¬ 
 lowing: 
 
 “Resolved, That the principle of a strict construction of 
 the powers granted by the Constitution of the United States | 
 forms a fundamental part of tire creed of the American , 
 Democracy, and that the application of this radical princi- | 
 
 pie will maintain in their integrity the rights of the States, 
 will furnish the most effectual antidote against the central¬ 
 izing tendencies of the Federal Government, and will pre¬ 
 serve the Constitution and the Union, making a confed¬ 
 eracy of States equal to the task of bearing peaceable sway 
 over the North American continent. 
 
 “Resolved, That the Democratic party of this country is 
 essentially, from its principles and its component elements, 
 the true Union party—abstaining from the exercise of doubt¬ 
 ful powers on the part of the Federal Government, and up¬ 
 holding the rights of the States, it has preserved the integrity 
 of our political institutions; that it has maintained the 
 honor, developed the power, extended the area, and pro¬ 
 moted the prosperity of the Republic. 
 
 “Resolved, That the Democracy of Connecticut, acting 
 through their State Conventions, have never, amid all the 
 excitement which has prevailed for some years past, given 
 the slightest aid or comfort to sectional animosity ; and that 
 they have passed no resolution at war with the creed of the 
 National Democracy; and that, having last year fully ex¬ 
 pressed their acquiescence in the compromise measures of 
 Congress, they can now proudly point to their official pro¬ 
 ceedings, for a series of years, as unstained by fanaticism, 
 and embracing principles as broad as the Union. 
 
 “.Resolved,That we will cheerfully abide by the decision 
 of the Democratic Convention which is to meet in Balti¬ 
 more in June next; and that, from whatever quarter of the 
 Union the nominee may be selected, we pledge him in ad¬ 
 vance the entire and hearty support of the Connecticut 
 Democracy.” 
 
 Every word of these resolutions T subscribe to, 
 
 ; and am prepared todefend,and I shall make them 
 a sort of text for what may follow from my lips 
 to-day. 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to discuss 
 the abstract question of slavery, much less to af¬ 
 firm that I am in favor of while or black slavery, 
 or to stand forth as its champion; it is a matter 
 'j foreign to the issue which I propose to make. 
 
 ! Nor is it necessary that I should discuss the mere 
 [ question of African slavery as it existed before 
 | the Revolution, while we were colonies; as it ex¬ 
 isted in the States after we formed our Constitu¬ 
 tion, or as it exists now in the South. If it is a 
 I curse, as some men call it, it is one which falls 
 j upon the slaveholder, and for which we of the 
 North are in no way accountable, and which 
 should draw from us regret at its existence, and 
 sympathy rather than rebuke, towards the descend¬ 
 ants of those who with our forefathers fought 
 
4 
 
 shoulder to shoulder for that Declaration which 
 made us free, and for that Constitution which 
 secured to us freedom. It is an evil, says the phi¬ 
 lanthropist. Admit it—what then? Look into our 
 social system, and behold evil surrounding us on 
 every side. Why, sir, the very life which men 
 hold so dear, is made up of evils and blessings— 
 there are the hopes of youth blasted—the energies 
 of manhood destroyed—the sorrows and decrepi¬ 
 tude of old age—these, with the good men enjoy, 
 makes up the sum total in the reckoning of human 
 life; and it is the very existence of evil which 
 makes man prize the good which falls to him. 
 And if this rule holds true in the social, how much 
 more should we look for it in the political, which 
 owes all it possesses to the social state? Who will 
 tell me of a political State that has existed from the 
 earliest dawn of government, which has been free 
 from evils? The philanthropist may, with the 
 lantern of Diogenes, look for it, but in vain. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have watched the slavery agi¬ 
 tation, which has been and is so rife in our midst, 
 with much solicitude. A child of common under¬ 
 standing may see where it is tending, and the 
 point at which it will arrive, unless “ the sober, 
 second thought ” of the North nips it now in its 
 full-grown bud. 
 
 I have no sympathy with abolition agitation, or 
 what, in the parlance of the Buffalo Convention, 
 goes by the name of free-soil agitation; and 1 be¬ 
 lieve the intelligent people whom I represent agree 
 with me in the views I entertain of its effects. I 
 stand not here to arraign the motives of men. much 
 less to question the honest intentions of those, 
 many of them, at least, who uphold politicians 
 in the war they are covertly making upon the in¬ 
 stitutions and the peace of the country. But when 
 the Democracy of the North, in their efforts to 
 preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of the 
 States, are told here, as we were the other day 
 by the honorable member from Massachusetts, 
 [Mr. Rantoul,] that they are “ eating Southern 
 dirt,” I take this occasion to say, that my democ¬ 
 racy teaches me no fellowship,politically, with agi¬ 
 tators who scarcely merit the rebuke of an offend¬ 
 ed people, which, in times gone by, fell upon the 
 head of Arnold, and the whiter head of Aaron Burr. 
 
 And let us stop here and see what position the 
 honorable member from Massachusetts, who ac¬ 
 cuses the Northern Democracy of eating “ South¬ 
 ern dirt,” himself has occupied. It was in the 
 year 1838, that Mr. Rantoul wrote a letter to the 
 effect, if 1 am right, that slavery ought to be abol¬ 
 ished by Congress in the District of Columbia, 
 and forbidden in the Territories, and that Con¬ 
 gress had full power to do so. I have not his let¬ 
 ter by me, but I think I cannot be mistaken about, 
 the fact. 
 
 In 1840, 1844, and 1848, the honorable member 
 pretended to act with the political party which,by 
 resolves, deprecated all interference of the Aboli¬ 
 tionists; and, at the Democratic State Convention 
 of Massachusetts, in 1848, he was one of a com¬ 
 mittee which reported a resolution which reads as 
 follows: 
 
 “ Resoloed, That tills convention is opposed to the exer¬ 
 cise of any jurisdiction, I)} 7 Congress, upon the matter of 
 slavery in the Territories.” 
 
 He also went with the party which favored the 
 annexation of Texas to this Union, and the Mex¬ 
 ican war. He now says—if I understand his po¬ 
 
 sition—that he always continued in the belief of 
 the doctrines of his letter of 1838, and that he did 
 not believe a word of the resolve of 1848, which 
 he aided in reporting, or which, at all events, went 
 to the country under his sanction. 
 
 The question now is, whether this avowal helps 
 his political character for sincerity ? In May, 
 1851, at a mass Democratic convention, called in 
 his district, and “ called,” to use his own language 
 before that convention, as reported in the “ Com¬ 
 monwealth” of April 4, 1851, “ as I suppose at 
 my suggestion;” and six months (bear in mind) after 
 the fugitive slave law had passed Congress, and af¬ 
 ter he had gone through repeated unsuccessful trials 
 for an election to this body, he came out against 
 the constitutionality of the fugitive slave law ! 
 
 Now, why, if the honorable member did not 
 believe that the doctrines of the Democratic party, 
 in regard to slavery, were, in 1848, sound, did he 
 not then come out and oppose them, instead of 
 remaining quiet and permitting resolutions, the 
 doctrines of which he did not believe in, to go 
 forth to the country indorsed by his name ? And 
 is it for the gentleman now to taunt me, and those 
 who think with me, with “ eating Southern dirt?” 
 But I have digressed too much. I leave it to the 
 gentleman to satisfy, if he can, the world, and par¬ 
 ticularly the party who loved, in other days, to 
 honor what they then believed to be his principles 
 and his talents, in regard to his course. He has 
 not yet been able to satisfy me. 
 
 Sir, the efforts of the class of politicians just 
 spoken of point to but one issue, and that the rule 
 or ruin of this Union; and with such an issue be¬ 
 fore me, shall I hesitate where to stand? No, sir. 
 Give me the Union as it is, rather than what goes 
 by the name of liberty, with anarchy and civil 
 war the result. Give me the “ E Pluribus Unum” 
 which I now live under, rather than the “ Liberty, 
 Equality, and Fraternity” of a licentious French 
 Republic. 
 
 I speak as a Northern—a Connecticut man; 
 proud of my State, which sent more of her sons to 
 the battle-field of the Revolution than any other 
 State, in proportion to her population; proud of 
 her institutions of learning, her common schools, 
 her quiet abodes of religion, of industry, and of 
 thrift; and proud of her adventurous citizens, 
 whose hardy enterprise leads them to the four 
 quarters of the globe; and I say that the “ land of 
 steady habits ” loves too much the Union as it is, 
 and she and the whole North are indebted too much 
 to it for her and their prosperity ever to counte¬ 
 nance treason against it. 
 
 But, sir, I know I may be met herewith the Cry 
 of these agitators, that there is no danger of dis¬ 
 solution;—it is a part of the policy of these senti¬ 
 nels “on the watch-tower of freedom,” while they 
 apply the torch, to cry, “All’s well;” but who, 
 sir, that has listened to the facts which have come 
 out in the debates upon this floor, at this session, 
 of the honorable members from Mississippi, can 
 for a moment doubt it? Why, sir, the very fact 
 that men talk of secession, is enough to rouse the 
 patriot to his sense of duty—is sufficient to warn 
 us of the volcano which is under our feet. Let 
 us pause fora moment, and see by contrast where 
 we stand. During the late war with Great Britain, 
 a convention of the New England States met at 
 Hartford—that convention, it is well known, sat 
 with closed doors, and the seal of secrecy was put 
 
 
 « 
 
5 
 
 upon its members. It was, in my opinion, as 
 unworthy a conclave as ever met together; anil I 
 blush for my native State, that it was ever permit¬ 
 ted to hold its sittings within the borders of Con¬ 
 necticut. What was the object of that conven¬ 
 tion? Nothing was positively known at the time, 
 but suspicion—that suspicion which, as Randolph 
 once said on a memorable occasion, is often “ more 
 than equal to the most damning proof,” proclaimed 
 that it met to take measures for the secession of 
 the New England States from the Union. You 
 know, sir, how the public mind received this start¬ 
 ling news, and the bitter and well-merited indig¬ 
 nation which went up from all parts of the Union 
 against this treasonable assemblage. Sir, the re¬ 
 buke of an insulted people followed its members 
 to their graves, not one of whom hardly dared 
 present himself after the war to the people for their 
 suffrages. Suppose, sir, that at that time, any 
 one had predicted that in less than a half century 
 secession would be openly advocated: who doubts 
 but that he would have been considered, if not a 
 traitor to his country, at least a fit subject for the 
 lunatic asylum? 
 
 But what are we now witness to in this age of 
 reason and progress in government? Why, sir, 
 when, above all other times and seasons, weshould 
 prize this Union of ours, whose aegis covers the 
 Atlantic and the Pacific shores—whose prosperity 
 is a wonder even to ourselves—whose flag is mis¬ 
 tress of the sea, and under whose ample folds the 
 oppressed of every nation are taking refuge, we 
 see conventions openly called, presses openly advo¬ 
 cating, and orators proclaiming from the house¬ 
 tops—“secession,” and “dissolution;” and the 
 people discussing that, which to think of, even at 
 the time just alluded to, the public mind rose as 
 one man to rebuke. 
 
 And yet we are told that there is no danger in 
 all this. Surely 
 
 “ It is the very error of the moon; 
 
 She comes more near the earth than she was wont, 
 
 And makes men mad.” 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the secession of a sovereign 
 State from this Union is by some persons consid¬ 
 ered a very easy act to perform, where there is a 
 will (and God grant it may never arise) to do it. 
 Whether it is a constitutional or revolutionary 
 right which must be exercised, is a question which 
 I have no time to discuss here. I prefer to look at 
 the practical bearing of the result, should the issue 
 of secession ever be made. Suppose a State de¬ 
 termines upon secession, what power (I speak not 
 of “ right”) of the Federal Government, under the 
 Constitution, will force it to remain in the Confed¬ 
 eracy ? Has it any power? In theory, even, it is 
 questionable to some minds, while in a practical 
 point of view it is powerless. What! a Govern¬ 
 ment formed upon a compact and a compromise, 
 and founded upon the will and affection of the peo¬ 
 ple governed, and deriving all its strength from the 
 popular voice, compelling the people of a sover¬ 
 eign State, at the point of the bayonet, to remain in 
 a Union whose only bond is good will and affec¬ 
 tion. The idea is at war with every principle of 
 our republican Government. But if it is carried 
 out, what then ? Tell me the worth of that State 
 to this Union which is kept to us only by force 
 of powder and ball. Let a State determine upon 
 secession, and while the strong arm of Federal 
 authority cannot lorce it to return to its place in 
 
 the friendly galaxy of stars which compose the 
 Union, it will be no easy undertaking to persuade 
 it back to the point it before occupied by the side 
 of its sister States in the Confederacy. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, the people of the North have 
 not, until of late, aroused themselves to a knowl¬ 
 edge of the ruin which has threatened the Union. 
 Immersed in business, and bent on the pursuits of 
 honest gain, they have been unmindful of the 
 danger which has surrounded them; while design¬ 
 ing men and politicians, with selfish ends, have 
 been sporting with the institutions of the country, 
 like a child with a bauble. The political question 
 of slavery in the States or in the Territories, the 
 Federal Government has nothing, in my opinion, 
 to do with. If I, finding the culture of tobacco 
 unprofitable, choose to plant my field with corn, I 
 have no right to destroy my neighbor’s field, or 
 abuse him, because he continues to plant a weed 
 which, in my opinion, forced upon me hymyown 
 experience, is destroying his land, and which, in 
 its effects, has an injurious influence upon the 
 health of the community around us. No more 
 right has the State of Connecticut to say to South 
 Carolina, Your slave labor is unprofitable; we have 
 found it so, therefore you must abolish it. If I 
 and my friend from Virginia are owners of a tract 
 of land, which he and I contributed to purchase, 
 I have no exclusive right to tell him how that land 
 shall be cultivated or managed, nor has he that 
 right over me; and so it is with the Territories 
 belonging to this Government—it is not in the 
 power of the Federal Government to say that Con¬ 
 necticut may go into them with her factory mills, 
 and that Virginia cannot enter them with her prop¬ 
 erty. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, whoever has listened, upon this 
 floor or elsewhere, to the speeches of those gentle¬ 
 men who claim to be the exclusive friends of what 
 they term the anti-slave influence in this country, 
 must have remarked the frequent expressions of 
 “liberty,” and “humanity,” with which they 
 abound, and the taunts of “African oppression,” 
 which is so freely lavished upon the ears of those 
 whose notions of the institutions of this Govern¬ 
 ment do not correspond with their own; as if these 
 gentlemen were the only pure-minded men in the 
 land, and reflected the sound views always held 
 upon the slavery question at the North. 
 
 Now, sir, I believe I am as good a friend to lib¬ 
 erty and humanity as the most violent Abolitionist 
 or Free-Soiler in this Hall of Congress; and I 
 further believe that the illustrious men of revolu¬ 
 tionary times, who helped to frame our Constitu¬ 
 tion, had as strict notions of the “ rights of man,” 
 as any of its advocates in this our day and genera¬ 
 tion. 
 
 It is curious to look into the history of the States 
 of this Confederacy, and examine the positions 
 which they have occupied in regard to this matter 
 of slavery. Let us see how New England has at 
 times stood. 
 
 It is well known, sir, that in the Convention 
 which framed the Constitution of the United States, 
 the subject of slavery and the slave trade was a 
 prominent topic of debate. Up to this time the 
 States had a right to import slaves from Africa, 
 or from any part of the globe. This subject was 
 referred in the Convention to a committee to report 
 upon, and that committee reported in favor of 
 stopping the slave trade after the year 1800. The 
 
 i 
 
6 
 
 South were not satisfied with the restriction pro¬ 
 posed, and the subject was again referred back to 
 the committee who reported the limit of 1800, and 
 the committee finally reported to extend the time 
 to the year 1808. This report was accepted, and 
 the result became a part of the Constitution. Now, 
 let gentlemen look at the record of the Convention, 
 and see what States voted to extend the duration 
 of the slave trade, from the time originally reported 
 to the convention. What do we find, sir ? Why, 
 that the only New England States then represented 
 in the Convention—Connecticut, New Hamp¬ 
 shire, and Massachusetts—voted to extend the du¬ 
 ration of this great evil while Virginia, a slave 
 State, and the States about Virginia, voted in the 
 negative. Yes, sir; and whom do we find from 
 Connecticut, as members of that Convention ? 1 
 
 will mention but two of them—men of pure hearts, 
 and patriots in the times which tried men’s souls— 
 the one, Roger Sherman, the signer of the Decla¬ 
 ration of Independence, and the other Oliver Ells¬ 
 worth, afterwards Chief Justice of the United 
 States. And these are the men who, had they 
 lived in this our day, would probably have been 
 told by the honorable member from Ohio, [Mr. 
 Giddixgs,] not now in his seat, that they were 
 “ following the crack of the slave-drivers’whips,” 
 and such like generous expressions, so freely used 
 by that honorable gentleman during this session. 
 Now, sir, these illustrious patriots did not like 
 slavery per se any more than do the noisy declaim- 
 ers of abolition on this floor; but they were men 
 who loved their country more than injustice, and 
 they looked at this slavery question like practical, 
 sensible men, with the good of the Union and 
 the prosperity of New England at heart. 
 
 Again: in this same Convention, when it was 
 moved to insert that provision in the Constitution, 
 which provides for the delivery of fugitives from 
 service, New England voted with the same una¬ 
 nimity as before in favor of the provision. 
 
 Sir, it is almost unaccountable how men, claim¬ 
 ing to be Americans, in view of the dangers which 
 threatened the country during those debates, with 
 the history of that Convention- before them, will 
 persist in this crusade they are making upon the 
 Union and the rights of the States. 
 
 And what ally have these agitators in the war 
 they are waging upon the peace and prosperity of 
 the country? 
 
 England, the enemy, the inveterate enemy of 
 America and everything American. England, 
 who never yet acted without a motive of self-ag¬ 
 grandizement, and who did not abolish slavery in 
 her West India colonies till she foresaw that those 
 colonies were destined to languish, while her East 
 India possessions, bringing golden treasures to her 
 vaults, were the points to which her own energies 
 should be exerted; and now we witness a member 
 of the British Parliament landing upon our shores 
 to lecture us upon the horrors of slavery, and in- I 
 citing our citizens to oppose the laws of this Union. 
 And who is this worthy pioneer of modern Eng- : 
 lish philanthropy ?—I refer to the notorious George 
 Thompson, the Representative of the Tower Ham¬ 
 lets of the city of London. I invite gentlemen to 
 look into the condition of the distinct this man 
 represents in the English Parliament. 
 
 In the summer of 1851, some Americans were 
 permitted, under the safe-conduct of a posse of her 
 Majesty’s police officers of the city of London, to | 
 
 
 
 take a look into the situation of the people they 
 understood this agitator represented in the Eng¬ 
 lish House of Commons. The House will pardon 
 me, if I read to them a faithful description of one 
 or two scenes of vice and misery they witnessed, 
 almost under the battlements of the Tower of 
 London itself, and of which notes were taken in 
 the day and time of it, and for the truth of them 
 I can vouch: 
 
 “ We now threaded our way through a long, dark street, or 
 alley, and of a sudden found ourselves in a dingy hall, filled 
 with the fumes of tobacco, beer, and gin, and where some 
 sixty persons were collected, a portion sitting on benches 
 around the room, smoking pipes and drinking, while the 
 greater portion were shuffling in the dance, to the music of an 
 old blind fiddler in the corner. There were a dozen, or more, 
 women, and as many children, in the motley crew. ‘ Do 
 you know whpre you are ?’ asked the police guide. ‘ No,’ 
 was the reply. ‘ Surrounded (he continued) by pickpockets 
 and thieves ! and look, you see that man and the girl whose 
 hair is cropped ? They are but recently from Newgate.’ 
 
 “ We left this place to go to another of the same kind, but 
 worse than the former. We passed through dark and 
 dreary lanes, the stillness of death only broken by the occa¬ 
 sional churl or bark of a dog, or the oaths of the drunken 
 inmates of the dens, with windows and doorsall barred and 
 bolted, and the light shut up within. We passed by, and 
 we were now in the worst part of London! in a city of 
 thieves and vagabonds, with hardly an honest being, except 
 policemen, within sound of a pistol! We entered a low, 
 arched gateway, and at its terminus stopped. The officer 
 rapped at the door; at last it was opened, and such a 
 scene! In a long, dimly-lighted, smoke-begrimed room, 
 with rafters and a roof once whitewashed, but now covered 
 with smoke and dirt, were some sevanty men, women, and 
 children, most of them returned convicts from Botany Bay. 
 As the policemen entered, they stood aghast, and they grad¬ 
 ually receded and crouched in the corners and along the 
 wall, as the policemen came amongst them. The officers 
 told them that they came merely on a visit, to conduct the 
 strangers who accompanied them, and that they had noth¬ 
 ing to fear. They gradually regained their composure, and 
 after awhile got up a sparring-match, and afterwards a 
 dance, in which a young girl of fourteen years, the daughter 
 of a noted burglar, and the pet of this den, danced the horn¬ 
 pipe. Among this motley crew, we had pointed out to us 
 thieves, burglars, and one murderer, who, but six months 
 before, had escaped the gallows through some technical point 
 which came up on his trial. From here we went to other 
 dens less notorious, but bad enough, and to dancing saloons 
 filled with drunken sailors and women, many of them un¬ 
 able to stand. And now we started for the neighborhood of 
 the ‘Tower,’ the poor beggar’s home, and the abode of 
 misery, poverty, and degradation. We visited several 
 places where for a half penny a night the poverty-stricken, 
 who by day hang about the London wharves, may find a 
 place to lav their heads ; and what a scene was before us 
 as the policeman opened the doors of these wretched abodes, 
 and turned his dark-lantern round that its rays might light 
 up the floor upon which we now «tood ! There they lay, 
 upon dirty straw and paper-shavings, covering the floor, in 
 small rooms, with hardly what might be termed a window, 
 to let in a breath of air or the light of heaven—men, women, 
 and children all huddled like swine together, with hardly 
 rags to cover them, to the number of thirty and forty in a 
 room!” 
 
 And this, sir, is the district, represented by the 
 individual who joins hand in hand with Garrison 
 and his associates, in exclamations of holy hor¬ 
 ror at the existence of an institution in this coun¬ 
 try, which was forced upon us, against the wishes 
 of the colonists, and which the States alone, where 
 slavery exists, can, under the Constitution, regu¬ 
 late. 
 
 Look at the present condition of Ireland, brought 
 to its present state by English legislation, and 
 British oppression. Behold a country, intended 
 by God for the happiness of the most virtuous 
 people upon the globe, brought by English laws 
 and English neglect, to a poverty which steeps 
 poor humanity to its very lips ! Look to Eng¬ 
 land! behold her, proud and arrogant, filled with 
 
7 
 
 self-conceit; her East India possessions and the 
 far-distant colony of Australia bringing to her 
 lap the treasures of their store; while Ireland, 
 who gave to her a general, the conqueror of Na- 
 oleon, sits knocking at her doors, crying for 
 read,and exhibiting her children dying and dead 
 from hunger. 
 
 Let me read to the House one or two, among 
 many scenes, from an eye-witness, in the summer 
 of 1849, in that ill-fated isle: 
 
 “ Between Cork and Killarney, there was little to glad 
 the eye or the heart—the country itself, intended for the 
 home of industry and thrift, is now in progress of rapid 
 decay. Miserable bog-huts line the road side—huts with 
 no windows, and where the swine and his owner have an 
 equal home. The people are the most poverty-stricken 
 beings ever looked upon—covered with rags, pale, and 
 emaciated, they line the road-side, casting an imploring eye 
 to all who pass by. Some of the huts were of turf and 
 mud, and hardly high enough to enable a man to sit upright 
 in them.” 
 
 Again: 
 
 “We stopped at the little town of Sardeen, on the banks 
 of the Shannon, and we visited two or three huts, where the 
 inmates were boiling sea weed for their dinners; and this, 
 we were informed, was all they had had to live upon for 
 weeks.” 
 
 Again : 
 
 “ We had now arrived in the county of Galway. Words 
 can give you but a faint idea of the misery which we saw 
 upon every side. All along the road we passed roofless 
 cottages, or cabins, where the landlord had burnt the roofs 
 over the heads of his poverty-stricken tenants, in order to 
 force them to leave the land! and near by each ruin we 
 saw the poor tenants occupying kennels dug out of the road¬ 
 side—the poor creatures, as they crawled out to beg a penny 
 of the traveler, had hardly rags enough to cover them; and 
 several boys were in a complete state of nudity. One 
 woman we met told us that she had left six children starving 
 in her cabin, and had then walked ten miles in quest of 
 something for her and her little ones to eat; and that she 
 had not tasted a morsel for the last twenty-four hours. 
 
 “ The most frightful picture in this scene, where all was 
 desolation, was that of a little girl of about twelve years. 
 She came up to us, leading a little brother, both worn by 
 hunger to skeletons. They were so weak from starvation 
 that they could hardly move their limbs! These children 
 had, the week before, lost both father and mother from 
 hunger, and the little boy arid girl lived in the hut near by. 
 We visited this hut, and found nothing in it but an iron 
 kettle, and some rushes which the little ones had gathered 
 by the road side to sleep upon.” 
 
 Again: 
 
 “ Near the town ofClifden, we saw a poor boy, of about 
 fifteen years of age, lying in the gutter of the road, appa¬ 
 rently in a dying state. We stopped, and asked him what 
 was the matter ? He faintly replied, ‘ Hunger.’ 
 
 “ Passing along the road, we saw smoke issuing from a 
 hole in a bank on the side of the road. We stopped, and 
 out of the hole creeped a child—then another, and then the 
 motner, with an infant in her arms. The woman told us 
 that her husband had left her two weeks before in quest of 
 food. 
 
 “Further on, we passed another of these burrows. A 
 man lived there with his four children. He approached us 
 with, 1 for God’s sake, give us something to eat. I and my 
 little ones are dying.’ ” 
 
 Oh, there is enough in all this to sicken the 
 heart of everything of English influence in the 
 affairs of this country. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have thus given, in as concise 
 form as possible, my views of what I believe to 
 be the feelings of the people of my district upon 
 
 the all-absorbing question of slavery in the States 
 and Territories of this Union. 
 
 Upon the question of the compromise, I believe 
 the people of Connecticut to be sound, and that 
 they will abide by it in good faith, and with an 
 honest determination to carry out all the provis¬ 
 ions of its several parts. I do not know that I can 
 better describe the feelings of the people of Con¬ 
 necticut in regard to it, and in opposition to all 
 slavery agitation, than by reading the following 
 call for a public meeting in New Haven, signed 
 by about one thousand names, comprising the 
 most worthy citizens of the place, of all profes¬ 
 sions and callings, during the agitation consequent 
 upon the passage of the compromise measures, 
 in December a twelvemonth since. It is as fol¬ 
 lows: 
 
 “ The undersigned, believing that any alteration of the 
 compromise measures adopted at the last session of Con¬ 
 gress is not only inexpedient, but that it is the duty of every 
 good citizen of this Republic to support and vindicate the 
 same, do therefore recommend that a public meeting of the 
 citizens of this place, without distinction of party, be con¬ 
 vened, to express our united determination that the same 
 shall be executed to their fullest extent, and our united oppo¬ 
 sition to any further agitation of the subject, or the subject 
 of slavery in any form.” 
 
 And now, sir, thanking the House for its atten¬ 
 tion to these imperfect remarks of mine, I will 
 conclude by quoting the eloquent and patriotic 
 language of a venerable speaker at that meeting— 
 one of the most learned divines of New England, 
 and Professor of Divinity in that old Institution, 
 which educated a Calhoun, and others of both the 
 North and the South’s best sons. 1 refer to the 
 learned Dr. Nathaniel W. Taylor, Professor of 
 Theology in Yale College: 
 
 “ Thus far we have passed through the storm ; I hope it 
 is over; I am afraid it is not; I am afraid there are evils 
 yet to come—but I think the prospect brightens. I do think 
 that we have reason to believe that, though surrounded 
 with distracting causes and influences, the people are com¬ 
 ing to right views, and that here we have indications that 
 the God of our fathers cares for us. He is, I trust, restrain¬ 
 ing the madness of the people, and that in his own good 
 time, amid the roaring of the tempest, he will say to the 
 winds, ‘ Cease.’ and to the waves, ‘ Be still.’ Stand, then, 
 my fellow-citizens, by law! stand by the Constitution of 
 our country; that Constitution—why, sir, like the atmos¬ 
 phere around us, it blesses us every breath we draw ; we 
 wake, we sleep, we talk, we think, we hope, we rejoice 
 every moment under its influence. Our commerce that 
 floats on every sea, our trade in city and in country, the 
 harvests that wave in our (ields, the cattle on our thousand 
 hills, aye, sir, every flower that blooms in our garden, and 
 every bird that sings in these green trees, all, all are under 
 the guardianship of the Constitution. It is like the provi¬ 
 dence of that God whose gift it is, and which watches us 
 with an eye that never slumbers, and protects us with a 
 hand that is never weary. What would become ol us, if 
 the Constitution were trampled in the dust? No, sir; as 
 has been said, so say I, with all my heart and soul—it any 
 j of my fellow-citizens do not value the Constitution enough 
 to defend it, they are not worthy of the blessings it gives 
 them. [Cheers.] I say again, let us stand by the Cousti- 
 1 tution and the law, and as some one lias said, as near as T 
 can remember, ‘ l would not merely protect it with the shield 
 ‘of honest Ajax, I would protect it also with a wall of brass; 
 ‘ and when tiiis would not serve the purpose of protection, 
 ‘then would [ circle it with the living hearts of my coun- 
 i‘trymen.’ In its defense, I, we, all would rally, till the 
 last pulse of life, and the last drop of blood were expended, 
 to save the Constitution !” 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . . «r 
 '' '• 
 
 ? , 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 •• -a-;" 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■, - > 
 
 
 . 
 
 ► » 
 
 
 
 
 • t- S-'-Jj -1 a - .' v 
 
 „ . • . 
 
 , : • 
 
 ■ ■ * 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 ' -► ' £ - ' - . " ; 
 
 ✓ * 1 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 . / 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *