PLEASE READ AND CIRCULATE. 
 
 THE ABOLITIONIST ATTACK! 
 
 ABOLITIONISTS AGAINST GENERAL BIERCE. 
 
 The abolitionists are bitterly opposed to the 
 election of Franklin Pierce. One cause of this 
 bitter opposition may be found in the elevated and 
 patriotic position he has always maintained, and 
 the desire he has always manifested to keep alive 
 kindly feelings between the two sections of the 
 confederacy. They who seek other causes will 
 find them in the position of his competitor—in the 
 auepices under which General Scott was brought 
 before the country, and in the character of those 
 who, at Baltimore, forced him upon the whig 
 party as its candidate for the presidency. 
 
 As soon as General Pierce’s nomination was 
 made, the National Era, the abolition newspaper 
 in Washington, assailed him, and inflamed the 
 anti-slavery sentiment against him because he was 
 devoted to the constitution, and has defended the 
 rights guarantied by that sacred instrument. It 
 examined his public acts and scrutinized his votes 
 in Congress, and held him up as a friend of the 
 South, in order to make him odious to the aboli¬ 
 tion party of the North. Since the nomination of 
 General Scott, the whig committee stationed in 
 Washington to conduct the canvass has adopted 
 the article of the National Era, and has published 
 vast numbers of it in pamphlet form, and sent 
 them to the north, in order to consolidate the abo¬ 
 lition forces and perfect the alliance between them 
 and the whig party, and thus force a sectional 
 canvass upon the country, regardless of the danger 
 it will bring to the confederacy. 
 
 A true copy of the article from the National 
 Era will be found published below. The whigs 
 rely on it to rally the abolitionists of every shade to 
 the support of General Scott, and thereby absorb 
 the friends and followers of James G. Birney 
 and Wendall Phillips into the bosom of the whig 
 parly, which is now under the leadership of Wra. 
 
 H. Seward, who will be- the controlling spirit os 
 the government should General Scott be elected* 
 The democratic party has always opposed sec¬ 
 tional agitation, and the formation of parties based 
 on local feelings or sectional prejudices. It has 
 always known that the Union could only be pre¬ 
 served by maintaining the rights of the States and 
 by respecting their domestic institutions. It ha® no 
 love for a confederacy of hostile States held together 
 by the power of a central authority, but it is de¬ 
 voted to the confederacy our fathers formed ©f 
 friendly States, looking forward with fraternal feel¬ 
 ings to the same destiny, and bound together by a 
 common language, a common religion, and a com¬ 
 mon ancestry, and by the hopes of the future and the 
 memories, the trials, and the triumphs of the past. 
 
 General Pierce is thoroughly imbued with dem¬ 
 ocratic principles, and his heart responds warmly 
 to democratic feelings. There is nothing narrow 
 nor sectional in his character. No matter in what 
 aspect it is viewed, it is liberal, enlarged, and na¬ 
 tional. The necessity of his very nature forced 
 him to discountenance the wicked purposes of 
 fanaticism, and repel their assaulta on the princi¬ 
 ples of the constitution and the integrity of thft 
 Union. 
 
 Franklin Pierce, from his enlarged and national 
 feelings, always deprecated agitation ; and he 
 viewed with deep grief the fearful strife which 
 has convulsed the country for the last four years. 
 He watched with painful solicitude every attempt 
 to compose our differences; and when the com¬ 
 promise was finally agreed on, he was among tbd 
 first to support it against the assaults of those wh# 
 opposed it in obedience to the commands of a 
 higher law than the constitution. Everywhere i» 
 the North the whig and abolition parties ha re 
 assailed the compromise and attempted to use Ae 
 
2 
 
 I CAN SAFELY SAT, THERE HAS BEEN NO WORD NOR 
 ACT OF MY LIFE IN CONFLICT.” 
 
 fugitive slave law to destroy the northern demo¬ 
 crats. It was the feelings growing out of that at¬ 
 tempt which dictated the following passage in 
 General Pierce’s letter to Major Lally, written be¬ 
 fore he thought of being a candidate for the Presi¬ 
 dency. 
 
 f‘ I intended to speak to you more fully upon 
 the subject of the compromise measures than I 
 had an opportunity to do. The importance of the 
 action of the convention upon this question cannGt 
 be over-estimated. I believe there will be no dis¬ 
 position on the part of the South to press resolu¬ 
 tions unnecessarily offensive to the sentiments of 
 the North. But can we say as much on our s : de ? 
 Will the North come cheerfully up to the mark of 
 constitutional right? If not, a breach in our party 
 is inevitable. The matter should be met at the 
 threshold, because it rises above party, and looks 
 to the very existence of the confederacy. The 
 sentiment of no one State is to be regarded upon 
 this subject; but having fought the battle in New 
 Hampshire upon the fugitive slave law, and upon 
 what we believed to be the ground of constitu¬ 
 tional right, we should, of course, desire the ap¬ 
 proval of the democracy of the country. What I 
 wish to say to you is this: If the compromise 
 measures are not to be substantially and firmly 
 maintained, the plain rights secured by the con¬ 
 stitution will be trampled in the dust. What dif¬ 
 ference can it make to you or me whether the out¬ 
 rage shall seem to fall on South Carolina or Maine 
 or~New Hampshire? Are not the rights of each 
 equally dear to us all? I will never yield to a 
 eraven spirit that, from considerations of policy, 
 would endanger the Union. Entertaining these 
 views, the action of the convention must, in my 
 judgment, be vital. If we of the North, who have 
 stood by the constitutional rights of the South, 
 are to be abandoned to any time-serving policy, 
 the hopes of democracy and of the Union must 
 gink together.” 
 
 General Pierce was not an aspirant for the pres¬ 
 idency. His name was not presented by a sec¬ 
 tion, in obedience to the dictates of a sectional 
 policy. The principles announced by the conven¬ 
 tion which nominated him were net shaped to 
 reconcile any portion of the democratic party or 
 of the country to his nomination. They were not 
 the result of a bargain, and made to accomplish 
 a particular object. They were the sentiments | 
 which the democratic party had all along main- j 
 tained and defended, and they were proclaimed so j 
 that the people might vote with a full knowledge j 
 of the views and purposes of the democratic party, j 
 '3br.cral Pic-rce did not, like General Scott, accept 
 the platform as a condition annexed to his nomina- 
 Oioe. In his letter of acceptance he says, “ I ac- j 
 
 OGFT THE NOMINATION UPON TIIS PLATFORM ADOPT- 
 23 > BY THE CONTENTION, NOT BECAUSE THIS IS EX¬ 
 PECTED OF ME AS A CANDIDATE, BUT BECAUSE THE 
 PRINCIPLES IT BMBRACES COMMAND THE APPROBA¬ 
 TION OF MY JUDSMENT, AND WITH THEM, I BELIEVE 
 
 The position of General Scott no more than 
 that of General Pierce gives room for surprise at 
 the hostility which the abolition party manifested 
 so promptly towards the democratic candidate. 
 General Scott comes before the country under the 
 auspices of Wm. H. Seward, of New York, who 
 has labored unceasingly for the control of the ab¬ 
 olition party, who has denounced the compro¬ 
 mise, and who has encouraged forcible resistance 
 to it by ostentatiously extending hospitality, and 
 by giving a sumptuous entertainment to a mob of 
 whites and blacks who had beaten down and 
 overcome the officers of the law when in the dis¬ 
 charge of their duty. General Scott has permitted 
 his name, and the natural feelings caused by his 
 military services, to be prostituted to the purposes 
 of the abolitioaists, and used by them to break 
 down and destroy Mr. Fillmore and Mr. Web¬ 
 ster, because they would not commit perjury by 
 a wilful violation of their oaths to execute the 
 laws, in obedience to the requirements of a higher 
 law as expounded by Mr. Wm. H. Seward. The 
 whig platform was insisted on not because it was 
 in accordance with the sentiments of the whig 
 party. The united whig vote of New York, 
 Pennsylvania, and Ohio opposed its adoption; 
 and it is even now repudiated and denounced by 
 the controlling element of the northern whig party. 
 It was adopted because the attitude of General 
 Scott was so ominous and full of danger that the 
 southern delegates were compelled to insist upon 
 some promise of security., A portion of the friends 
 of General Scott yielded to it, not because it ex¬ 
 pressed their opinions, but because they could 
 not procure the nomination of their favorite with¬ 
 out some shallow and deceptive engagement 
 which the southern delegates might plead before 
 their constituents to excuse them for agreeing to 
 a perilous nomination. Even after this contri¬ 
 vance, arrangement, or understanding, a3 one of 
 the parties to it pronounced it to be, in the face of 
 the convention, the nomination of General Scott 
 had no one feature cf nationality. It was purely 
 and entirely sectional, and marred ail over with 
 the worst features of sectionalism. He went into 
 the convention with but one vote from the entire 
 South. This is an ominous fact. How did it 
 occur ? The southern delegates saw that he wav 
 presented under the auspices of the worst eEemiea 
 of the South. Why did such men present Geo. 
 Scott? Because they wished to destroy Mr. Fill¬ 
 more, for the reason that he acquiesced in the 
 
3 
 
 compromise, and refused to falsify his oath to ex¬ 
 ecute the laws of the land. This is a fact which 
 no man can question ; and it proves conclusively 
 that the whig platform is a device to entrap—a 
 flimsy and unsubstantial deception. But, in lieu 
 of further words, we present— 
 
 THE ABOLITIONIST ATTACK ON FRANK¬ 
 LIN PIERCE. 
 
 From the National Era. 
 
 MR. FIERCE AND THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT. 
 
 “Mr. Pierce voted, when in Congress,to respect 
 the right of petition as exercised by the abolition¬ 
 ists. In 1837, when, after having served his State 
 in the House of Representatives, he had taken his 
 seat a3 a member of the United States Senate, he 
 voted to receive, in the usual manner, a petition 
 asking for the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, and sustained his vote by his voice. He 
 took the same ground with Mr. Adams as to the 
 propriety of the abolition of slavery in the District, 
 out declared that ‘ he would give no vote which 
 might be construed into a denial of the right of 
 petition.’ That was a time when the influence 
 of slavery was in the ascendant—when it was the 
 fashion to toss back such petitions with contempt 
 in the faces of those who presented them; and it 
 required some courage in a politician of the demo¬ 
 cratic school to confront and defy the imperious 
 demand of the South, that all memorials and ap¬ 
 plications of this nature should be rigidly excluded 
 from the notice of Congress. The right to ask 
 for the extinction of slavery in the District of Co¬ 
 lumbia is now admitted; but Franklin Pierce, 
 whatever be his opinions respecting the Compro¬ 
 mise, was one of the earliest to assert it.”—Aeu> 
 York Evening Post. 
 
 Mr. Pierce will be as much surprised as Mr. 
 Orr, of South Carolina, to learn that he has ever 
 stood opposed to any of the imperious demands 
 of the South. Our friends of the Evening Post 
 fcave derived their information from a very partial 
 record, as we shall now show. 
 
 Mr. Pierce entered Congress in 1833 Monday, 
 February 2, 1835, the House of Representatives 
 proceeded to the consideration of several petitions 
 and memorials from sundry citizens of the State 
 of New York, one of which was signed by eight 
 hundred ladies, praying the abolition of slavery 
 and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, 
 presented by Mr. Dickson. The war on the right 
 of petition was at this time about commencing, 
 but Mr. Dickson was allowed to speak in behalf 
 of the passage of the petition ; and. at the close of 
 his remarks, he moved to refer the papers to a 
 select committee. 
 
 Mr Chinn did not mean “to disturb the deep 
 sympathy or the tender mercies of the gentle¬ 
 man from New York;” “ he only moved to lay the 
 whole subject on the table,” and upon that ques¬ 
 tion he demanded the yeas and yeas. The friends 
 of the right of petition took the ground that peti¬ 
 tions should not only be received, but considered 
 and referred. Their opponents, while recognising 
 it in form by receiving petitions, denied it in fact 
 by insisting that they should be laid upon the table 
 •at once, and without debate. 
 
 The question was taken upon Mr. Chinn’s mo- 
 
 ; tion, and decided in the affirmative—yeas, 147; 
 
 ! nays, 77. The South, aided by such men as 
 Wise, Pickens, Peyton, Bynum. Pinckney, and 
 Gilmer, with its northern allies, voted yea; John 
 Quincy Adams and his friends, nay Among the 
 i affirmative votes is that of Franklin Pierce * 
 
 Wednesday, December 16. 1835, Mr. Fairfield 
 i presented a petition from 172 women for the abo- 
 ] iition of slavery and the slave trade in this District, 
 and moved it be laid upon the table. Mr. Slade 
 1 moved that it be printed. The. question was taken 
 i on the first motion, and decided in the affirmative— 
 
 : yeas, 180; nays, 31—the South, with its northern 
 allies, including Franklin Pierce, volFg yea; Join 
 Quincy Adams and his friends nay. 
 i Mr. Vanderpoel moved to lay the motion to 
 1 print on the table; and this motion prevailed— 
 
 : yeas, 169 ; nays, 49 —Franklin Pierce again voting 
 i in the affirmative with the slaveholders.! 
 
 Friday, December 18, 1835, a protracted debate 
 i sprung up in the House on the presentation of a 
 i petition by Mr. Jackson, of Massachusetts, pray- 
 i ing the abolition of slavery in the District. 
 
 ! The work of petitioning on the subject of slavery 
 had now fairly commenced. Up to this time the 
 usual mode of getting rid of the petitions had been 
 by laying them upon the table without debate. 
 This prevented their consideration, and excluded 
 ! all agitation. But a few southern men of extreme 
 views, incensed by what they regarded assaults 
 j upon the peculiar institution, or determined to 
 open the door for sectional controversy, for the 
 sake of embarrassing the administration or pro¬ 
 moting discussion, determined upon a more vio¬ 
 lent course of procedure. The presentation of the 
 petition by Mr. Jackson was used as an occasion. 
 Mr. Hammond, of South Carolina, moved*that it 
 be rejected; Mr. Garland, of Virginia, that it We 
 laid upon the table. A rambling conversation 
 iollowed upon points.of order. At last,'for the 
 purpose of getting at the question of rejection, 
 Mr. Hammond and his friends agreed to have the 
 petition considered, and Mr. Garland withdrew 
 his motion to lay upon the fable. It was imme¬ 
 diately renewed by Mr. Beardsley, of New York. 
 
 : The House became again perplexed with point* 
 
 ; of order until Mr. Thomas, of Maryland, to re¬ 
 lieve the members who had voted for considera¬ 
 tion from their difficulties, moved to reconsider 
 : the motion by which the House had agreed t© 
 
 ! consider the petition. A most exciting debate 
 followed. Some of the southern members avowed 
 that they desired agitation for the purpose of being 
 able to vindicate their institutions; some depre¬ 
 cated agitation; all denounced it; and they were 
 sustained by the northern allies of the slave power, 
 who abused the anti-3lavery men, and were will¬ 
 ing to go all lengths for the suppression of agita¬ 
 tion, so that they might be spared the dangerous 
 task of an undisguised denial of the right of peti¬ 
 tion. For himself, Mr. Beardsley said he wa§ 
 ready to give a direct vote upon the petition—a 
 vote that should mark the opinion of the House 
 upon the character of such petitions, hy saying 
 affirmatively that they would not consider it. “If 
 that would meet the views of honorable gentle¬ 
 men, he was willing to modify his motion to lay 
 on the table, and to move that the House would 
 
 *Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xi, part 1, p. 1141. 
 fGales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, part 2, p. 1985, 
 
4 
 
 jaot consider the petition, or would reject its 
 prayer; although laying it on the table, he thought, 
 was equivalent to either of the modifications indi¬ 
 cated.” 
 
 Mr. Mason, of Virginia, hoped that the gentle¬ 
 man from New York would so modify his motion 
 that they could have a direct vote on rejecting the 
 petition. “ If the House is prepared to decide 
 upon the principle of the petition, why not reject 
 it at once? To refer the petition is an act of su¬ 
 pererogation, which can do no good, and will do 
 much mischief.” He hoped the House would re¬ 
 consider, and then at once refuse to consider the 
 petition, or reject it. 
 
 Franklin Pierce hoped the motion to reconsider 
 would be withdrawn, and that Mr. Beardsley 
 would so far modify his motion “as to meet the j 
 approbation of all who are most sensitive upon 
 this agitating question,” “ and he rose to add his 
 request to the suggestion made by his friend from 
 Virginia,” [Mr. Mason.] “ He was anxious for 
 a. direct vote upon the question ; he could not bear 
 that any imputation should rest upon the North 
 in consequence of the misguided and fanatical zeal 
 of a few—comparatively few,” &c. 
 
 The motion to leconsider was laid upon the 
 table—yeas 119, nays 72. 
 
 Mr. Beardsley persisting in his motion to lay 
 the petition on the table, so as to get rid of debate 
 and excitement, the question was taken, and de¬ 
 cided in the negative—yeas 95, nays 121. Those 
 who voted yea were the conservative men of the 
 South and their northern allies : those who voted 
 nay were the extreme men of the South, who wished 
 to force an undisguised denial of the right of 
 petition, and the true friends of the right of peti¬ 
 tion, who were intent upon putting an end to the 
 policy by which that right had been practically 
 nullified while technically recognised. • As might 
 have been expected, John Quincy Adams voted 
 nay, and Franklin Pierce yea. 
 
 The motion to lay upon the table having failed, 
 Mr. Hammond moved that said petition be, and 
 the same is hereby, rejected. The debate then 
 proceeded with great animation ; and during its 
 progress the fact was brought to the notice of the 
 House that a similar petition, presented that very 
 day by Mr. Briggs, of Massachusetts, had through 
 inadvertence been referred to the Committee on 
 the District of Columbia. Mr. Patton moved to 
 reconsider this vote ; and then the whole subject 
 went over till the following Monday, the Plouse 
 adjourning till that day. 
 
 Monday, December ^ 1st, it was again taken 
 up ; and after debate, the majority being unable to 
 agree upon any more summary mode of proceed¬ 
 ing, a motion to lay upon the table the petition, 
 and all motions in relation to it, prevailed—yeas 
 140, nays 76—the South generally and its north¬ 
 ern allies, including fjWitlin Pierce, voting yea; 
 John Quincy Adams and his friends, with a few 
 southerners hostile to any kind of indirection, 
 voting nay. 
 
 Mr. Owens had previously sent to the Chair the 
 following resolutions: 
 
 “ That, in the opinion of this Plouse, the ques¬ 
 tion of the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress. 
 
 ** That, in case any petition praying the aboli¬ 
 tion of slavery in the District of Columbia be 
 
 hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion of 
 this House that the same ought to be laid upon 
 the table without reading.” 
 
 He now moved that the rules be suspended to 
 enable him to offer these resolutions. The mo¬ 
 tion was lost—yeas 100, nays 115—Franklin 
 Pierce voting with the slaveholders yea , John 
 Gtuincy Adams and his friends nay. 
 
 Mr. Patton, of Virginia, called up his motion 
 to reconsider the motion by which a petition for 
 the abolition of slavery in the District had been 
 referred ; and thereupon a fierce debate arose on 
 the general question of slavery, (occupying three 
 days,) in the course of which the northern view 
 of the subject was presented at length and with 
 great ability by William Slade. 
 
 The question of reconsideration was decided on 
 the 23d in the affirmative— yeas 148, nays Gl—the 
 South and its northern allies, with Franklin Pierce, 
 voting yea, and John Gtuincy Adams and his 
 friends nay. 
 
 The petition and motion to commit we r e then 
 summarily laid upon the table—yeas 144, nays 
 67—Franklin Pierce voting, as before, nay, John 
 Gtuincy Adams yea.* 
 
 February 15, 1835, Mr. Pierce obtained leave 
 to make a personal explanation. He read from 
 an abolition paper an article making severe strict¬ 
 ures upon his speech of a former day. in which 
 he had said that not one in five hundred of his 
 constituents was in favor of the abolition of slavery 
 in the District. He denounced the paper as “ in¬ 
 significant and odious,” denounced the anti slavery 
 movement, and undertook to discredit all the peti 
 tions on the subject of slavery, whether from his 
 own State or others] 
 
 February 8, 1836, the resolution of Mr. Pinck¬ 
 ney was adopted, for raising a select committee, 
 to which were referred all papers relating to the 
 subject of slavery, and which was instructed to 
 report that Congress has no constitutional power 
 to interfere in any way with the institution of sla¬ 
 very in the States, and ought not to interfere in 
 any way with slavery in the District of Columbia. 
 The resolution was divided, and Franklin Pierce 
 voted in the affirmative on every part of the in¬ 
 structions.] 
 
 February 23, 1836, Mr. Adams presented a pe¬ 
 tition for the abolition of slavery in the District, 
 and moved its reference to the select committee on 
 the subject. Mr. Shepherd objected to its recep¬ 
 tion. Mr. Davis moved to lay that preliminary 
 question on the table, and his motion prevailed— 
 yeas 120, nays86—Franklin Pierce voting yea, with 
 the South ; John Quincy Adams and his friends, 
 nay. The effect of the motion was to lay the 
 question of reception on the table, thereby virtu¬ 
 ally refusing to entertain the petition.§ 
 
 May 18, 1836, Mr. Pinckney, from the select 
 committee on the subject, made a report concern¬ 
 ing the disposition of papers relating to the ques¬ 
 tion of slavery, concluding with the following 
 resolutions: 
 
 “ Resolved , That Congress possesses no consti¬ 
 tutional authority to interfere in any way with the 
 
 * Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, Part 2, from p. 
 
 1966 to 2077. „ n 
 
 f Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xh, Part 2, p. 25 28. 
 
 j Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xh, part 2, p. 2502. 
 
 I Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, part 3, p. 2007. 
 
5 
 
 institution of slavery in any of the States of this 
 confederacy. 
 
 “ Resolved, That Congress ought not to interfere 
 in any way with slavery in the District of Colum¬ 
 bia. 
 
 “ And whereas it is extremely important and 
 desirable that the agitation of tiiis subject should 
 be finally arrested, for the purpose of restoring 
 tranquillity to the public mind, ynur committee 
 respectfully recommend the adoption of the fol¬ 
 lowing additional lesolution, viz: 
 
 “ Resolved , That all petitions, memorials, reso¬ 
 lutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any 
 way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject 
 of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, with- i 
 out being either printed or referred, be laid upon 
 the table, and that no further action shall be had 
 thereon.”* 
 
 Various motions were made and points of order 
 raised, and the subject went over to the next day, 
 when a hot discussion took place, a few extreme 
 men from the South objecting to the resolutions 
 because they did not assert explicitly the absence 
 of constitutional power in Congress to abolish 
 slavery in the District. The morning hour ex¬ 
 pired before any question was taken ; and the sub¬ 
 ject did not again come up till the 25th, when, after 
 along speech from a southern member, the gag was 
 applied in the shape of the previous question, Mr. 
 Adams struggling in vain to be heard, and the 
 main question was ordered to be put—yea3 109, 
 nays 89—Franklin Pierce voting with the South. 
 Points of order were raised by the friends of free 
 discussion, but they were overruled by the Chair, 
 and, on an appeal, his decision was sustained by 
 the usual vote—Franklin Pierce voting in the 
 affirmative. 
 
 The first resolution was generally agreed to; 
 the second, by a vote of 132 to 45; the third, by 
 a vote of 117 to 68—Franklin Pierce in both cases 
 voting yen, with the South and its allies, and Mr. 
 Adams and his friends nay. A few extreme 
 southern men refused to vote, for the reason as¬ 
 signed above.f 
 
 This was the first gag law on the subject of pe¬ 
 titions adopted in Congress. Mr. Pierce was a 
 member of the select committee that prepared and 
 reported it; and he gave his influence and votes \ 
 for it in all its stages, until it was adopted by the 
 House; and in a debate in the Senate, December, 
 1837, he publicly avowed that he had concurred 
 fully in the sentiments of Mr. Pinckney’s report, 
 and further examination had confirmed him in his 
 opinion .t The report contained a long and elab¬ 
 orate argument against the abolition of slavery in 
 the District, (on the grounds that it would be a 
 violation of good faith, would endanger the inter¬ 
 ests of Maryland and Virginia, would be a blow 
 aimed at the institution of slavery in the South ;) ' 
 and also an argument against emancipation, even 
 by the States, as fraught with the most mischiev¬ 
 ous consequences.§ In all this Mr. Pierce de¬ 
 clared his entire concurrence. 
 
 December 26, 1836, Mr. Adams presented a pe¬ 
 tition from citizens of Pennsylvania for the aboli¬ 
 
 * Galea & Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, part 3, p. 3758. 
 f Gales Sc Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, part 4, pp. 4031, 
 4054. ’ 
 
 i Congressional Globe, vol. vi, p 37. 
 
 $ Appendix to Gales 8c Seaton’s Register, vol. xii, part 4, 
 p. 104. 
 
 tion of slavery and the slave trade in the District 
 of Columbia. In reply to a question by Mr. 
 Pickens, the Speaker said that the rule adopted at 
 the last session for the disposition of all such pe¬ 
 titions expired with the session. A motion was 
 immediately made to lay it upon the table, and it 
 prevailed—yea3 116, nays 36—Franklin Pierce 
 among the yeas, John Q.. Adams among the nays.* 
 January 9,1837, Mr. Adams presented a similar 
 petition. Mr. Glascock, of Georgia, objected to 
 its reception. Mr. Parks moved to Jay the ques¬ 
 tion of reception on the table, and this motion pre¬ 
 vailed —yeas 130, nays 63. Y\ T e do not find the 
 names recorded, but it is fair to presume that Mr. 
 Pierce voted in the affirmative, from the fact that 
 he had voted affirmatively on an identical motion 
 m ad e by Mr. Davis on the preliminary question 
 in relation to the reception of a petition presented 
 by Mr. Adams, February 3, 1536. 
 
 The Speaker said that the effect of this motion 
 was to arrest the action of the House on the peti¬ 
 tion, and not to lay it upon the table. In other 
 words, the House refused to receive it.f 
 
 The same day Mr. Adams presented another 
 anti-slavery petition, and the question was put 
 directly on its reception. The northern allies of 
 the slave power were not prepared to ueny in this 
 gross manner the right of petition, though they 
 had been constantly violating it in fact, and they 
 voted with Mr. Adams and his friends to receive 
 it—the name of Franklin Pierce being recorded 
 for the first time on the same side with Mr. 
 Adams’s. The petition having been received, it 
 was laid upon the table without debate or con¬ 
 sideration —yeas 156, r.ays 50—Franklin Pierce 
 voting with the yeas, John Q,uincy Adams with 
 the nays.\ 
 
 January 16, 1837, several petitions for the abo¬ 
 lition of slavery and the slave trade in the District 
 were presented; the question of reception was 
 raised in every case, and laid upon the table—the 
 Speaker deciding that the effect of the proceeding 
 was to suspend all action, and leave the petition 
 exactly where it was. We have no record of the 
 yeas and nays in these cases; but Mr. Pierce 
 doubtless voted as he had previously done. 
 
 January 18, 1837, the House, under the screw 
 of the previous question, adopted, on motion of 
 Mr. Hawes, of Kentucky, the gag rule of the last 
 session, reported by the select committee of which 
 Mr. Pierce was a member, and in the report of 
 which he entirely concurred. It was adopted by a 
 similar vote to that given for it at the last session.§ 
 February 6, 1837, Mr. Adams rose, and said he 
 held in his hand a paper, on which, before it was 
 presented, he desired to have the decision of the 
 Speaker. It was a petition from twenty-two per¬ 
 sons declaring themselves to be slaves. He wished 
 to know whether the Speaker considered such a 
 petition as coming within the rules of the House. 
 
 The reader of the debates in Congress, when 
 Mr. Adams was struggling against fearful odds 
 for the maintenance of the right of petition, will 
 recollect what then took place. The House was 
 shaken as with a tempest. Although Mr. Adams 
 had not presented the petition, retaining it in 
 his possession, declining even to send it to the 
 
 * Gales 8i Seaton’s Register, vol. xiii, part 1, p. 1156. 
 
 f Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xiii, part 1, p. 1316. 
 
 j Gales h. Seaton’s Register, vol. xiii, part 1, p. 1330. 
 
 $ Gales & Seaton’s Register, vol. xiii, part 2, p. 1412. 
 
6 
 
 Speaker's chair till he had obtained the decision 
 of the Speaker as to whether, if presented, it 
 would come within the rule; the slaveholding 
 members, blinded by their indignation, gave way 
 to excesses of passion, and introduced one resolu¬ 
 tion after another, with a view to inflict punish¬ 
 ment on the venerable man for an act he had 
 not committed. Several days were spent in this 
 insensate attempt to crush the defender of the right 
 of petition, and it was with extreme difficulty he 
 obtained the floor to correct the gross misrepre¬ 
 sentations of his adversaries and vindicate his con¬ 
 duct. 
 
 At last they agreed to urge the following reso¬ 
 lution, submitted by Mr. Patten, of Virginia: 
 
 “ Resolved, That any member who shall here¬ 
 after present to the House any petition from the 
 slaves of this Union ought to be considered as re¬ 
 gardless of the feelings of the House, the rights of 
 the southern States, and unfriendly to the Union. 
 
 “That the Hon. John Gtuincy Adams having 
 solemnly disclaimed all design of doing anything 
 disrespectful to the House in the inquiry he made 
 of the Speaker as to the petition purporting to be 
 from slaves, and having avowed his intention not 
 hereafter to present the petition to the House, 
 being of opinion that it ought not to be presented ; 
 therefore all further proceedings in regard to his 
 conduct do now cesse.” 
 
 It wa3 moved to lay the whole subject on the 
 table; but Mr. Adams and his friends keenly felt 
 that, after all the vindictive assaults upon him, 
 without opportunity having been allowed him for 
 defence, this would be a disposition of the subject 
 highly unjust. They voted against the motion, 
 as did the southern members, who were anxious 
 to have an expression of opinion on the transac- 
 tien. The motion failed ; but Mr. Pierce did not 
 vote ai all. He would not vote to gi ve Mr. Adarns 
 a chance to be heard ; he would not vote against 
 any of his southern friends. 
 
 February 9, the subject being still under dis¬ 
 cussion, tha motion to get rid of the subject by 
 laying it on the table was again made, and with 
 a similar result—Mr. Pierce still declining to vote. 
 
 The question was then taken on the first of Mr. 
 Patton’s resolutions, and decided in the negative— 
 yeas 92, nays 105—Mr. Pierce not voting. The 
 second resolution was also lost—yeas 21, nays 
 137—Mr. Pierce still not voting. 
 
 Several southern members voted against the 
 first resolution of Mr. Patton, or refused to vote 
 for it, inasmuch as the petition referred to was for 
 the expulsion of Mr. Adams, not for the abolition 
 of slavery, and they were also unwilling to define 
 in advance, the kind of punishment a member de¬ 
 served who should present an anti-slavery petition 
 from slaves. Mr. Pierce, we presume, agreed 
 with these ; for on the 11th we find him moving 
 to reconsider the vote by which that resolution 
 had been rejected—-the purpose being to modify 
 it. It was reconsidered—yeas 145, nays 48—and 
 then modified so as to read: 
 
 “ Resolved, That slaves do not possess the right 
 of petition secured to the people of the United 
 States by the constitution.” 
 
 After a great deal more discussion and denunci¬ 
 ation, i» the course of which Mr. Adams was 
 threatened by Waddy Thompson with an indict¬ 
 ment by the grand jury of the District oft Colum¬ 
 
 bia, his adversaries, failing in their attempt to 
 censure him, settled down upon tho following 
 resolutions: 
 
 “An inquiry having been made by an honor¬ 
 able member from Massachusetts, whether a paper 
 which he held in his hand purporting to be a peti¬ 
 tion from certain slaves, and declaring themselves 
 slaves, came within the order of the House of the 
 13th of January, and the said paper not having 
 been received by the Speaker, he stated that in a 
 case so extraordinary and novel he would take the 
 advice and consent of the Plouse : 
 
 “ Resolved, That this Plouee cannot receive the 
 said petition without disregarding its own dignity, 
 the rights of a large class of citizens of the South 
 and West, and the constitution of the United 
 States. 
 
 “ Resolved, That slaves do not possess the right 
 of petition secured to the people of the United 
 States by the constitution.” 
 
 The first resolution was passed—yeas ] GO, nays 
 38 ; the second also—yeas 162, nays 18—Frank¬ 
 lin Pierce in both instances voting yea, John Q,uin- 
 cy Adams nay !* 
 
 We have completed thcrecovtf of Mr. Pierce in 
 the House. It demonstrates that, during the time 
 he held a seat in the House of Representatives, he 
 was an earnest, thorough, consistent opponent of 
 anti-slavery agitation and anti-slavery discussion; 
 that he was constantly arrayed against Mr. Adams, 
 the illustrious champion of the right of petition; 
 that, while recognising the technical right of peti¬ 
 tion, he uniformly voted virtually to abrogate it; 
 that, when the slaveholders attempted to crush 
 Mr. Adams, and with him the hope of free dis¬ 
 cussion in the House, he would not vote so as to 
 secure that venerable man a fair hearing; in a 
 word, that he was the unwavering ally and sup¬ 
 porter of the slaveholding interest. 
 
 In the year 1837 Mr. Pierce became a mem¬ 
 ber of the United States Senate. Following him 
 thither, we shall find that he continued to pursue 
 the same line of policy in relation to the slavery 
 question. Pie took his stand by the side of Mr. 
 Calhoun, and stood by him in his efforts to sup¬ 
 press anti-slavery agitation and discussion. 
 
 December 18, 1837, Mr. Wall presented a peti¬ 
 tion from anti-slavery ladies in New Jersey, pray¬ 
 ing for the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia, and moved to lay it on the table. Mr. 
 Hubbard moved to lay that motion on the table. 
 Mr. Clay w&e in favor of a reference, and a report 
 against the prayer of the petition, with a view to 
 quieting excitement. Mr. Calhoun wished by 
 summary measures to meet the question at once. 
 As the action of Mr. Pierce in this case has been 
 the subject of misapprehension v/ith our friends of 
 the Evening Post, we shall fully explain it. _ His 
 whole course in the House had proved hiaa an 
 unrelenting opponent of anti-slavery discussions 
 and petitions, and he had uniformly sustained all 
 gag-resolutions on the subject. But while vio¬ 
 lating the right of petition in effect, he had been 
 politic enough to respect it in form- This course 
 he continued in the Senate. On this occasion he 
 was in favor of receiving the petition, and then of 
 getting rid of it iu any vay best calculated to de- 
 
 * Galea & Seaton’s Register, vol. xiii, part 2, pp. 1587 
 to 1734, 
 
7 
 
 feat ita object arid prevent agitation. He did not 
 ■wish to give the abolitionists a chance “ to make 
 up a false issue on the right of petition.” In 
 another place he said : “ All we demand is, that, 
 since we are to be the first to feel the effects of 
 abolition ascendency at home, should it ever be 
 acquired, (which, by the v/ay, I by no means an¬ 
 ticipate,) we may meet the question unembar¬ 
 rassed, and not be driven by any course here 
 upon a collateral issue, such as the right of peti¬ 
 tion or any other.” This is a key to the policy of 
 Mr. Pierce. Mr. Rives was in favor of rejecting 
 the petition at once; Mr. Hubbard, of laying the 
 question of reception on the table; Mr. Pierce, of 
 laying the petition on the table. The avowed 
 object of each was to stamp 'he petitions with dis¬ 
 approbation; to prevent all debate and considera¬ 
 tion; to get rid of them as summarily as possibie, 
 every one meanwhile declaring his respect for ihe 
 right of petiiion. 
 
 “ When petitions of this character should be 
 received,” he said, “ he would be prepared to act 
 upon them without delay, to reject the prayer of 
 the petitions, to lay them upon the table, c.r give 
 then* any other direction that might be thought 
 best calculated to silence the agitators and tran- 
 quilize the public mind. As a member of the se¬ 
 lect committee of the other house, of which Mr. 
 Pinckney, of South Carolina, was chairman, he 
 had fully concurred in the sentiments of the report 
 presented by that gentleman at the first session of 
 the twenty-fourth Congress; and further exami¬ 
 nation and leflection had only served to confirm 
 him in the opinion he at that time entertained; 
 but mad and fanatical as he regarded the schemes 
 of the abolitionists, and deeply as he deplored the 
 consequences of their course upon all sections of 
 the Union, he could give no vote that might be 
 construed into a denial of the right of petition, and 
 thus enable them to change their position, and 
 make up a false issue before the country.” 
 
 He had voted once in tke blouse to lay upon 
 the table the motion to receive an anti-slavery 
 petition; but so severely had he been handled for 
 this that he had become more scrupulous as to 
 forms, and now aimed to reach the same object 
 by laying petitions on the table without debate, 
 printing, or consideration. 
 
 And this is the man w T Uom the New York Even¬ 
 ing Post represents as having stood with John 
 Quincy Adams by the right of petition. 
 
 December 27, 1837, Mr. Calhoun b r ought for¬ 
 ward his celebrated resolutions on the subject of 
 slavery in the District, Territories, and States, 
 designed avowedly to suppress the discussion of 
 all questions of slavery. 
 
 Several amendments were moved to the first 
 four of these resolutions, intended to modify their 
 phraseology, so as to remove any implication 
 against free discussion; but they were firmly re¬ 
 sisted by Mr. Calhoun end his friends, and in 
 every case defeated—Franklin Fierce uniformly 
 voting with him. Mr. Morris, of Ohio, for ex¬ 
 ample, moved to strike out from the second reso- 
 lutiaa the words “ uaoral and religious,” with a 
 view viug tram denunciation the moral 
 
 arid rokrious discussion of shivery; and this 
 seemed as reasonable that even Mr. Buchanan 
 recorded his name in favor of it; but it was lost— 
 Franklin Pierce voting h ay with Mr. Caihoun. 
 
 Mr. Morris moved, also, an amendment to the 
 
 third resolution, declaring the freedom of speech 
 and of the press on all subjects indisputable, and 
 under the supervision only of the States in which 
 such freedom was exercised ; but this was rejected, 
 we believe, by the same vote. 
 
 The first four resolutions, with some slight 
 modification, were then adopted—Franklin Pierce 
 recording his vote in favor of every one of them. 
 
 When the fifth resolution came up, asserting 
 substantially that efforts by the people of the 
 States, or the States themselves, to procure the 
 abolition of slavery in the District or Territories, 
 were “direct and dangerous attacks on the institu¬ 
 tions of the slaveholding States,” though all the 
 States are made responsible by the constitution 
 and Congress for slavery in the District and Terri¬ 
 tories, Mr. Pierce took occasion to define his posi¬ 
 tion. This resolution, he said, was the ground on 
 which this contest was to be determined ; “with, 
 perhaps, some modification, would present the 
 true issue here and to the country—an issue which 
 would raise, not a mere question of expediency, 
 but one of a much higher character, in which the 
 public faith is directly involved.” He then pro¬ 
 ceeded to sustain the resolution in its length and 
 breadth, and to vindicate the whole series as of¬ 
 fered by Mr. Calhoun against the assaults made 
 upon them. 
 
 But while Mr. Pierce was anxious to put 
 through all these resolutions, Mr. Clay and other 
 slaveholding senators thought the fifth and sixth 
 too sweeping and unguarded; and he moved a 
 substitute, directed only against interference by 
 the citizens of one State with the institutions of 
 another, containing no declaration that attempts 
 to bring about the abolition of slavery here “ were 
 a direct and dangerous attack upon the institutions 
 of ail the slaveholding States,” but recognising, 
 in express terms, the duty of Congress to receive 
 and respectfully treat all petitions, in decorous 
 language, against slavery in the District. This 
 substitute was adopted with some slight modifica¬ 
 tion—19 to 13—Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Clay 
 voting yea; Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Pierce, nay. 
 
 Subsequently the substitute was divided, and 
 its various parts amended and adopted succes¬ 
 sively—Mr. Calhoun and Mr. Pierce generally 
 voting together. 
 
 On motion of Mr. Pre3ton, of South Carolina, 
 the sixth resolution of Mr. Calhoun was laid upon 
 the table, on the ground that this branch of the 
 subject would be more appropriately discussed in 
 connexion with the resolutions introduced by him 
 for the annexation of Texas to the Union. Tha 
 vote stood 35 to 9—this time Mr. Pierce voting 
 with the great majority against Mr. Calhoun.* 
 
 January 3, 1838, two petitions were presented— 
 one against the annexation of Texas and th a - 
 mission of a y new State tolerating slavery t 3 
 other for the abolition of the mter-State tda^a 
 trade. The motion to receive was laid upon 
 
 u 3 
 
 tabii 
 
 -Mr. 
 
 Pierce voting nay , 
 
 in accordance wik 
 
 his policy, wh:ch was to receive all such petition,?, 
 and lay them on the tabic ins'anlly.i 
 
 January 9, 1838, Mr. Prentice presented rear- 
 
 * For ft full report of the proceeding on these revolt - 
 tions, the reader is referred to the Co. ,-regional G!«»b3 
 and Appendix, 25th Congress, second reesion, vol. \i, 
 from p. 55 to p. 80 of the Globe, and p. 5C to p. 108 *f the 
 Appendix. 
 
 f Congressional Glote, 1838-’39, p. 9-1. 
 
8 
 
 lutions of the legislature of Vermont against the 
 annexation of Texas, against slavery in the Dis¬ 
 trict, and Atherton’s gag; and he moved that they 
 be laid upon the table and be printed. The first 
 part of the motion prevailed; and Mr. Lumpkin 
 then moved to lay upon the. table the motion to 
 print. This was carried, and a sovereign State 
 was thus insulted by the following vote—yeas 29, 
 nays 8—Franklin Pierce voting yea.* 
 
 February 6, 1838, Mr. Morns presented a reso¬ 
 lution directing the Committee on the Judiciary to 
 inquire into certain matters pertaining to the insti¬ 
 tution of slavery in the States and Territories, and 
 report thereon to the Senate. Some of the slave¬ 
 holding members, with their northern allies, mani¬ 
 fested a desire to refuse its reception, but the rules 
 of the Senate forbade this. Mr. Calhoun’s reso¬ 
 lutions, in December, had been respectfully re¬ 
 ceived, laid upon the table, and ordered to be 
 printed. The resolution of Mr. Morris was at 
 last laid upon the table; but, seeing the hostile 
 disposition of the Senate, he withdrew his motion 
 to print. 
 
 The Friday following the resolution was called 
 up, and Mr. Morris expressed a desire to address 
 the Senate; but Mr. Norvell moved to lay the 
 question of its consideration on the table. Mr. 
 Buchanan requested him to withdraw it. No¬ 
 body would misapprehend his position on this 
 subject of abolition, but he waB in favor of fair 
 play. Mr. Clay had been permitted to address 
 the Senate at length the day before, on presenting 
 a memorial against abolition, and he thought the 
 senator from Ohio had a right to be heard in reply. 
 
 * Congressional Globe, 1838-’S9, p. 110. 
 
 After that, they could readily dispose of the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 This was certainly a fair proposition, and cred 
 itable to Mr. Buchanan, but Norvell persisted in 
 his motion ; and the Senate—22 to 20—voted to 
 lay the question of consideration on the table. 
 Mr. Pierce voted yea, together with Mr. Calhoun 
 and his special friends, .against Mr. Buchanan, 
 Mr. Clay, and other advocates of “fair play.” 
 We have presented the record of Mr. Pierce as a 
 representative and a senator in Congress. During 
 his two terms in the House, and until he resigned 
 his seat in the Senate, he was always true to the 
 slave power, and gave no vote which subjected 
 him to its displeasure or suspicion. 
 
 It may be said that others in those days voted 
 as he did, who since then have shown their devo¬ 
 tion to freedom. True, but he has continued un¬ 
 changed. When John P. Hale, his intimate 
 friend for twenty years, faithful to his convictions 
 of right, denounced the annexation of Texas, in 
 defiance of the edicts of his party, Mr. Pierce, 
 trampling under foot his long-standing friendship, 
 turned upon the independent representative, fol¬ 
 lowed on his track with relentless hostility, utterly 
 proscribed him, and compelled the democratic 
 press of his State to eat its own words on that 
 question. From that time he has been the leader 
 of the hunker democracy of New Hampshire; and 
 when Mr. Atwood, the regular nominee of the 
 democratic party, frankly avowed his disapproba¬ 
 tion of the fugitive-slave law, Mr. Pierce attempted 
 first to browbeat him into a retraction of his honest 
 words, and then led on the party in the work of 
 making a new nomination, of ascertained devotion 
 to the slaveholding interest. 
 
 THE NEW BOSTON ABOLITION SLANDERS REFUTED BY 
 
 GENERAL PIERCE. 
 
 The Democratic National Convention which as¬ 
 sembled in Baltimore on the first day of June, 
 1852, nominated Franklin Pierce as the party can¬ 
 didate ; and among other resolutions embraced in 
 the platform of principles adopted by the conven¬ 
 tion are the following: 
 
 “ 9 . That Congress has no power under the 
 constitution to interfere with or control the domes¬ 
 tic institutions of the several States, and that such 
 States are the sole and proper judges of everything 
 appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by 
 the constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists 
 or others, made to induce Congress to interfere wiih 
 qutsiio'ns of slavery, or to take incipient steps in rela¬ 
 tion thereto ,' are calculated to lead to the most 
 alarming and dangerous consequences; ana that 
 all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to di¬ 
 minish the happiness of the people and endanger 
 the stability and permanency of the Union, and 
 ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our 
 political institutions. 
 
 “ Resolved, That the foregoing proposition covers, 
 and was intended to embrace, the whole subject 
 of slavery agitation in Congress ; and therefore 
 the democratic party of the Union, standing on 
 this national platform, will abide by and adhere 
 to a faithful execution of the acts known as the 
 compromise measures, settled by the last Con¬ 
 gress, the ‘ Act for reclaiming fugitives from ser¬ 
 
 vice or labor’ included; which act, being designed 
 to carry out an express provision of the constitu¬ 
 tion, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or 
 so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency. 
 
 “ Resolved, That the democratic party will resist 
 all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, 
 the agitation of the slavery question, under what¬ 
 ever shape or color the attempt may be made.” 
 
 This is the democratic position on the subject 
 of slavery in the States and in the Territories, and 
 upon the subject of slavery generally, including 
 the fugitive-slave law in particular, and in the 
 terms of which law it is declared that, “ being de¬ 
 signed to carry out an express provision of the con¬ 
 stitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, 
 or so changed as !o destroy or impair its efficiency 
 Gen. Pierce adopted and endorsed the doctrines 
 and principles of the party as proclaimed by the 
 convention, in the most candid, clear, and une¬ 
 quivocal manner. In his letter accepting the nom¬ 
 ination he says: 
 
 “ I accept the nomination upon the platform 
 adopted by the convention, not because this is ex¬ 
 pected of me as a candidate, but because the prin¬ 
 ciples it embraces command the approbation of 
 my judgment; and with them I believe I can 
 safely say there has been no word nor act of my 
 life in conflict.”