^SPEECH 
 
 V ' 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 THE REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENT OF THE 
 ANTItSLAVERY party. 
 
 DELIVERED IN T1IE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 1G, IS 60. 
 
 Mr. CLIN OMAN said: ‘ 
 
 Mr. President: It is my purpose to speak to-day of the condition of the country, as 
 connected with agitation of the slavery question. I shall do this with perfect frankness, 
 and with no reserve, except what parliamentary rules and Senatorial courtesies impose. 
 By such a course only can the real nature of the impending evil be ascertained, and a 
 remedy suggested. Having carefully studied the subject during the greater part of my 
 political life, and from different points of view, I intend to express my opinions seriously, 
 and as fully as the occasion seems to require. 
 
 Before speaking directly to the merits of the subject, I shall devote a few minutes to a 
 preliminary question. It has been contended that the Democratic party is responsible 
 for the anti-slavery agitation of tire North. A retrospect into the past will vindicate :’t 
 most triumphantly from the charge. The course of the old Federal party, in the war of 
 1812, had brought it into discredit and disgrace with the American people, its leaders, 
 with a view of recovering the popular favor, and through it the control of the Govern¬ 
 ment, seized upon the occasion of the application of Missouri for admission into the Union, 
 and, by appealing to the anti-slavery feeling of the northern States, created a sectional 
 party powerful enough to prevent, for a time, the admission of the State. During the 
 struggle, a provision was adopted that slavery should never exist in the territory west of 
 Missouri and north of the line of latitude of 30° 30'. Though this arrangement was dis¬ 
 tasteful to the South, and by many regarded as dishonorable aud unconstitutional, it was 
 acquiesced in for the sake of peace. And when, in 1S45, Texas was annexed to the 
 Union, by the Democratic party mainly, this Missouri line was extended through it, ai 1 
 slavery, which legally existed in every part of that State, waif? abolished and prohibited 
 north of the line. 
 
 When, subsequently, territory was acquired from Mexico, the Democratic party, with 
 but few exceptions, attempted to apply the same principles to it, and extend the liue • f 
 30° 30' through it. The proposition was again and again brought forward by the dis¬ 
 tinguished Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) and others, and as often rejected by the 
 combined vote of the entire Whig party of the North, and a portion of the Democrats of 
 that section. After years of fruitless struggle it was abandoned, and the principle of 
 congressional non-intervention adopted by the compromise measures of 1850. 
 
 In other words, it was then established, in substance and effect, that the people of the 
 Territories, free from all congressional legislation on the subject of slavery, should regu¬ 
 late it for themselves, subject only to the limitations of the Constitution of the United 
 States, as interpreted by the courts of the country. This settlement, like the proposition 
 for the extension of the Missouri line, was resisted by the great body of the northern 
 Whigs, who were for the Wilmot proviso and against the extension of slavery in any 
 mode. It was also opposed by the southern friends of the Missouri line , who preferred 
 that system to congressional non-intervention, and \vho still cherished the hope that it 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers. 
 
1 
 
 2 
 
 might he adopted. In the final struggle, they were reduced to a dozen southern Senators 
 and thirty Representatives, of whom I was one. 
 
 I’Scall the attention of Senators to another striking fact in this connection. It is charged 
 not only by the northern Opposition, but also by the southern opponents of the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, that it is responsible for the alleged evjls of Congressional non-intervention 
 and the disturbances of so-called “ squatter sovereignty ” in the Territories. I affirm that, 
 in 1850, when this system was adopted, it was sustained b} T the representatives of the 
 southern V* higs with the greatest unanimity. I was no exception to this remark, for I 
 had announced already my separation from the organization of the Whig party. I re¬ 
 peat that the southern Opposition of that day, under the lead of Mr. Clay, were the first 
 portion of their fellow-citizens to abandon the Missouri line and support the principles of 
 non-intervention by Congress. On the other hand, the last and firmest friends of the 
 Missouri line were those represented at the Nashville convention—whose ultimatum it 
 was—and sucli Senators and^ Representatives from the South as were in that day de¬ 
 nounced as xdtras and fire-eaters, because of their not adopting the principle of congres¬ 
 sional non-intervention in lieu of the Missouri line. When these facts are remembered, 
 will the present southern Opposition and its organs continue to assail the Democratic 
 party for an act which they themselves earnestly and unitedly concurred in? Can they 
 take the ground that, it was right to abolish the Missouri line, in order that free States 
 should be made south of it, but that it should not, in like manner, be obliterated to place 
 the South on an equal footing north of itjL After a majority, both of the South and of 
 the Democratic party, had adopted the principle of congressional non-intervention, we 
 who had opposed it acquiesced, and the Democratic and Whig conventions of 1852 both 
 sanctioned it. » 
 
 When the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska were admitted, the Democratic party 
 applied the same principle to them ; and. in so doing, found it necessary to repeal the old 
 Missouri restriction, in order that there might be no intervention by Congress to control 
 in any way the inhabitants of those Territories. Were they not committed to do this, in 
 the strongest and most emphatic terms, by their platform and their late action as to the 
 Mexican Territories, while the Whig or Opposition convention had professed, in its plat¬ 
 form, to have acquiesced in the same principles? But it is -said that both parties had 
 declared themselves opposed to a further agitation of the slavery question. So they had; 
 but there was a specific pledge in favor of congressional non-intervention in the Territo¬ 
 ries ; and the carrying it out ought to have produced no agitation whatever, and would 
 not, in a healthy state of public opinion in the North. The Democratic party could not 
 honorably avoid doing what it did; and would have been liable to the charge, had it failed 
 to do this, of shifting its principles from time to time, and so shaping its course as to favor 
 non-intervention when it would thereby admit free States into the Union, and of going 
 for congressional intervention, on the other hand, when it might thereby prevent the 
 formation of a slaveholding State. Had it failed to maintain its principles on this occa¬ 
 sion, it would have been justly exposed to this charge. Their opponents in the North, 
 however, on the repeal of the Missouri restriction, raised, at once, au immense clamor, 
 showing that their friendship for non-intervention was only pretended, and that they had 
 acquiesced in the measures of 1850 only because they created a free State south of 36° 
 30', and did not intend the principles to be applied in a case in which, by any possibility, 
 the South might carry its institutions north of this line. We all know that, prior to 1854, 
 they as regularly and vehemently denounced the Missouri compromise as they have since 
 done the Kansas iniquity ; but as soon as it was proposed to repeal this restriction to 
 cany out the principle of congressional i 
 advocates of this same Missouri line^and 
 they showed themselves to ne Free-Soile 
 share in the public territory of the Union. While the Kansas bill was pending, they 
 threatened to hire men to occupy that Territory; and did, in fact, send bodies of armed 
 ruffians to hold it by force, constituting, as the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Douglas) said, a 
 , military occupation. This hiovement provoked retaliation ; and the strife thus occasioned 
 ’ was referred to by them as evidence against the policy of non-intervention. By the 
 same effort on their part, they could have created disorders in any State of the Union, 
 and might, with as much justice, have attempted to discredit the principle of State sov¬ 
 ereignty. In fact, they refer to the late invasion of the State of Virginia, by some of 
 their employes, as an argument against the state of societ} 7 prevailing iu the South. 
 
 It is undoubtedly true, however, that in consequence of the repeal of the Missouri 
 restriction, true and patriotic men were defeated in the North by Free-Soilers and Aboli¬ 
 tionists. When the Democratic party had the manliness and the statesmanship to reform 
 the currency system in part by the adoption of the sub : treasury plan, it sustained severe 
 losses for a time. In the more arduous undertaking of placing the slavery question on a 
 permanent and solid basis, with reference to the action of the Federal Government, it has 
 had to encounter, perhaps, greater difficulties. I am not sure, however, that it would 
 have been as much weakened, but for accidental circumstances which it could not fore- 
 
 -intervention, they suddenly became the warm 
 deplored its removal. From the first to the last, 
 rs. and determined to exclude the South from all 
 
3 
 
 see. During the excitement arising out of the repeal of the Missouri restriction, there 
 occurred that singular organization called the American party, which carrh d a majority 
 of almost every one of the northern States. It severed, during this period of excitement, 
 and permanently separated from the Democratic party, many who would otherwise have 
 returned to it. On its sudden collapse,, most of its members in the free States united with 
 a few outside Abolitionists and formed the present Black Republican party. But for 
 these occurrences, I have no doubt that the Democratic party would have, ere tins, re¬ 
 covered its ascendency in several of the northern States. 
 
 But again, Mr. President, when, in the year 1857, Robert J. Walker was made Governor 
 of Kansas, he publicly declared that the climate of that Territory fitted it only to be a 
 free State ; and also assured the people that the whole constitution should be submitted 
 to them. This position was condemned generally, in the South, as amounting to Execu¬ 
 tive interference, or intervention with the right of the citizens of the Territory to decide 
 these questions for themselves. By way of defence for Governor Walker, it was said that 
 a number of southern men had expressed the opinion that it would be a free State. Every 
 one saw, however, that if Governor Walker had taken the other side, he might, with even 
 more plausibility, have declared that Kansas ought to be a slaveholding State, because it 
 was on the same parallel of latitude with Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, and 
 Delaware, all of which were slaveholding States; and this position of his might have 
 been fortified by any number of declarations of prominent Free-Soilers and Abolitionists, 
 to the effect that, under the Kansas act, that Territory would inevitably be a slavehold¬ 
 ing State. The entire South, almost, condemned his position, therefore, as unfair, and an 
 unjust exercise of Executive influence in the Territory. It so happened, however, that, 
 for months, the paper at the seat of Government, and others supposed to represent the 
 views of the President, in the strongest and most emphatic terms, the position of Governor 
 Walker. Almost the entire Democracy of the free States, therefore, took this ground in 
 support of what they understood to be the views of the Administration, and assured their 
 fellow-citizens that'the people of Kansas were to have the privilege of voting on the 
 whole constitution of the State. 
 
 But, towards the close of that year, the convention of the Territory decided to submit 
 only tlie slavery clause to the voters generally. The President, therefore, recommended 
 the admission of the State under the constitution so adopted. That tins recommendation 
 of his was right, 1 never doubted; because I think it Las been fully settled by the usages 
 of the States, that their conventions may submit or not, as they choose, either the whole 
 or a part of their constitutions to a vote of the people. Nevertheless, this position being 
 inconsistent with that which had been so generally taken in the North, many men who 
 zealously sustained it were afterwards defeated at home because of their party having 
 been previously committed to a different line of policy. I know that many southern m< a 
 who had no doubt that the action of the Kansas convention was theoretically, and as a 
 matter of constitutional law, right, nevertheless regretted that action, because it had the 
 appearance of seeking to avoid an opportunity for a fair expression of fhe popular will. 
 While we held that Congress had no right to interfere with the action of the Territory in 
 Ibis respect, yet we felt that the issue wus one which was injuring our friends in the 
 Nofth, and could not possibly benefit us. If there ever had been any chance of its be¬ 
 coming a slave State in fact, the course of Governor Walker had already cut that off by 
 carrying over all the officials and their influence in the Territory to the side of the Free- 
 State party. With no purpose to cast censure on any one, I nevertheless frankly refer to 
 this as a circumstance for which the Democratic party, as a whole, are not justly respon¬ 
 sible, but which aided the anti-slavery party, as at present organized. On a survey of 
 the entire ground, I maintain that it will appear that the action of the Democratic party 
 for the last fifteen years on the slavery question, has been wise, patriotic, and statesman¬ 
 like. 
 
 I proceed, however, to the consideration of the great question before the country. Im¬ 
 mediately after the presidential election in 1856, I met the veteran Secretary of State, 
 then a Senator from Michigan, on the floor of the Senate, and in reply to an’inquiry as 
 to how he was, he answered: “ Well in health, hut depressed in spirits. Sir,” said he, 
 “I formerly thought that the Union would never be dissolved; but I am now not with¬ 
 out painful apprehensions of a different result. They say that the excitement in the 
 North lias grown out of the Kansas bill. A hundred Kansas bills would mil have pro¬ 
 duced this result. These people mean to abolish slavery in your section. You may think 
 that they are not. fanatics; but the misfortune is that they are. You will gain nothing 
 by making to them concessions; you cannot thereby help us; but you will ruin your¬ 
 selves. By standing firm, you can at least protect yourselves.” 
 
 His words made the deeper impression upon me because they were in accordance with 
 my own settled, convictions. Blit now the evil has attained such alarming dimensions 
 that it demands consideration. When a dark and rapidly advancing cloud has already 
 covered half the heavens, and the mutterings of the distant thunder and the wailings of 
 the coming storm are loudly heard, none but a false sentinel will proclaim a calm. Eiri- 
 
4 
 
 * 
 
 nently futile, too, and mischievous, are declarations of southern men against agitation 
 and in favor of union and harmony. When a man is threatened with violence, will he 
 stay the hand of the assailant by proclaiming his love of peace? When a country is in¬ 
 vaded by a public enemy, can the inhabitants protect themselves by passing resolutions 
 in favor of peace and harmony? All the world regards such things as evidence of weak¬ 
 ness or cowardice, and as only calculated to stimulate the invaders. When Philip of 
 Macedon was threatening Greece, his hired partisans recommended repose and quiet, and 
 denounced Demosthenes as a-political agitator. It was in the midst of rnen who were 
 crying out “peace! peace! ” that Patrick Henry thundered that there was “no peace ! ” 
 Jf the Abolitionist in the North could be induced to abandon agitation on the subject of 
 slavery, it would be well; but they reject with derision the suggestion, and become only 
 more insolent as southern men cry out the louder for quiet and union. 
 
 When, some twenty-five years ago, the abolition society at Boston, under the lead and 
 guidance of a British subject, attracted public attention, though it, declared that its pur¬ 
 poses were merely peaceful, and intended to persuade men to liberate the slaves, yet so 
 insignificant in numbers was it, that the candidate Tor Congress in that district refused to 
 reply to its interrogatories, or to gi ve any pledges as to his course on the subject of slave¬ 
 ry. For this he was complimented by Harrison Gray Otis, who, nevertheless, said with 
 prophetic sagacity: 
 
 “And can you doubt, fellow-citizens, that these associations will act together for political purposes? Is 
 it in human nature for such combinations to forbear? If, then, their numbers should be augmented, and 
 die success they anticipate realized in making proselytes, how soon might you see a majority in Congress 
 returned under the influence of the associations? And how long afterwards would this Union last?” 
 
 Though few in numbers, the Abolitionists w r ent resolutely and actively to work. 
 
 There was a strong feeling in favor of liberty pervading the public mind generally, 
 while its attention had never been called to the specific differences—physical, mental, and 
 moral—existing between the white man and the negro. The point of operations selected 
 was one remote from negro slavery, where the people were ignorant of its actual features, 
 and thus fitted more easily to be imposed upon. In that vicinity, too, were the remains 
 of old prejudices against the southern section of the Union. The effort of the Abolition¬ 
 ists was directed to the corrupting of knowledge at its fountain beads, by the diffusion of 
 publications directed to that end. Its first fruits were seen in its influences on women, 
 preachers, teachers, and professors, persons of lively sensibilities generally, not so much 
 accustomed to deal with matters of fact, more easi^ deluded by cunningly-devised soph¬ 
 isms, and more frequently acting from the influence of feelings. Soon abolition sentiments 
 appeared in books of education ; got possession of schools, colleges, and churches. As its 
 powers increased, its efforts weie multiplied, until it covered the land with its publica¬ 
 tions. Some twelve months ago, it was stated in the newspapers that one of the anti¬ 
 slavery organizations had resolved to circulate, during the following year, in the State of 
 Xew York, one million of its tracts. Can such an amount of printed matter as this, con¬ 
 sisting, as it does, of ingeniously written misrepresentations and falsehoods, fail to pro¬ 
 duce some effect? Remember that this is repeated from.year to year, and aided by hired 
 and voluntary lecturers, speakers, and preachers. Abolitionism, to a great extent, per¬ 
 vades the literature of the free States. So strong is the feeling against slavery there, that 
 the writers of novels and plays, to secure the public patronage, exercise their wits in 
 imagining all that can be conceived as worst in human nature, and represent it as a true 
 type of the state of society in the South. The bulk of the newspaper prt*ss, too, in the 
 North, is anti-slavery. Such is the character of the entire press of the dominant party 
 there, and of a large portion of the neutral and religious papers; while a part even of the 
 minority, or Democratic press, avoids the subject as much as possible, instead of attempt¬ 
 ing to stem the current. Though northern city papers are much read in the South, on 
 the contrary, our papers have little or no circulation in the North. If they had, the 
 efforts of the anti-slavery party would, to some extent, be counteracted. The cities of 
 New York and Philadelphia, for example, are not abolitionized; and this is attributed, 
 by some, to the fact that they are engaged largely in southern trade. But the mechan¬ 
 ics of Massachusetts are just as much interested, and yet they are intensely anti-slavery 
 in their feelings. The true solution, I think, will be found in the fact that these cities 
 are the resort of so many southerners; that our state of society is thereby better under¬ 
 stood, and cannot be so successfully defamed. The same reason applies to the free States on 
 the borders of the slaveholding country. It is not, as the Abolitionists allege, that their 
 consciences are so much blunted that they cannot appreciate the evils of slavery; but 
 simpl}* because they do understand it, that they cannot be imposed upon by the falsehoods 
 of the anti-slavery writers. In addition to this reason, the western'States have a large 
 influx of southern emigrants. While Vermont is intensely abolitionized. New Hampshire, 
 adjoining it, is less so. This may be accounted for from the fact that New Hampshire 
 was originally strongly Democratic, and its press resisted, therefore, to some extent, the 
 statements of the Abolitionists. Had not New Hampshire been a small State and sur- 
 lounded with adverse influences, she would probably not have been overpowered. 
 
5 
 
 The anti-slavery movement has gone on with increasing strength, until it has educated 
 a large portion of the northern people to entertain feelings of hostility to slavery and the 
 southern States. The movement has progressed independently of political occurrences, 
 but it has occasionally been accelerated or retarded by them. For example: i:i 1850 it 
 was weakened somewhat, partly by the great discussion at that time, which enlightened 
 somewhat the popular mind, and also by the peculiar character of the legislation of Ihe 
 period. California was admitted as a free State, with boundaries reaching far south of 
 the Missouri line, and giving the North the majority in this body; while the principle of 
 non-intervention applied to Utah and New Mexico was regarded as a fruitless abstraction, 
 the general opinion prevailing that, to use the words of Mr. Webster, the law of God had 
 excluded slavery from them. As to the fugitive slave law, it was seen that it could prac¬ 
 tical!}', like its predecessor, the act of 1793, be rendered a nullity by State action and 
 individual resistance. It is a great mistake to suppose that the repeal of the Missouri 
 restriction in 1854 produced the present anti-slavery organization. In 1847 and 1S48 the 
 House of Representatives, by large majorities, repeatedly passed the Wilmol prou'so ; and 
 this was understood to have been done in accordance with the wishes of their constituents. 
 Prior to 1850, most of the churches had been divided by this issue. 
 
 From year to year the anti-slavery sentiment acquired more and more political influence ; 
 and in 1848 it, took possession of the greater portion of the Whig party in the free States. 
 No one was so influential in effecting this result as the Senator from New York. In a % 
 speech delivered during that year in Ohio, the object, in part, of which was to induce 
 the anti-slavery men to join the Whig party rather than the Buffalo-platform Free-Soilers, 
 he uses such expressions as these. 1 call the attention of Senators particularly to them, 
 beeaxise 1 shall have occasion to refer to them again presently: 
 
 “The party of freedom seeks complete and universal emancipation.” * * * * 
 
 “Slavery is the sin of not some of the States only, but of them all; of not one nation only, but of all 
 nations. It perverted and corrupted the moral sense of mankind deeply and universally, and this corrup¬ 
 tion became a universal habit. Habits of thought become fixed principles. No American State has yet 
 delivered itself entirely from these habits. We, in New York, are guilty of slavery still by withholding 
 the right of suffrage from the race we have emancipated. You, in Ohio, are guilty in the same way by a 
 system of black laws still more aristocratic and odious. It is written in the Constitution of the United 
 States that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen as a basis of representation ; and itis written also, 
 in violation of Divine law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from 
 his relentless pursuer. You blush not at these things, because they have become as familiar as household 
 words; and your pretended Free-Soii allies claim peculiar merit for maintaining these miscalled guaran¬ 
 tees of slavery which they find in the national compact. Does not all this prove that the Whig party have 
 kept up with the spirit of the age? that it is as true and faithful to human freedom as the inert conscience 
 of the American people will permit it to be? What, then, you say, can nothing be done for freedom 
 because the public conscience remains inert? Yes, much can be done, everything can be done. Slavery 
 can be limited to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can be, aRd must be abolished, and you 
 and I can and must do it. The task is simple and easy, as its consummation will be beneficent and its 
 rewards glorious. It requires only to follow this simple rule of action : To do everywhere and on every 
 occasion what we can, and not to neglect or refuse to do what we can at any time, because at that precise 
 time and on that particular occasion we cannot do more. 
 
 “ Circumstances determine possibilities.” * ******* 
 
 “But we must begin deeper and lower than the composition and combination of factions or parties, 
 wherein the strength and security of slavery lie. You answer that it lies in the Constitution of the United 
 States and the constitutions and laws of slaveholding States. Not at all. It is in the erroneous sentiment 
 of the American people., Constitutions and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the people than the 
 limpid stream can climb above the native spring. Inculcate the love of freedom and the equal rights of 
 man under the paternal roof; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches; reform your 
 own code; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary limbs at your door, and defend him 
 as you would your paternal gods ; correct your own error, that slavery has any constitutional guarantee 
 which may not be released, and ought not to be relinquished.” 
 
 ********** * * 
 
 “Whenever the public mind shall will the abolition of slavery, the way will open for it. 
 
 “ I know that you will tell me this is all too slow. Well, then, go faster if you can. and I will go with 
 you; but, remember the instructive lesson that was taught in the words, ‘these things ought ye to have 
 done, and not to have left the others undone.’ ” 
 
 Such efforts as tins were persevered in from time to time. In 1850 lie made tliat 
 speech in which he proclaimed that there was a “higher law’’ than the Constitution, for 
 which he received the emphatic denunciation of Mr. Clay. TTis subsequent efforts have 
 been in this same line; and at Rochester more recently he endeavored to render the 
 slaveholders of the South as odious as possible, and declared that there was an “irrepres¬ 
 sible conflict” between the free and the elaveholding States. To stimulate the qorthern 
 people to attack us, he affirmed that unless they abolished slavery throughout the entire 
 South, we would extend slavery over all the northern States. In substance, he says, to 
 protect themselves they must destroy ottr social and political system. When a man says 
 that there is an irrepressible conflict between him and me, and that my head or his must 
 fall, he proclaims himself my deadliest enemy. It avails nothing if he even adds that he 
 intends to act quietly and legally, but that my head must fall to save his own. In the 
 present instance, the Senator says that it is for the South to decide whether its system of 
 society shall be destroyed peaceably or by “violence.” lie is benevolent enough to say, 
 that if we will submit, the work shall be clone for us quietly and peaceably. By his ef¬ 
 forts and those of others, the bulk of the old Whig party was abolitionized, and its mem- 
 
6 
 
 "here, witTi the aid of accessions from the Democratic rants and Abolition societies, have 
 constituted that political organization which to-day threatens the existence of the Re¬ 
 public. It claims for itself the name of Republican party, and by its opponents is desig¬ 
 nated as the Black Repblican party. The latter designation is proper to distinguish it 
 from the old Republican party, whose “image and superscription” it seeks to counter¬ 
 feit; and also because its efforts are entirely directed to advance the black or negro 
 race. 
 
 What are the principles of this party, as indicated by its declarations and its acts? It 
 has but a single principle, and that is hostility to negro slavery in the United States. 
 Some of its members have called it a party for human freedom; but this is a mistake; 
 for though there are in the state of slavery in different, parts of the world, men of all 
 races, yet it has manifested no sympathy for any but the negro; and even to negro sla¬ 
 very, it seems indifferent outside of the United States. I maintain it has no principle 
 whatever, but hostility to negro slavery in the United States. A man might be for or 
 against the tariff, the bank, the land distribution, or internal improvements; he might 
 be a Protestant or Catholic, a Christian or infidel; but if he was, only actuated by an 
 intense feeling of hostility to negro slavery, or, as that is interwoven with the social sys¬ 
 tem of the South, if it were only known that he was anxious that the Federal Govern¬ 
 ment should exercise all its powers for the destruction of the southern States, that man 
 would have been accepted as a good member of the Black Republican party. 
 
 But while all the members of the party are actuated by tins principle or feeling, they 
 differ as to the particular steps or measure to be taken. The most moderate of them 
 say they are merely opposed to the extension of slavery, and therefore they are for pro¬ 
 hibiting it in the Territories, and opposed to the admission of any other slaveholding 
 States. The Senator from Vermont (Mr. Collamer) said not long since that tiffs was his 
 position, that he was for confining slavery to its present limits, so that in time it might 
 cease to be profitable, and in that way be extinguished. As this position is taken by 
 many men who claim to be moderate and conservative in their views, let us examine it 
 for a few moments. They say that if slavery be confined to its present limits, the slaves 
 will increase in numbers to that extent that slave labor will in time be so abundant that 
 the supply will exceed the demand; and that the owners will, from choice, set them free 
 rather than be at the expense of maintaining them for their labor. Let it be assumed 
 for illustration that it costs ten cents to feed and clothe a slave; then if, owing to the 
 great number of slaves who exist in the Territory, their labor would be worth less than 
 ten cents per day, undoubtedly it would be an advantage for the owners to liberate 
 them. But remember that when the labor of a negro should he worth only ten cents, 
 that of the white man would likewise come down to this price. The result, therefore, 
 is, that population is to be crowded in the South to that extent that every laborer is to 
 be reduced to the starving point, as it was in Ireland during the times of the famine, 
 l^ow, I would ask the Senator from Vermont this question in all candor: if a system was 
 proposed to be instituted by which his constituents were to be reduced to the starving 
 point, and thus crushed, Avould he counsel them to await such a result? or would he not 
 advise them to stand from under before they were destroyed? As there are already 
 four million slaves in the South, when their numbers are increased many times, no one 
 will pretend that thej^ ever would be removed. The plan is to keep the negroes and 
 such whites as are compelled to stay among them down at the starving point for all time. 
 And this is the policy of the most moderate and conservative of the Black Republican 
 party. 
 
 There are others of them who say, that in addition to this the fugitive slave law must 
 be repealed ; slavery abolished in the District of Columbia, the forts and arsenals, and 
 wherever the United States has exclusive jurisdiction. Others of them contend likewise 
 that the slave-trade between the States must be abolished, and also the coastwise trade 
 between the States. Other classes insist, too, that slavery should be attacked in the 
 States themselves. The largest number of the party, however, stand on the same ground 
 of the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward.) He says that slavery has no “constitu¬ 
 tional guarantee” winch may not be released and ought not to be relinquished; that 
 “ circumstances determine possibilities;” that they must stand ready “ to do everything 
 when and on every occasion that we can;” and that “whenever the public mind shall 
 will the abolition or slavery, the way will be open for it;” that “it can be and must be 
 abolished, and you and I can and must do it.” More recently he said: 
 
 “The interest of the white race demands the ultimate emancipation of all men. Whether that con¬ 
 summation shall be allowed to take effect, with needful aud wise precautions against sudden change and 
 disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that remains for you to decide.” 
 
 He also declares that he will go with those who can show him the fastest road to effect 
 the object. Such is the governing principle and spirit of the party, to use all the power 
 they have, or can by any possibility acquire, for the abolition of slavery. 
 
 When we look to the acts of this party, in what attitude is it presented? It has made 
 the whole newspaper press subject to its control intensely hostile to the southern section 
 
1 
 
 of the Union. Such is the power of the public press that it was able to keep England and 
 France for centuries in a state of hatred and war with each other. Only a few weeks 
 since, to prevent a collision between the two countries, the Emperor of France publicly 
 checked the press of his own country; and yet the fiercest articles in the French journals 
 were moderate in comparison with the general tone of the anti-slavery press towards the 
 South. 
 
 This party, too, sends up representatives to the two Houses of Congress from time to 
 time, who, neglecting all the public business of the country, devote themselves to pre¬ 
 paring and reciting denunciatory harangues against the southern Slates. Some years ago, 
 an intelligent foreigner, who happened to hear one of these tirades in this body, expressed 
 his astonishment at the quiet manner in which it was listened to by southern Senators. 
 He declared that if, when a European congress had met for business purposes, a similar 
 course had been taken, the congress would at once have been broken up. In our State 
 Legislatures, such things, if they occur, are soon stopped by persona) collisions. In Con¬ 
 gress, out of deference to sectional feelings, there is no attempt to check such men as 
 choose to embark in the trade of heaping all manner of obloquy ou our constituents. 
 
 This anti-slavery party has torn to pieces most of the great Christian associations of the 
 country; in spite of all the resistance which the esprit du corps and Christian charity 
 prevailing kmong them could present. It has stricken down every public man in the 
 North within its reach who has shown a willingness to administer the Constitution fairly 
 in relation to slavery. 
 
 Whenever it has obtained the control of the Legislature, it has caused them to pass the 
 most stringent acts for the nullification of that clause of the Constitution which provides 
 for the return of fugitive slaves. When, many years ago, the State of South Carolina 
 threatened to nullify a law of Congress, the whole Union was thrown into a state of the 
 greatest excitement; but so common have these proceedings become in the free States, 
 that they now scarcely excite a remark when passed. 
 
 This party, too, has organized societies, and Hired agents to steal and carry away slaves 
 from the southern States; and when a gang of twenty or more is taken off at a time, it is 
 made a matter of public rejoicing; and their papers boast of the perfection of the under¬ 
 ground railroads, and of the millions of dollars’ worth of property that they have taken 
 from the South. 
 
 The Federal system, instead of giving us protection, only affords our enemies immunities 
 and facilities for attack. Instead of being a shield, the Union has been converted into a 
 sword to stab us the more deeply. 
 
 It is idle for Senators to say that a majority of the people of their States are not in favor 
 of these unlawful proceedings. If only one men out of every hundred should be a thief, and 
 the other ninety-nine should not restrain them, by legislation or otherwise, this minority 
 of thieves would be able to steal all the property in the community. If societies wer«V 
 formed in Massachusetts to steal property in Connecticut or New York, the Legislature 
 aud people of the State would doubtless take steps to restrain them. This is done even 
 with reference to foreign countries, to prevent war between them. American citizens are 
 punished for going into Canada to disturb the British community. 
 
 If societies were formed in Canada for a similar purpose, and were, in fact, to 6teal an 
 equal amount of property from New England, New York, Ohio, and other northern States, 
 to what is carried away by the Abolitionists from the South, we should be involved in a 
 war with Great Britain in less than six months. What would be the feeling of those 
 border States, if Canadian orators should boast that their societies had robbed them of 
 §45,000,000 worth of their property, just as they now say they hold that value of south¬ 
 ern runaway slaves? But men who combine to plunder the people of the southern States, 
 so far from being punished, are, in many of the free States, encouraged by the legislation 
 there. 
 
 During the last session, the Senator from New York (Mr. Seward) introduced a propo¬ 
 sition for additional legislation to prevent the foreign or African slave-trade to the United 
 States. In 1808, Congress passed laws to prohibit that trade, and since that Lime, a 
 period of more than fifty years, as fur as I know or have reason to believe, the lav/ has 
 been violated but in a single instance. What other law on your statute-book has been 
 so well kept? 1 repeat, what law has Congress ever passed, which there was a tempta¬ 
 tion to violate, that has been so well observed? That it was not broken often, is not 
 owing to any want of opportunity. Northern, as w.ell as foreign ships, have been en¬ 
 gaged in the tfade, and the extent of the southern coast affords much greater facilities for 
 the introduction of slaves than does the Island of Cuba, into which large numbers are 
 annually carried. This law has not been broken, simply because the people of the South 
 were not willing to violate it. Now, sir, let me state a case for the consideration of the 
 Senate. Suppose, instead of what has actually occurred, the State of Georgia, where 
 some negroes were landed, and a number of other southern States, had passed the strong¬ 
 est laws which could be devised to defeat the act of Congress forbidding the African slavo- 
 trade, and encouraging that traffic by all the means in their power; suppose, further, that 
 
8 
 
 southern Senators, and other prominent public men, had, in their speeches, earnestly 
 recommended the violation of the law of Congress, and that all through the South money 
 was subscribed and associations formed to defeat the law, and provide facilities b}' railroad 
 or otherwise for the introduction of Africans, and mobs gotten up to overpower the United 
 States marshals, could not a hundred negroes have been imported for every one that the 
 Abolitionists have stolen? Yes, with a shore-line of more than ten thousand miles, millions 
 might have beeu imported. This proceeding would have been a violation of the laws of 
 fhe United States, just like that which has occurred with reference to the fugitive slave 
 law. In the case supposed, however, the southern men would have had greatly the 
 advantage on the score both of political economy and morality. They might have said, 
 with truth, that the negroes imported from Africa added to the production and wealth of 
 the United States, while those carried North by the Abolitionists were generally converted 
 into idle vagrants. It might also have been said that African savages were, by being 
 brought to the United States, partially civilized, and not only made more intelligent and 
 moral, but also christianized in large numbers: while the negroes carried to the North 
 become so worthless and so vicious, that many of the States there were seeking to exclude 
 them by legislation, as communities do the plague and other contagious disorders. And 
 the Senator from New York, who has declared that it is a religious duty of the people of 
 the North to violate the fugitive slave law, and urged them, instead of delivering up the 
 
 runaway negroes, to protect and defend them as they do their paternal gods, stands up in 
 the face of the American Senate and complains of violation of the laws against the African 
 slave-trade! Wag there ever such an exhibition ? I repeat, was the like ever seen since 
 the creation of the world? I may'use strong language, but truth demands it. That 
 Senator, too, has fully indorsed the incendiary and revolutionary doctrines of the Helper 
 book, as a large majority of the members of his party in the House have done. 
 
 Such, then, Mr. President, are the views of this party, as indicated alike by its declara¬ 
 tions and its acts. Its members are moving on with an accelerated velocity. While the 
 more moderate of them now occupy the ground of the Abolitionists twenty years ago, 
 most of them are far in advance of that position. Ought we to stand still until all the 
 States are as thoroughly abolitionized as Massachusetts now is? If not, what can be 
 done to arrest the mischief? I propose, then, seriously, to consider this question. 
 
 In toy judgment there are two modes in which it can and ought to be met. The first 
 is under the Constitution; the second may be outside of it. 
 
 If abolitionism be a popular delusion, can it not be dispelled by proper efforts ? Truth 
 can overcome error ; but to enable it to do so it must be properly presented to the human 
 mind. As the anti-slavery party have acquired their present ascendency by vigorous and 
 widely-extended efforts, if they are to be overthrown, it is only by decided and perse¬ 
 vering exertions on the other side. There are, in my opinion, sufficient conservative ele¬ 
 ments in the free States for this purpose, if they can only be properly arrayed in opposi¬ 
 tion. It is necessary that the discussion should be widely extended and also directed to 
 the merits of the question involved. The constitutional argument is sufficient for the 
 intelligent and honest; but it it be said, for example merely, that slavery, as existing in 
 the southern States, is a great wrong and a great evil, vet that under the Constitution the 
 people of the North have no right to interfere with it, the party so defending will in the 
 end lose ground ; because masses of men, when excited by real or imaginary wrongs, will 
 in time break over mere legal restraints which they regard as unjust and criminal. They 
 hold that “ where there is a will there is a way,” and will find some mode of action. But 
 in this case the real issue is, whether or not the negro is the equal of the white man phy¬ 
 sically, intellectually, and morally ? Though usually evaded in the discussion, this is the 
 real question which lies at the foundation of the controversy. If the people of the north¬ 
 ern States should regard the negro as being the equal of the white man, then they will 
 continue to feel a sympathy for him in slavery, and can be excited to efforts for his libera¬ 
 tion. If, on the contrary, he be different in material respects from the white man, and 
 also inferior, then his case must be decided on its own merits and not from any supposed 
 'analogy to that of the white man. It is not, as the Abolitionists in their silliness assert, 
 a mere question of color or prejudice against a black skin. If the negro were, in fact, in 
 all other respects like the white man, his blackness would have been of no more conse¬ 
 quence than the difference between black aml^j-ed hair or light and dark eyes. The feel¬ 
 ing against him grows out of the fact that he is in all respects different from the white 
 man and inferior. When I put the question to any one that I may meet here, the chances 
 are that he will at once agree with me in private conversation, and admit, in the language 
 used some time ago by the Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Trumbull,) that Omnipotence has 
 made a difference between the white man and the negro; and yet it is this very opposite 
 view in favor of negro equality which gives its main force and vitality to the anti-slaver}’ 
 movement. When, sir, some twelve years ago I, in discussion, threw out suggestions 
 about the difference of races, I wa3 denounced as one who attributed injustice to God 
 Almighty in alleging that He had made the negroes inferior. Will any Senator on the 
 other side of this Chamber tell me why it is that Providence brings half the children that 
 
9 
 
 | 
 
 are born in*New England into the world with constitutions so feeble that they cannot 
 live until they are twenty-one years of age ? Or will they, upon their views of Ilis justice, 
 explain why it is that, in the same family, one brother is provided with a good constitu¬ 
 tion and strong intellect, while a second has, from his birth, the seeds of debility and in¬ 
 curable disease, and a third is mentally imbecile or perhaps idiotic ? Would the injustice 
 to the feeble be greater if they were black men? Are we to refuse to believe the facts 
 which nature constantly presents to us, because they do not harmonize with our ideas of 
 the justice of the Creator? The Bible itself does not explain to us why it is that, while 
 ten talents are given to one man, to auother but a single talent is given. For the ine¬ 
 quality of the negro, Providence is responsible, as lie is for the entire creation which 
 surrounds us When human laws are in accordance with the s}'stem of nature, they are 
 wise; but if in opposition to it, they are productive only of mischief. Tire question is 
 significantly asked, in the'Scripture, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard 
 his spots?” The ancients expressed their opinions ou this subject in the fable which rep¬ 
 resented a black man as having been killed in an effort to wash him white. 
 
 There is no middle ground which can be maintained on this question. If tire negro be 
 your equal, why do }’ou exclude him from your parlors? If he be unequal, your whole 
 argument lias in fact lost its foundation and fails. If it once be admitted that the negro 
 is inferior, then the entire edifice of Abolitionism falls .to the ground, because it is inti¬ 
 mately interwoven with, and owes its vitality to the opposite belief. When pressed 
 boldly on this issue, the Abolitionists of late are trying to evade it. It is a singular and 
 striking fact, that when this issue has been made in the free States directly, and discussed 
 before the people, they have decided the point against the negro. Such was the case in 
 Connecticut and New York on the question of suffrage, and also in the States of Illinois 
 and Indiana on the proposition to exclude free negroes from those States. In the contest, 
 too, in Illinois, in the year 185S, which resulted in the triumph of the distinguished. 
 Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas,) this was the leading issue. Had that Senator con¬ 
 tented himself with simply saying that slavery was an evil which his constituents had no 
 constitutional right to interfere with, I do not believe he would have been successful. 
 But be understood the question, went at once into the merits of it, and carried the war 
 into the enemy’s ranks. And his opponent early in the contest began to cower and shrink 
 from his blows, and tried in vain to evade the issue. The American people understand 
 the negro, and where a direct appeal is made to them they truly respond. Though the 
 story of Dean Swift, in which, in a certain country, he represents the horse as being 
 greatly superior to the man, is an ingenious one, yet it misleads nobody among us, because 
 horses are so common that their qualities are understood. So the romances of the Aboli¬ 
 tionists, in which they represent the negro as being equal and even superior to the white 
 man, deceive no one familiar with the negro. In southern Ohio, for example, where free 
 negroes are quite common, there is little or no Abolitionism; while in the northern part, 
 in which the negro is seldom seen, anti-slavery carries everything before it. European 
 writers know little or nothing of the negro, and hence our professors, preachers, and other 
 mere book-men of the North, are easily led astray by European and American Abolition¬ 
 ists ; but the people of the country, who are accustomed to look at facts, are not so readily 
 imposed on. A thorough investigation of the subject shows the negro to be inferior, and 
 lienee the principles which apply to white men cannot be extended to him. No farmer 
 assumes that what is advantageous to the hog, for example, is necessarily so to the sheep. 
 To determine, therefore, what is to be done with the negro, you must stud}- the negro 
 himself. Remember, I do not undertake to decide how or when the negro race became 
 different from the white. They may, as many men of science contend, have been created 
 of different species, or they may have been rendered different since their creation, by an 
 act of Providence. Some plausibly say, that inasmuch as we learn from the Scripture 
 that a certain race were condemned to be slaves through all time, the negro best fulfills 
 this description, and hence take him as the representative of that class. Without attempt¬ 
 ing to decide who is right as to theory, I think it clear that the difference between the 
 white race and the negro is as great ns that between certain different species of animals 
 of the same genus, that approximate eacli other in their structure and habits. But it is 
 said : Do you deny the manhood of the negro? No more than I should deny the monkey' 
 hood of an ape if I should say lie is not a baboon, or the duckship of a mallard if I deny 
 that he is a canvas-back duck. 
 
 Instead of indulging in vague generalities about human liberty and flie rights of man, 
 examine the nature and condition of the negro himself. Four thousand years ago, in the 
 climate best, suited to his constitution, he was a savage and a slave. In his own country 
 lie stands in the same category with ivory, dates, and other tropical productions, if 
 transferred, as merchandise, to a foreigner, he is usually benefited by escaping front a 
 master who will eat him in times of scarcity to one who treats him wit h more lenity and 
 often with kindness. Egypt was the seat of the earliest civilization known to man, and 
 the Egyptians held the negro as a slave, but were not able to civilize his race ; though 
 
10 
 
 subsequently, in contact with the Carthagenians, Romans, and Saracens, he still remained 
 
 a savage and a slave. 
 
 In the West Indies, and in other portions of America where they form independent 
 communities, notwithstanding the advantages they had from the teachings of the white 
 men, and their great powers of imitation, they seem to be returning to their original 
 savage state. When we turn to the free negroes of the United States, what shall I say of 
 them? Why, northern as well as southern men, and even Canadians, characterize them 
 as the most worthless of the human race. Formerly the Abolitionists ascribed their 
 degradation to the want of political and social privileges. But during the middle ages, 
 in Europe, the Jews were not only without political privileges, but were, as a class, 
 odious and severely persecuted, yet they were, nevertheless, intelligent, energetic, and 
 wealthy. In point of fact, in some portions of the northern States, the negro has been 
 made a pet of, and but for his native inferiority, must have thriven and even become 
 distinguished. On the other hand, it is an indisputable fact that the four million negroes 
 who are held in slavery in the South, when their condition is considered with reference 
 to their physical well-being and comfort, their productiveness as laborers,their intelligence, 
 morality, and religion, stand superior to any other portion of their race. While the free 
 negroes in the North, with fresh accessions from abroad, diminish in numbers, the slaves of 
 the South increase as rapidly as the white race, and, upon the whole, perhaps, adds a3 
 much to the wealth of the country in which they are located as any equal number of 
 laborers in the world. * 
 
 What the Abolitionists have to do is to find, or create, a negro community which is 
 superior to that of the slaves of the South. When they shall have done this, they will 
 have laid some grounds for their appeals in behalf of emancipation. Hitherto they have 
 enlisted the sympathies and feelings of the North by falsely assuming that the negro and 
 white man have in all respects the same nature. Let the inequality which the Creator 
 has made be recognized, and their system falls to the ground. 
 
 But the Abolitionists sometimes say that, even if it be true that the negro is inferior, 
 for that reason, namely, on account of his weakness, he ought not to be enslaved. Does 
 this reasoning apply to children ? The average of human life is less than forty years, and 
 how can you justify depriving human beings of liberty for more than half that time? If 
 children were the equals of adults, it would be wrong to control them. It is simply 
 because they are inferior that we justify their subjection to the will of others. Upon 
 these principles the negro, being, as compared witii the white man, always a child, is 
 benefited by the control to which he is subjected. 
 
 When pressed on these points by an array of facts, the Abolitionists fall back on the 
 opinions of Hr. Jefferson and others of the last century. But since their day the sciences 
 have made a prodigious advance, and in all that relates to the peculiarities and distinc¬ 
 tions that exist between the different races of men, there has been the greatest progress 
 of any. In fact, it is a science which has almost grown up in our day, and it has made 
 such strides as to have taken possession of the intellect of America. Already there are 
 hundreds who have adopted the doctrine to one who believed it ten years ago. It is 
 only necessary for the true men to take it up boldly, and press it fyome, and the Aboli¬ 
 tionists can be routed throughout the North. 
 
 The shrewder anti-slavery men, however, seeing that they cannot make longer a suc¬ 
 cessful fight for the negro, affirm that their objection to slavery is not on his account, but 
 for tbe sake of the white men, and that they and the South are injured by the institution, 
 and that our people are for that reason wanting in enterprise and industry. To that ar¬ 
 gument I have this to say in reply. Where, Mr. President, in all history was it known 
 that one nation was so strongly tinder the influence of benevolence, as to cause it to make 
 war upon another merely to compel the nation attacked to become more enterprising and 
 prosperous? Who has invaded Spain or Turkey to compel the Spaniards or Turks to be¬ 
 come more industrious and thrifty? Will any one gravely pretend that this torrent of 
 fanaticism in the North has no other origin except a desire to compel the people of the 
 South to be more industrious, and to take better care of their own interest, and be more 
 attentive to their own business? The idea is preposterous. I have no doubt but that 
 misrepresentations on these points have contributed to strengthen the anti-slavery party. 
 But, sir, is there any difficulty in making a complete defence on this point? With no 
 wish, Mr. President, to wound the sensibilities of any one, or to claim superiority for my 
 section, let us, nevertheless, look at some of the principal facts. One of the best tests of 
 the prosperity of a country and its healthy condition is the progress of its population. 
 Compare the population of the fifteen slaveholding States with that of all the free States 
 as shown by the census of 1840 and of 1850, the last decade ascertained. If wo deduct 
 from both sections the foreign emigrant population, which is an accidental increment, it 
 will be found that the slaveholding States have increased much faster in population than 
 the free States. 
 
 Again, sir, a fair estimate of the wealth of the two sections will show that the citizens 
 of the southern States are as rich per head, I think in fact richer than those of the free 
 
11 
 
 States. Tt was also shown by Mr. Branch, a colleague of mine, some two years ago, that 
 of the old Atlantic States the slaveholding had more miles of railroad in proportion to 
 their white population than the free States. There are other evidences of our material 
 wealth, to which I will presently advert. On the score of morals, it may be said that we 
 have fewer criminals and paupers, and, proportionately, church accommodations for a 
 larger number of members. 
 
 It is said, however, that any one who merely looks at the two sections will see the in¬ 
 feriority of the southern s} T stern. But you must remember that our population is extended 
 over a territory of nine hundred thousand miles in extent, while many of the northern 
 States have a dense population. It is the tendency of an agricultural people, with an 
 unlimited area, to extend itself rapidly at first, while commerce and manufactures con¬ 
 centrate population. Tried by this standard, any one of a dozen monarchies which I 
 passed through, during the past summer, has the advantage of any portion of the Union. 
 Even in Italy, oppressed as it ha3 been forages, in its agricultural landscape, can bring to 
 shame the best cultivated State of New England. According to the logic of the Aboli¬ 
 tionists, these States ought to be placed under the dominion of the House of Austria or 
 the Pope of Rome. The entire State of Massachusetts is not larger than one of the con¬ 
 gressional districts of North Carolina. Where a million of people are brought within a 
 small area, the eye of an observer rests on many habitations and fields. In time, the 
 whole Union, if filled with people, may be superior to the best cultivated parts of Eu¬ 
 rope; but even now, the inhabitants of sparsely-settled districts have as much wealth 
 and comfort, all things being considered, as those who live in crowded communities. At 
 no period of our history have the southern States been more prosperous than at present, 
 and even during the commercial pressure of 1857 which has so seriously affected the 
 northern States. 
 
 I do not, however, propose, Mr. President, to enter into a general argument on these 
 topics, but to maintain that the conservative men of the North have within their reach 
 facts enough to establish two propositions. The first is, that the negro, in the condition 
 of slavery, is not a proper object for sympathy, and is, in fact, benefited by his subjec¬ 
 tion. The second one is, that the white race are not injured by the institution; that the 
 southern States constitute, in the aggregate, a prosperous community, and ought not to 
 be the subject of denunciation at the North. Should this be made to appear, then, what¬ 
 ever of real feeling exists against us will be diminished, and, in that event, we may ex¬ 
 pect that persons who, like the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) patronize aboli¬ 
 tion from such motives as induce a jockey on a race-course to back the horse that he 
 thinks likely to win—all such persons, 1 say, will find it expedient to abandon anti- 
 slavery agitation as a trade. To effect such results, however, the friends of the Constitu¬ 
 tion in the North must make up their minds to undergo the labor of a thorough canvass 
 of their region against the anti-slavery men, and by proper publications refute their mis¬ 
 representations. 
 
 The Abolitionists declaim constantly against the slave ’power. Why, sir, it is sixteen 
 years since there was any attempt by the Democratic party to nominate a citizen of the 
 slaveholding States for the office of President; and for the last ten years, in the conven¬ 
 tions of all parties, the contest has been solely among northern men. In fact, during that 
 period no electoral vote has been given in a slaveholding State, for the office of President, 
 to any southern man. Our only object lias been to select among northern gentlemen one 
 who was not our enemy. The men chosen have been assailed by our opponents, not be¬ 
 cause they were neglectful of any northern interest, but simply because the}’ were will¬ 
 ing to do us equal justice with the other section, and refused to exercise the powers of the 
 common Government against us. 
 
 It has been urged that the southern States should, by retaliatory legislation, prohibit 
 the sale within their limits, of the productions of those of the northern States that have 
 failed to do us justice. A3 the Constitution of the United States has been interpreted, 
 both by the Federal and State courts, there is ample power to effect this by imposing a 
 tax on articles after they have been imported and the packages broken; in other words, 
 on retailers. Two objects arc expected to be effected by this system. In the first place, 
 to make it the interest of the northern States to counteract the efforts of the Abolilionists; 
 and secondly, to prepare the southern States for a separation, if they should find it neces¬ 
 sary to take such a step. 
 
 I have often thought, Mr President, that it was unfortunate that the framers of the 
 Constitution made no provision for the expulsion of a State. If the Union be a place of 
 misery, then, to punish refractory members, they should undoubtedly bo kept in it, as 
 criminals are detained in penitentiaries; but if, on the other hand, it be a beneficial and 
 desirable thing to remain in the Union, then bad members ought to be excluded from it. 
 No State, in ;ny judgment, has a right to enjoy the advantages of the Union, and yet re¬ 
 fuse to submit to the obligations it imposes. Such laws of Congress ns are held by the 
 courts to be constitutional ought to be obeyed by all the States that share t he advantages 
 of the Union. If, for example, when a dozen years ago, the State of Massachusetts passed 
 
12 
 
 laws to nullify the act for the recovery of fugitives, if she had been expelled from the 
 Union, two striking effects would have been produced. In the first place, the consciences 
 of the inhabitants of that State would have been freed from all responsibility for the sin 
 and turpitude of slavery; and secondly, their goods, when brought into the United States, 
 would have been taxed as those of other foreigners are. The impression which such an 
 occurrence would have made on their minds and those of the country generally, might 
 possibly then have arrested the anti-slavery movement when it was comparatively feeble. 
 In the present condition of things, such a course would not be practicable, perhaps. 
 
 If, however, Mr. President, this hostile movement of the anti-slavery party cannot be 
 arrested under the Constitution, let us consider the second remedy, namely, a temporary 
 or permanent separation of the southern from the northern States. 
 
 Senators on the other side of the Chamber do not think this will occur. "When Giddings 
 and others proclaim that “the South cannot be kicked out of the Union,” such a decla¬ 
 ration is received by the anti-slavery party of the country with evident satisfaction, and 
 generally with applause. You, Senators, and your supporters do not believe there is 
 danger in any event, because prominent slaveholders and men of wealth occasionally tell 
 you they are conservative, and that the southern people will submit to any treatment you 
 may think fit to impose. But you should remember that these persons are uot always 
 the readiest to volunteer to defend the country in time of war, and that many of them 
 dread civil commotions. During our revolution there were wealthy tories in every one 
 of the colonies; and at the time General Washington evacuated the city of New York, 
 he was urged by one of his subordinate officers, a northern man, to burn the city, for the 
 reason that two-thirds of the property to be destroyed belonged to tories, 
 
 You do not believe, also, because you say that if the South were in earnest, it would 
 be more united, and would not send up, as she does from certain districts, members of 
 Congress who assist you in party movements, and in answer to your threats proclaim their 
 love of the Union. 
 
 You should understand, however, that the constituencies of such members are merely 
 misled as to the purposes, principles, and power of your party by those newspapers on 
 which the} 7 rely for information. Let therx have proper knowledge as to the condition 
 of the country where your influence prevails, and they will manifest the same feeling that 
 the rest of the South does. Gradually a knowledge of your movements and objects is 
 spreading over the southern States. Two occurrences have materially contributed to un¬ 
 mask your objects and disclose the dangers which threaten. The first was the vote which 
 Mr. Fillmore received in 1856. When it was seen that a man like him, of avowed anti¬ 
 slavery opinions, merely because lie showed his willingness to enforce the fugitive slave 
 law, and declared his purpose to give to the South the benefits of the Constitution, was 
 beaten largely in every free State, by a mere adventurer like Fremont, a great impression 
 was made on the conservative men of the South. They began to realize the state of 
 feeling in the North, and more disuniouists were made by that occurrence than perhaps 
 any one which preceded it. 
 
 The second incident which caused even a much stronger impression on the minds of the 
 southern people, was the manner iu which the acts of John Brown were received in the 
 North. Instead of the indignation and abhorrence which the atroeiousness of his crimes 
 ought naturally to have excited, there were manifestations of admiration and sympathy. 
 Large meetings were held to express these feelings, sermons and prayers were made in his 
 behalf, church bells tolled and cannon fired, and more significant than all these, were the 
 declarations of almost the entire Republican press, that his punishment would strengthen 
 the anti slavery cause. Yet Senators tell us that these things were done because of the 
 courage Brown exhibited. But our people think you are mistaken. Thougn the mere 
 thief may be, and usually is a coward, yet it is well known that men who engage in rob¬ 
 bery or piracy, as a profession, generally possess courage. Criminals have been executed 
 frequently in New England who, both in the commission of their crimes and in their 
 death, manifested as much courage as John Brown, and yet none of them called forth 
 such feelings of sympathy. At a meeting in Boston, where thousands were assembled, 
 when Emerson, a literary man of eminence, proclaimed that Brown had made “the gal¬ 
 lows as glorious as the cross,” he w T as rapturously applauded. At the large meeting at 
 Natick, where the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Wilson) was a spectator, the principal 
 orator, Wright, declared that the people of the North look upon “Jesus Christ as a dead 
 failure ,” and hereafter will rely on “John Brown, and him hanged.” 
 
 In the southern States where old-fashioned Christian notions still prevail, it would be 
 thought right to beat, such blasphemers even out of a church, if they had congregated 
 there. We are told now that they were not interrupted because the people of Massa¬ 
 chusetts are law-abiding , and in favor of the liberty of speech. But our constituents do 
 not believe one word of this, because they know that, of all the people in the Union, the 
 inhabitants of Massachusetts are the most excitable and the most intolerant and overbear¬ 
 ing. They know that men who dare to oppose the anti-slavery party there are persecuted 
 with intense hatred; that mobs can be gotten up on the smallest occasions, and that ten 
 
 i 
 
thousand men can he assembled on the shortest notice to rescue a runaway negro from the t 
 custody of a United {States marshal. 
 
 Our people know that these tilings could not have occurred unless there had been an 
 intense feeling of hostility to the South, and, therefore, strong sympathy with our assail¬ 
 ants. Is not this the reason why your leading editors have declared that the punishment 
 of John Brown will strengthen the anti-slavery cause? Such is the construction the peo¬ 
 ple of the South put on this whole matter, and hence the demonstrations you witness 
 among them. 
 
 But you hold that the South is unable and unwilling to resist you; and the Senator 
 from New York (Mr. Seward) lias declared, in substance, that the Union is never to be 
 dissolved. He also told the Senate that the contest between the free and slaveholding 
 States had ended by the former winning the victory. He and the rest of you expect us 
 in the future to submit quietly to what you may see fit to older. Had the British 
 Parliament believed that ihe colonies would resist their tax bills our Revolution would 
 not have occurred; but Lord North and others declared that the clamor in America came 
 from a few seditious a itators, and that the great body of the people were so loyal to the 
 Government that they were ready to submit to the action of the Parliament. They 
 affirmed that there was no danger of resistance; and, least of all, of their thinking of dis¬ 
 solving the union with the mother country. Our ancestors wisely determined that the 
 cannon of Great Britain were less dangerous than her acts of Parliament. 
 
 Let us look at this matter for a few moments calmly. At this time the population of 
 the South is nearly thirteen million, of which more than eight million are free persons and 
 four million slaves. At the beginning of our Revolution the population of the colonies, 
 both free and slave, was less than three million. The slavekoiding States are then far 
 more than four tunes as strong as were the colonies when they dissolved the union with 
 Great Britain. 
 
 Is it likely that after having been independent for eighty years, our people are less 
 attached to their rights? But many of your Abolitionists say that slaveholding has en¬ 
 feebled our people, and rendered them so spiritless that they are neither willing nor able 
 to make defence. Edmund Burke thought differently, and said that of all men slave¬ 
 holders were the most tenacious of their rights, and defended their liberties with the 
 highest and haughtiest spirit. I do not refer to the war of the Revolution, when all the 
 States were slaveholding ; but in the last war with Great Britain the southern States sent 
 out mure men than the northern, and it has never yet, as far as I have heard, been pre¬ 
 tended that Harrisou and Johnson, Scott and Forsyth, were not as brave as those who 
 went from the free States to the Canada line, or that Jackson and the men under him in 
 the Southwest, did not exhibit a proper courage. To the war with Mexico, though much 
 the less populous section, the South sent nearly twice as many men as the North. A lead¬ 
 ing Black Republican editor says that one regiment from New York would be able to con¬ 
 quer all the southern States. A regiment from the State of New York certainly conducted 
 itself well during the Mexican war; but it has not, 1 think, been affirmed that it behaved 
 better than the regiments from the slaveholding States. If you, therefore, think that one 
 q£ your regiments is able to subdue the South, our people will probably differ with you 
 in opinion. You say that fear of the slaves will prevent any resistance to you. As a 
 sudden movement of a few negroes, stimulated by abolition emissaries, might destroy a 
 family or two, there is undoubtedly apprehension felt. Fifty persons, however, are killed 
 in this country by vicious and unmanageable horses, to one who suffers from the act of a 
 rebellious negro. TJhere is, in fact, about as much reason to apprehend a ( general insur¬ 
 rection of the horses as of the slaves of the South when left to themselves. When, during 
 the war of 1S12, the British armies were in the slaveholding territory, though they in¬ 
 duced a number of slaves to join them, they found no advantage to result from it, and 
 their Government paid for all carried off at the close of the war. Though the Spartans 
 and Homans were the greatest slaveholders in the world, and though, too, they held in 
 the most rigid servitude men of their own color and race, and therefore liable to rebel in 
 great force, yet they were strong enough to overthrow all their enemies. Jn our opinion, 
 the slaves are a positive element of strength, because they add to the production of the 
 country, while the white race can furnish soldiers enough. Every man, too, among us, is 
 accustomed to ride and to carry weapons from his childhood. 
 
 There are, however, other important elements to be taken into the account. During 
 the last fiscal year the exports of the United states, exclusive of specie, were £278,000,000. 
 
 Of this amount, the free States furnished, exclusively, £5,281,000, the slave States 
 $188,693,000, and the two sections jointly, also, $84,417,0U0. Of this latter sum of 
 $84,000,000, the slave States probably furnished one-third, but certainly one-fourth. A 
 fourth added to the amount exclusively furnished by them, makes a total of $210,000,00O 
 as the value of their exports to foreign countries. They also exported a large amount to 
 the free States. New England alone received about fitty million dollars’ worth of south¬ 
 ern productions; and to the rest of the free States were sent, doubtless, more. The entire 
 exports from the slaveholding States to the free States, and to foreign countries combined, 
 
14 
 
 must greatly have exceeded three hundred million dollars. As the South sells this much, 
 it, of course, can afford to buy alike amount. If, therefore, it constituted a separate con¬ 
 federacy, its imports would exceed three hundred million dollars; a duty of twenty per 
 cent, on this amount, which would be a lower rate than has generally been paid under 
 our tariffs heretofore, would yield a revenue of $00,000,000. More than fifty million of 
 this sum could well be spared for the defence of our section, and the support of larger 
 armies and navies than the present Government has. Though it may seem strange to you 
 that the South should in this way raise as large a revenue as the whole Union has ever 
 done, and this too, with a lower tariff, you must remember that most of the tariff taxes 
 the South pays go, in fact, in the shape of protection to those northern manufacturers who 
 threaten us with negro insurrections and subjugation. Do you think that with these 
 prospects before our people they are ready to submit unconditionally to you? They have 
 the strongest feelings of contempt for the avaracious and greedy, the canting and hypo¬ 
 critical, the mean, envious, and malicious Abolitionists. Little as they may think of the 
 free negro, he is, in their judgment, more respectable than the white man who comes 
 down to his level; and with all the world to choose a master from, your negro worshiper 
 Would be their last choice. 
 
 In making up our calculations, we must also look to the other side. The free States 
 have a population of seventeen or eighteen million. Though this is considerably more, 
 numerically, than our strength, yet it is much less, relatively, than was the population of 
 Great Britain in 1776. I have no doubt that your people are courageous, generally; but 
 the best and bravest of them are in the Democratic ranks; and, while they would defend 
 their section, if attacked, I doubt if they would easily be induced to assail us. Many of 
 your‘ Abolitionists belong to the “peace party," and have little appetite for cold steel, 
 though they are most efficient in getting up popular clamors, and are formidable at the 
 ballot box. It is also true, that while everything the South needs she can either produce 
 or commonly get cheaper in Europe, under a system of free trade, your northeastern 
 States are especially dependent on the South for its productions and freights. How many 
 of your manufacturers and mechanics would emigrate to the South to avoid the payment 
 of tariff taxes? If it were known that one-third of the stores in New York could not be 
 rented, how much would veal property fall, then? Deprived of southern freights, what 
 would be the loss on your vast shipping interest? 1 give you, in this calculation, the 
 benefit of the assumption that all the free States would go with you. In fact, I do not 
 believe that the Northwest would remain connected with New England, still less that 
 you could retain California and Oregon. 
 
 But you, Senators, do not believe the South will resist. Look for a moment at the 
 course of things there. In those sections that I am best acquainted with, there are hun¬ 
 dreds of disunionists now where there was one ten years ago. By disunionists, I mean 
 men who would prefer to see the Union continue, if the Constitution were fairly admin¬ 
 istered, but who have already deliberately come to the conclusion that this is impossible, 
 and would willingly to day see the Union dissolved. In some of the States, this class 
 constitutes decided majorities now, and in others where they are not, the majority is ready 
 to unite with them upon the happening of some further causes. In my judgment, the 
 election of the presidential candidate of the Black Republican party will furnish that 
 cause. The principles of that party, as announced in the contest of 1856, were such that 
 no honorable southern man could possibly belong to it. I see that the general committee 
 in their call properly take this view, and only extend their invitation to the Opposition 
 in the free States. What precise anti-slavery platform they adopt is not very important, 
 as they will of course make it so as to obtain the support of their most moderate members, 
 knowing that the ultra ones will go with them any how. In fact the}’ know that, in the 
 language of the Senator from New York, (Mr. Seward,) “circumstances determine possi¬ 
 bilities,” and that lie and they are willing “at all times” to do all they can, in power or 
 out of it, to overthrow slavery. 
 
 It is said, however, that we ought to wait for some overt act; and the Senator from 
 New Hampshire (Mr. Hale) the other day declared that it was wrong and insolent for 
 southern! men to talk of resisting merely because they, the Republicans, elected men to 
 carry out “ their views!" That Senator is very wise, and knows that, when a man wishes 
 to subdue a wild horse, he treats the animal witli the greatest kindness at first, and com¬ 
 mits no overt act on him until he is well and securely tied. Suppose that your candidate 
 was known to be in favor of making a treaty with Great Britain, by which the United 
 States were to be reannexed as colonies to that country, and lie had been elected by the 
 majority of votes, would the minority, who might still wish to preserve their independ¬ 
 ence, be bound to wait until the treaty bad been actually ratified, and British armies 
 had taken possession of the country, and begun to maltreat the inhabitants? In the pre¬ 
 sent case, the very inauguration of your candidate makes him commander of the Array 
 and Navy. One of his first acts would be, doubtless, to station them advantageously, 
 while, at"the same time, he could carefully remove from the South all the public arms, 
 lest the people should take them for defence. He would fill the southern States with 
 
Id 
 
 postmasters, and other officials, whose efforts would he directed to dividing, as much at 
 possible, the people of the South, and to forming connections with the negroes. Doubt¬ 
 less* some such policy as this would be adopted before any direct blow was struck as 
 slavery anywhere. Shoulcrwe, under these disadvantages, begin to resist, along and 
 blood}' struggle, like that of our Revolution, might be the consequence. The very im¬ 
 pression that Fremont was to be elected produced some disturbances among the slaves; 
 and with a Black Republican President a hundred such forays as John Brown’s might 
 occur in a single year. Though* the negroes left to themselves are harmless, yet, when 
 assisted and led on by Europeans in St. Domingo, they destroyed the white inhabitants. 
 As the Senator from New York (Mr. Sewakd) holds that the constitutional guarantees in 
 favor of slavery, being “in violation of the divine law,” cannot be enforced, and “ought 
 to be relinquished,” he would be on the side of the negro. 
 
 The objections are not personal merely to thi.s Senator, but apply equally to any mem¬ 
 ber of the party elected by it. It lias, in fact, been suggested that, as a matter of pru¬ 
 dence, for the first election they should choose a southern Free-Soiler. Would the colo¬ 
 nies have submitted more willingly to Benedict Arnold than to Lord Cornwallis? By 
 way of palliation it has been said, that even if a Black Republican should be elected, lie 
 would probably disappoint his party, and be more conservative than they are ; and that 
 the worst he would do, might be to plunder the country, by legislation or otherwise. 
 This, however, would be only a reprieve to us; for the very fact of his election on such 
 grounds, arid our submission, as it would destroy our friends in the North, would demo¬ 
 ralize and degrade our own people and render them incapable of resistance, while our 
 enemie', flushed with success, would select, afterwards, more ultra agents to carry out 
 their u views.” No other “ overt act ” can so imperatively demand resistance on our part, 
 as the simple election of their candidate. Their organization is one of avowed hostility, 
 and they come against us as enemies; and should we submit, we shall be in the condition 
 of an army which surrenders at discretion, and can only expect such terms as the hu¬ 
 manity of the conqueror may grant. 
 
 But. we ere asked how we will go about making a revolution or dissolving the Union ? 
 This would possibly have been a difficult question to answer during the first year of our 
 Revolution, when our forefathers were avowedly fighting to get good terms of reconcilia¬ 
 tion with the m'other country. Mr. Jefferson said that six weeks before the Declaration 
 was made, a majority of the men who made it had not even thought of independence. 
 The people of the colonies, though they had not authorized anybody to make it, accepted 
 it, nevertheless, as a fact. 
 
 Who anticipated the sudden revolutions that overthrew several monarchies in France? 
 Though it requires skill to create governments, yet men often destroy them very unscien¬ 
 tifically. As the main strength of all governments is in public opinion, so, when that is 
 forfeited, they often seem to fall easily and suddenly. As the Government of the United 
 States, with the attachment of its citizens, is the strongest in the world, so, when that is 
 lost, it would become one of the weakest. 
 
 I may say, however, that I do not think there will be any secession of the southern 
 members of Congress from this Capitol. It has always struck me that this is a point not 
 to be voluntarily surrendered to the public enemy. If lives should be lost here, it would 
 seem poetically just that this should occur. 1 cannot find words enough to express my 
 abhorrence and detestation of such creatures as Garrison and Wendell Phillips, who stimu¬ 
 late others to deeds of blood, and, at the same time, are so cowardly that they avoid all 
 danger themselves. As from this Capitol so much has gone forth to inflame the public 
 mind, if our countrymen are to be involved in a bloody struggle, I trust in God that the 
 first fruits of the collision may be reaped here. While it is due to justice that J should 
 speak thus, it is but fair to myself to say, that I do not remember a time when 1 would 
 have been willing to sacrifice the life of an innocent person to save my own ; find 1 have 
 never doubted but that it was the duty of every citizen to give his life cheerfully to pre¬ 
 serve the union of these States, while that Union was founded on an honest observance 
 of the Constitution. Of the benefits of this Confederacy to all sections, provided justice 
 be done in the administration of the Government, there can be no question. 
 
 Independently of its advantages to us all, there are reasons why it should be maintain¬ 
 ed. Considerations of this kind were, during the last year, brought to my mind from 
 new points of view, and with added force. When, last, spring, I landed in England, I 
 found that country agitated with questions of reform. In the struggle which was main¬ 
 tained on both sides with the greatest animation, there were constant references to the 
 United States; and the force of our example was stimulating the Liberals, and tending 
 to the overthrow of aristocratic and monarchic restrictions. Our institutions and our 
 opinions were referred to only to be applauded, except by a small but influential aristo¬ 
 cratic clique. That oligarchy cannot forget the Revolution of July, 1770, which deprived 
 Britain of this magnificent western empire; and it sees, with even bitterer feedings, its 
 own waning power and vanishing privileges under the inspiriting influences of our pros¬ 
 perity. It, however, is always ready to take by the hand any American of prominent 
 
16 
 
 position who habitually denounces and depreciates bis own Government, and labors for 
 its overthrow. 
 
 In this connection, I remember a statement made to me bv the late American Minister 
 at Paris, Mr. Mason. He spoke of having had a conversation with one, whose name I do 
 not feel at liberty to mention, but whose influence on the opinion of continental Europe 
 is considei able, who admitted to him that there was nothing in fact wrong in our negro 
 slaver\’; but who, nevertheless, declared that if the Union of our States continued, at no 
 distant day we should control the world; and, therefore, as an European, he felt it to be 
 his duty to press anti-slavery views, as the only chance to divide us. 1 have other and 
 many reasons to know that the monarchies of Europe, threatened with downfall from 
 revolutionary movements, seek, through such channels as they control, to make similar 
 impressions. A hundred times wrns the question asked me, “Will you divide in America?” 
 But never once was the inquiry made of me, “Will slaver}’ be abolished, .will your coun¬ 
 try become more respectable in the eyes of the Abolitionists?” The middle and lower 
 classes of England, who are struggling to acquire additional privileges, look with satisfac¬ 
 tion and hope to our progress. France, too, is imbued with American ideas, and, not¬ 
 withstanding its despotic form of government, is one of the most democratic countries in 
 Europe. Italy I found in the midst of revolutions, and its monarchies falling down with¬ 
 out even a day’s notice, and its inhabitants, while recalling the republican .ideas of past 
 ages, looked with exultation to that great trans-Atlantic Confederacy, where there are 
 no kings and no dukes; and mojre than once, while passing through Tuscany or Lombardy, 
 the enthusiasm of the people reminded me, by their music and banners and shoutings, of 
 my own countrymen, at a Fourth of July celebration. Germany, the receptacle of mil¬ 
 lions of letters from this side of the water, is being rapidly educated, and is already far 
 advanced to a stable free system. The Swiss and the Belgians are boasting of the re¬ 
 
 semblances of their Governments and ours. Everywhere, too, are our countrymen dis¬ 
 
 tinguished and recognized for their intellectual activity and energy. The people abroad 
 have, perhaps, exaggerated ideas of our immense progress, our vast power, and growing 
 ascendency in the civilized world. The masses, pressed down by military conscriptions 
 and inordinate taxation, look with pride and confidence to the great American Republic, 
 that in time they hope w’ill dominate over the earth and break the power of its kings. 
 But.the Senator from Few York, (Mr. Sew’ard,) and those who act with him, have de¬ 
 termined that these hopes shall no logger be cherished, and that our system shall fall, to 
 gratify the wishes and meet the views of the British Exeter Hall anti-slavery society. He 
 holds that our Government has hitherto been administered in “violation of the divine 
 law,” and that our former institutions must give way to the “higher lair” abolitionism, 
 and free negroism. This is the issue we are now’ called upon to meet. 
 
 Should the decision of the ideas of November be adverse to the fortunes of the Republic, 
 it will become the high duty of the South, at least, to protect itself. Northern gentle¬ 
 men, I believe, with great unanimity say that if the conditions were reversed, they would 
 not be willing to subniitMor a moment; and many, like Mr. Fillmore, do us the justice to 
 say that it would be “ madness or folly to believe” that we would “ submit to be governed 
 by such a Chief Magistrate” as Fremont. The general tone of feeling in the South, and 
 the rapid formation of vigilance committees and military companies, indicate that our 
 people have not forgotten the lessons of the Revolution, and there may be a contest 
 among the States as to which shall be most prompt to resist. 
 
 To avoid any such necessity, our people are disposed, generally, to make every effort 
 consistent with honor. They will, with great unanimity, go into battle upon the old 
 plai.for.ni of principles, and. waiving ail past issues, heartily support the standard-bearer 
 who may be selected. But, the fate of the country mainly depends upon the success 
 which may. crown the efforts of those brave and patriotict men in the North, who, in 
 spite of the odds arrayed against them, have so long maintained and unequal struggle 
 against the anti-slavery current. They fight under a flag which waves in every State of 
 the Union. Should it fall, it carries with it an older and a still more honored emblem— 
 that banner under which Washington marched to victory, which Jackson maintained 
 triumphantly, and which lias been borne gallantly and gloriously over every sea. 1 have 
 still confidence in the good fortune of the United States, and in view of the many provi¬ 
 dential occurrences in the past, still anticipate a triumph for the Republic.