Page images
PDF
EPUB

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Kansas-Nebraska-Recent Elections-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia.

[ocr errors]

are for aiding the slaveholder in robbing the most
degraded slave of these endowments.

HO. OF REPS.

the inquiry, and appointed a committee to draft an answer. Mr. Jefferson, the apostle of American Democracy, penned the unanimous reply of the American people, admitting that " When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect for the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the sepa

Another great principle is impressed upon man,
and upon all animate existence. It is the innate
right of "self-defense," said to be the "first law
of nature." Wherever rude man exist, this pri-
mary principle, this " higher law"prevails. The
protection of our own lives, and the defense of ||
our own liberties, is not only a right pertaining
to every creature bearing the likeness of God, but
the duty is above the reach of all human enact-
ments. He who would legislate to deprive the
slave of the right and duty of defending his liferation."
and liberty, and that of his wife and children,
wages a war against God's law, records himself
an infidel; a disbeliever of God's word, and a
traitor to our race.

I wish to say to the House and to the country,
that the great issue tendered to the people of the
free States is far broader and more comprehensive
than the existence of slavery in Kansas and Ne-
braska. This policy of the President, rendering
the people of the free States responsible for the
support and encouragement of that institution, is
a question of vast importance; involving a perfect
revolution of our Government. The matters to
which I have referred, and many others, are inci-
dental to carrying out this avowed policy of the
Executive. In Ohio, we insist that our honor, our
moral purity, shall not be involved in the crimes
or the disgrace of slavery. On this issue we went
to the people, and eighty thousand majority attests
their intelligence and patriotism. We hold to a
"higher law" than congressional enactments. 1
know, sir, this "higher law" has been sneered at; Our fathers declared "that Governments are
that contempt has been poured out upon those who constituted among men to secure these rights."
acknowledge allegiance to it. But those scoffers The President, in his inaugural, takes issue with
are now reaping the penalty of their transgression. the founders of our Republic, and insists that Con-
It was the law of unchanging justice and righteous-gress is bound to legislate to aid the States in
ness impressed upon the hearts and consciences depriving a portion of their people of these rights
of the people that has pronounced the political
to defend their lives and liberties, their wives and
doom of those men who voted for extending slavery children, to rob them of the food which they obtain
into Kansas and Nebraska, and doomed them to with their hands; to deprive them of their rights of
political forgetfulness. Sir, the law of nature, of locomotion; to take away their intelligence, their
nature's God, impressed upon the planet which hopes of heaven, their manhood. The people of
we inhabit, at its creation, has driven it for thou- the free States are opposed to this war upon human
sands of years through unlimited space, with a
nature. These doctrines are so plain that the Pres-
velocity inconceivable to human thought, without ident, and every member of this body, will not
the variation of a hair's breadth, from its pre- only admit them, assert them to be in full force
scribed course. When man was brought into and application, so far as they, or their families, are
being; when the breath of life was breathed into individually concerned, but they would die ten
him by the Almighty, and he became a living soul, thousand deaths before they would yield one of
the same creative Power gave us a sympathy for these self-evident propositions.
our race, a love of justice, a consciousness of our
inherent right to life and liberty.

This "higher law" has existed among men through the whole eternity of the past. True, it has been obstructed, perverted, obscured, by the selfishness, the ignorance, the vices, the crimes of mankind; yet, it has existed in the hearts of men, controlling the wise and virtuous of all ages. It was this "higher law" of our moral natures, which guided our people at the recent elections, when they pronounced appropriate judgment upon hundreds and thousands of individuals who, in the moments of their political death, scoffed at the existence of that law which was silently consigning them to premature graves. This higher law rules and reigns throughout the whole physical and moral universe. All animate and inanimate nature yield obedience to it. In perfect accordance with its eternal, unchanging decrees, the fluids circulate through the physical organizations of the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms. But the circulation of the blood, the beating of the pulse in the human system, is not more distinctly marked upon our physical organisms than the love of life and liberty is impressed on our moral natures. Indeed, this higher law" of adhering to life and liberty is not confined to man; it pervades all animated beings, down to the lowest insect. But this law of nature's God is seen most vividly in all men, and read by all men. Lungs were given to each individual, who, for himself, and not for another, breathes the free air of heaven; and every breath acknowledges the existence of the "higher law." Limbs were given to bear us forth upon God's free earth; every step we take constitutes an acknowledgment of the "higher law." Hands were given us, by which to feed and clothe our bodies; every time we taste food, we are reminded of this "higher law;" and he who would rob me, or the humblest of God's creation, of the food obtained by our own effort, would set aside this "higher law;" and, had he the power, would -invade heaven and dethrone Omnipotence. The man who reveres the Almighty, will reverence . His law. The man who denies the " higher law,' denies the Giver of that law. Why, sir, will the President, or his friends, attempt to take from me, by act of Congress, my love of parents, affection for my offspring, admiration of wisdom, veneration toward my Creator? These are a part of my moral nature, inseparable from my perfect existence; ay, they are the very essence of my being. Congress and the President would be no more guilty, in the sight of Heaven, for legislating to deprive me of those parts of my nature, than they

[ocr errors]

|

And, sir, what were those causes which impelled them to separate from Britain? I would they were engraven upon every heart, imprinted on every mind, observed by every statesman. The first great and overshadowing cause was "the right of all men to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To sustain these "selfevident truths" they waged that mighty struggle for independence. They proclaimed, and left on record, the solemn declaration that " our Government was constituted to sustain those rights." None but Tories then denied the doctrine; none but Tories then opposed founding a Government for this object. The Tories were overruled by the people, and this Federal Power was constituted, and consecrated to the just and holy purpose of sustaining the liberties of all persons subject to our exclusive jurisdiction. On this doctrine, Mr. Pierce, in his inaugural, took distinct issue, placing himself with the Tories of the Revolution. He denies that it is our duty to sustain liberty, insisting that we are bound to legislate for the benefit, the promotion, and extension of slavery. He is now Sir, go and ask the slaveholder if he admits that endeavoring to carry out this doctrine by a silent, any earthly power possesses the right to rob him unseen method. Can he succeed? His friends of his liberty, his food, his wife, his children, his in this body will be constrained to indicate their intelligence, his hopes of future felicity? and he position. The question of lending our support to will regard you as demented. But he will tell slavery is presented in too many shapes and forms you that he himself was created a particular to be avoided. The great heart of the nation throbs favorite of the Almighty, a pet of Omnipotence, for a total separation from the contagion of slawho gave him not only the right to enjoy these very. To this result the popular tide is setting high prerogatives himself, but also conferred on and rolling with a force which no human arm can him the privilege of robbing others; and the Presi- withstand. It will overwhelm all who oppose it. dent, in his inaugural, insists that we, the Repre- Let the lovers of justice, those who fear God and sentatives of the free States, shall aid in this piracy. regard mankind, lift up their heads and rejoice: I deny it; the people of the free States deny it; The day of our country's redemption draws nigh. they expect their Representatives in this body to Christianity, in its progress, is unfolding to public deny it. The late elections have demonstrated the gaze the crimes of oppression. Those who popular sentiment on this subject; and now the frame wickedness by law" are fleeing before the President is silent, struck dumb, like the criminal popular indignation; they cannot endure its fervent when called to plead either guilty or not guilty-heat. This work will continue and progress until "he stands mute." I repeat this dodging the issue is unworthy of any Chief Magistrate of our nation. He cannot evade it; he must frankly acknowledge his error, or he will be taken by the people to adhere to it. He must choose whom he will serve. If justice and freedom be of God, let him sustain them. If he love the mammon of slavery, oppression, vice, and crime, then let him uphold them. But he cannot serve the God of freedom and the SPEECH OF HON. A. H. STEPHENS, mammon of slavery. No man can serve two mas

ters.

[ocr errors]

If we love justice, and hate crime, we shall express and maintain our doctrines. "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.' This maxim was uttered by Wisdom from on High, and is as applicable to the statesman as to the preacher of the Gospel.

Mr. Chairman, Washington, the "Father of our Country," said, in his Farewell Address, that a "frequent recurrence to fundamental principles" is necessary to the preservation of our liberties. I love to look back upon the doctrines laid down by our revolutionary patriots, who met toil and hardship, danger and death, for the purpose of founding a Government upon those principles of universal justice, and universal liberty which are so dear to the patriot and philanthropist. The time, too, at which these fundamental truths were laid down as the basis of our Republic, was one of deep interest. They had met our country's foes on the fields of Concord, of Lexington, and of Bunker Hill. Britons and Americans had there met in deadly conflict, and their blood mingled in broad currents as it moistened the soil of those ensanguined fields. The Christian world demanded why we thus arrayed ourselves in arms against a people of the same origin, the same language, the same religion? Congress felt the pertinency of

the opponents of liberty shall be driven from our free States, and the North shall become lustrated and disinthralled from the contagion of human bondage.

KANSAS-NEBRASKA-RECENT ELECTIONS.

OF GEORGIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
December 14, 1854,

In reply to the remarks of Mr. MACE, of Indiana,
on giving notice of his intention to introduce a
bill to restore the Missouri Compromise.
Mr. STEPHENS said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: In taking the floor on this occasion, it was not my purpose, nor is it my purpose now, to reopen or go into a discussion of the general merits of the Kansas-Nebraska bill which was passed at the last session of Congress. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. MACE] came forward on yesterday, and, in a very formal manner, announced the determination, for the future, of the opponents to that measure. Repeal is their policy. Prohibition of slavery is again to be put upon Kansas and Nebraska. I considered the merits of the question as settled at the

last session. I consider them as settled now. Rev

olution never goes backwards-always forward. The argument in and out of Congress, and throughout the Union, on the great movement made by the National Legislature on this question, was then conclusive, and, by the passage of that bill we took a grand step in that progress which charac

44

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Kansas-Nebraska-Recent Elections-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia.

terizes this age. There never will be any backward movement in this matter-at least in my opinion. I have no apprehensions on that score; and I repeat, that I do not rise for the purpose of opening, or again canvassing, the merits of the Nebraska-Kansas bill. But the gentleman from Indiana gave utterance to some remarks to which I deem some reply proper. He seemed to think and argue that the late elections at the North conclusively showed that the public sentiment there, by the late elections, had passed the sentence of public condemnation on the bill referred to, and demanded its immediate repeal. He spoke of that as a fixed fact. The gentleman from Maine, [Mr. WASHBURN,] who succeeded him in the discussion, indulged in the same line of argument. Now, I wish to state to these gentlemen, to this committee, and the country, that I draw no such inference from the late elections. It is true that the results were very astonishing to some, though not to me, and took many men, in and out of power, by surprise.

1

[ocr errors]

||

it in Massachusetts? There is the honorable gentleman from that State, [Mr. GOODRICH,] who was alluded to yesterday in connection with the gentleman from Indiana, as associated with those who got up the Kansas and Nebraska Emigration Society. There is another, [Mr. ELIOT,] who came here and took the lead in favor of the repeal of the fugitive slave law; and the gentleman who sits immediately in my rear, [Mr. WALLEY,] who was distinguished in his opposition to the bill-all were zealous in their opposition to the bill, all were candidates for reelection, and all were left at home. All, sir, fell before the destroying angel which came in the night, and they knew not whence the blow came. It certainly did not come from the quarter to which the gentleman from Indiana alludes; for if the anti-Nebraskaites struck down such men as those to whom I have referred, they did not back their friends as we do ours down South.

Mr. Chairman, now let me turn to the State of Illinois. I allude to her with pleasure, for 1 believe there was not a single northern State where the principles of the Nebraska bill were so openly and widely promulgated and considered, and so fairly represented and met as in that State. The distinguished Senator who had charge of the bill in the Senate, stood in the front of the battle, uever giving ground, never yielding an inch, and the distinguished and gallant gentleman upon this floor, [Mr. RICHARDSON,] who had charge of it here, met the people of Illinois everywhere on its merits. If there is a State north which may be appealed to as one where there was anything like a contest on the question, it was Illinois. And what was the result? There were but three men from that State who voted for the Nebraska bill, and now we have four Nebraska men from Illi

cussion there. We had but three men before, and now we have got four.

Mr. WASHBURNE, of Illinois. Will the gentleman tell me what the popular vote of Illinois was upon the Nebraska question?

Mr. STEPHENS. The only test of the popular vote in the entire State of Illinois that I know upon that question, was upon the State treasurer, and the Nebraska candidate carried it by a large majority-three thousand majority, I have heard. In Congress, Nebraska gained one member.

Mr. WASHBURNE. I must correct my friend from Georgia in regard to the fact of the vote in Illinois upon State treasurer. It is true that Mr. Moore, the Nebraska man, was elected, I have seen it stated, by about eighteen hundred majority. But it should be stated, in connection with that fact, that the man who ran against him-Mr. Miller-was not known in the southern part of the State as a candidate, and was not voted for at all in that part of the State. [Laughter.]

I ask the honorable gentleman from Indiana how he reaches the conclusion that these elections set the seal of the public condemnation upon the friends of the great movement of the last session? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there was no man more zealous in his opposition to the bill then passed, not even excepting the gentleman from Indiana himself, than yourself, and you will pardon me, sir, the illustration. Even you, sir, from the city of brotherly love, are no longer returned to the seat which you have filled with so much ability, and in which you have voted with me on many questions of public policy-always excepting this particular measure. Now, I ask the gentleman from Indiana whether that is a proof that the people of Philadelphia agree with him and with you, Mr. Chairman? I might argue, follow-nois. It seems Nebraska gained strength by dising his line, that this, your defeat, was the seal of reprobation on your course. But, sir, the truth is, your course on that bill, I take it, had but little to do in your defeat one way or the other. Again, Mr. Chairman, my honorable friend from another district in Pennsylvania, who sits to my right, [Mr. HIESTER,] with whom I had a conversation at the last session just previous to the passage of the bill, and who was quite as zealous in his opposition as you or the gentleman from Indiana, has also been defeated in the canvass for reelection. I do not recollect the majority against him. I have not attempted the Herculaneum excavating process of ascertaining the depths to which he has been buried in this popular irruption-the majority against him I do not know, but it was decided. The gentleman from the first district of Pennsylvania, [Mr. FLORENCE,] who voted and ardently supported the measure, has been reëlected. I also see that the gentleman from the Berks district [Mr. JONES] has been again returned. Another gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. PACKER,] and an advocate of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, has been returned. In fine, I find that some who have voted for it and some who have voted against it have been returned to Congress. Why, sir, in Pennsylvania a gentleman ran for Governor who was known to be opposed to the bill, and a gentleman ran for Canal Commissioner on the opposite ticket, and was known to be in favor of the measure. The opponent of the bill was elected by thirty-seven thousand majority, while its advocate was elected Canal Commissioner by, I believe, one hundred thousand majority. Now, what is to be legitimately inferred from this state of things? Certainly, not that the people of Pennsylvania had put their seal of reprobation on Nebraska. I should infer that the Nebraska question had nothing or very little to do with the élection-it was an element only in the canvass. Now, when the gentleman wishes to appeal to the results of an election as evidence of anything, he must admit that the question claimed to be decided by it ought to be the sole, leading, and paramount question in the canvass. If such be the case, appeal can be made to the result. But when you find a Nebraska man elected Canal Commissioner of Pennsylvania by one hundred thousand majority, and an anti-Nebraska man elected Governor by thirty-seven thousand majority, it simply shows that this question could have had very little to do with the results. How was

Mr. STEPHENS. I suppose not.

Mr. WASHBURNE. And I will say further, that if Mr. Miller had received his party vote in that part of the State where he was not known as a candidate, he would have been elected by some five or six thousand majority.

Mr. STEPHENS. Well, sir, I do not think the people of Illinois could have been exceedingly offended and outraged by this measure, if they did not take the trouble to have their candidates in opposition known. And yet, the gentleman from Illinois wants to have us believe that if they could only have had their candidates known, they would have been elected by five or six thousand majority.

Mr. WASHBURNE. I will state to the gentleman that the candidate regularly nominated declined, and the other candidate was brought out only a short time before the election.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then I can only say that their candidate ran before the popular demonstration had got hold of him, [laughter;] and it only shows that the first candidate saw the hand writing upon the wall, and was more prudent than the last one. [Renewed laughter.]

Mr. RICHARDSON. With the permission of the gentleman from Georgia, I will make a single correction. My colleague states that Mr. Moore was elected treasurer of Illinois, because his opponent was not known as a candidate in the southern part of the State. Sir, the facts are

HO. OF REPS.

against my colleague. It is true that in some of the southern counties he received but few votes; but it is also true, that in all the counties he received some, so that it was known that Mr. Miller was a candidate in all the counties in the State.

While I am up, I want to state the reason why the first candidate declined. He was nominated as the Republican, Fusion candidate, and was brought out by that party. And I hesitate not here to declare that if he had continued in the field he would have been beaten by more than ten thousand votes. But the candidate who was brought out at last was indorsed by all the leading Whigs in the State, as a sound, radical Whig. He was run by the Whigs and supported by the Fusionists, which accounts for his receiving as heavý a vote as he did.

Mr. STEPHENS. Then the interruption of the gentleman on my left, [Mr. WASHBURNE,] after all, amounts to but very little. He says Moore was elected by eighteen hundred majority. That is quite enough for my purpose.

Mr. WASHBURNE. How much was Mr. Pierce's majority?

Mr. STEPHENS. It is not material to me what Mr. Pierce's majority was. The popular vote in Illinois at the recent election was in favor of sustaining the principle of the Nebraska bill. That is my point. I do not care whether the majority was eighteen hundred, or five thousand, or eighteen thousand. I am willing to take it at eighteen hundred. I heard that it was three thousand. The gentleman has heard that it was eighteen hundred; but the difference is immaterial. It is given up that a majority was in favor of the principle of the Nebraska bill. So much for the popular condemnation there.

1

Now, then, take the State of New York-for I must be brief upon this point. There was but one candidate for Governor in that State who was openly and avowedly in favor of the repeal of the Nebraska bill. I mean Mr. Clark. New York gave but few votes upon this floor, for the bill. I think it is generally conceded, that if there is any State in the Union that is particularly unsound on this question, as gentlemen speak, it is New York. Well, sir, New York, with all its antislavery organizations; with its Syracuse convention, where everything was done that could be done to rally the freemen of the North, as it was said; with its emigration society; with all this, how many votes did Mr. Clark get? Not more than one third of the votes of the State. Clark got one hundred and fifty-odd thousand votes; Seymour got some three hundred less-one hundred and fifty-odd thousand votes; and Ullman and Bronson, together, received about the same number, one hundred and fifty-odd thousand more. So that, in the great State of New York, where this question was made preeminently a test, in the recent election, not one third of the votes of the State were given for the anti-Nebraska candidate. And yet the late election in New York is held up as a popular demonstration in opposition to the principle of the Nebraska bill. Sir, no such conclusion can be drawn; and the same may be said in reference to the elections in Pennsylvania, in New Jersey, in Michigan, in Indiana; so far as furnishing any popular demonstration upon this subject, they amount to nothing. No person can draw any legitimate inference from them, in reference to this question. Some say it was the Know-Nothings; some say it was the Temperance men; and some say it was the anti-Nebraskaites, that caused the defeat.

Sir, I am not prepared to say what it was that caused these, to some people, so strange results. I am inclined to think that the man down in North Carolina was about right when he said it was General Malcontent that caused it. Some were discontented because of the appointments of the President to office; some were discontented because it was improper to send such a man as Mr. Soulé to Madrid; some were discontented because it was wrong to send such a man as Mr. Belmont abroad; some were dissatisfied at the appointment of Mr. Vroom; some at Mr. Dix; some at the turning out of Bronson; some at the organization of the Cabinet-some at one thing and some at another. Some said one thing and some another. There was general discontent and

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Kansas-Nebraska-Recent Elections-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia.

dissatisfaction-whether rightfully or wrongfully it is not my purpose now to discuss. But the Administration had pursued such a course as to make a large party of malcontents-men bent upon breaking up things-this class, the North Carolina man calls the "Ramshackles;" the designation is a good one. Yes, sir, it was General Malcontent and the great party of the "Ramshackles" that triumphed at the North at the late elections, and not the anti-Nebraskaites.

But the gentleman from Indiana referred to the South. He said he wanted the members from the North to get on the same high stand that the Representatives of the South occupied. I suppose he intended what he said in this connection as a compliment to the South, inasmuch as he wanted his people to occupy the same position; but, if I comprehend what he said, I do not receive it as a compliment. He said that southern members upon this floor first ascertained the wishes and then voted upon all questions as their constituents wished that they would stand by the interests of their constituents and represent their wishes. Sir, I say to the gentleman that I think he is just as much mistaken in this as he was in reference to the popular elections of the North. I can speak, however, only for myself. It is not true that, in my course as a member of this House, I look solely to what my constituents wish. The first question that addresses itself to my mind is, whether any measure presented here is right? I send no letters home to know what they think there about it; I never have and never shall. consult my own judgment, and act accordingly. If I think a measure is right, that it is proper, that it is just, I vote for it; and if I do not, I vote against it. Upon the merits of every question I am responsible to my constituents; and when I go home to them, an intelligent and patriotic people, if they do not approve my conduct, they can send another in my place. Sir, I believe that that is the general position of southern men.

But the gentleman says that when southern men's measures are vetoed, they raise their voices in tones of thunder until they carry them. Sir, I do not believe there ever was a southern measure vetoed. I do not recollect one. The South has never asked anything from your Government that called for a veto. There is the difference between us. The South asks but few favors from you. It is a class of gentlemen from the North who ask aid from the Government. Why, we never come here in that attitude. Let me ask the gentleman when any measure from the South was ever vetoed? when the South ever asked anything that required the exercise of the veto power?

But the gentleman said that he admired the South, because "knowing their rights, they dared maintain them." That I take as a compliment. And now, what is his position? Why, the South knowing their rights, and daring to maintain them," he would have the North to rise up and prevent her from getting her known and acknowledged rights! If we know our rights, and they are our rights, and we dare maintain them, why ought not the North, why ought not the gentleman-I will not say the North-to grant us our rights! Have we ever asked anything but what was right? Now, I say, with all due respect to the gentleman, that the true position of the South is this: we" ask nothing but what is right, and we submit to nothing that is wrong.' That is the position that the South has always occupied, as I remember her history.

fabrics-everything? Why, it is the industrial
interests of the North. We of the South, it is
true, sometimes grumble and complain; but the
great majority of the people of the South have
yielded to what they consider in some instances
very heavy exactione, for the support of Govern-
ment. But when did we ever come up and ask
any aid from the Government of the United States?
The constant prayer of the South to you has been
to stay your hands. All that we ask of you is,
keep your hands out of our pockets. That is all
that the South ask, and we do not get even that.
It is true, sir, that in my own State we have asked
some little favors, but very few. Some years ago
we asked that you should take the obstructions
out of the mouth of the Savannah river-not ob-

structions that nature put there, but that were put
there during the revolutionary war, to keep out a
foreign fleet-put there, not by the citizens of the
State, but by public authority. It seems to us
nothing but right and just that the General Gov-
ernment should remove those obstructions; but
we have asked in vain for that. The gentleman
says that the Representatives of the North come
here and pass river and harbor bills, which are
vetoed, and the wishes of their constitnents are
thereby defeated. Well, sir, we have some rivers
in the South quite as navigable as those in In-
diana; but when did Georgia, or South Carolina,
or Virginia, or the South generally, come and ask
Congress to clear out those rivers?

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going into a
discussion of this question of internal improve-
ments, or the constitutional power. I am going
to address a plain, common-sense argument in
reply to the gentleman from Indiana, who said
that when the South asked anything she got it, or
that when a southern measure was vetoed, the
South thundered and thundered upon this floor,
until she got what she wanted, while northern
measures were defeated by vetoes. I repeat, that
a southern measure has never been vetoed. But
how does the gentleman stand when he comes here
and asks us, out of the public Treasury, to clean
out the rivers in his State? I will state here, in
passing, that I believe Congress has the constitu-
tional power to clean out harbors, and construct
roads when it is necessary either for the collection
of the public revenue, or for military purposes. I
did what I could last Congress to get the improve-
ment of Boston harbor, as well as of various other
harbors that I believed to be necessary for the col-
lection of the revenue. I was also in favor of
removing the obstructions in the mouth of the
Mississippi river. This is sufficient to show my
general position on this subject. Now, a few
words on the material matter alluded to by the
gentleman, the improvement of western rivers.

In the State of Georgia, we have never asked for any harbor improvements except for the removal of those obstructions at the mouth of the Savannah river, and we never got that, as I have stated. We have never asked the General Government to clean out our rivers. But we have a country of hill and valley, and we have to get to market with our products-for we grow some things in Georgia for market, notwithstanding that, in the opinion of the gentleman from Indiana, we are a Heaven-accursed, slavery-doomed land-we grow some products in Georgia, I say, for market, and how do we get them to market? Do we come here and ask aid of the General Government? No, sir. Why, in my State, we have now upwards of a thousand miles of railroad Now, sir, upon the subject of internal improve-in full operation. How did we obtain it? We ments which the gentleman alluded to, has the South ever asked legislative aid in that particular? I do not speak now, sectionally, or against the North; but look at the whole history of our Government. Who is it that is constantly appealing here for legislative aid and legislative patronage? Who ask for fishing bounties? Who ask for protection to navigation? Why, the people of the South, if they were permitted to use or employ foreign vessels in their coast trade, would be greatly benefited thereby. But American shipping must be protected, and who is it that asks that protection, not only on shipping, but almost everything else? Who is it that wants a duty upon coal? Who upon iron? Who upon woolen goods? Who upon shoes, hats, leather, cotton

HO. OF REPS.

tax for the privilege of bringing our iron into the country. Georgia has paid not less than a million and a half of dollars, as a duty on iron, into the Treasury for the privilege of building her own works of internal improvement. Now, I would ask any candid man-I would ask the gentleman himself-if it is just, not only to tax Georgia for the privilege of constructing her highways, but then to take these very taxes that we have paid to open rivers in Indiana? It does not strike me that that is very just. I am speaking now to men of common sense. I am not talking of what you can constitutionally do. Is it not an unjust abuse. of power to do it, even if you have the power?

The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. CAMPBELL] told us, the other day, what the "great West "would do. I have a great respect for the great West, and I will do everything which I think right, and proper, and just, to develop the resources of that section of the country. I am willing, as I have said, to open the mouth of the Mississippi, because the State of Louisiana cannot do it, and to take the snags out of that great river. But when I am appealed to to clear out every little river, and open up every little harbor, and make works of improvements throughout the country, or in any section of it-I do not care which or what-barely because the people of such section want it, and send men here to ask and vote for it, I say it is unjust to dispose of the public money in any such way, and I shall not do it. I ask every man now, who looks on these questions as he should, if it is not manifestly unjust?

man.

Now, the gentleman [Mr. MACE] says, in speaking of the Missouri compromise, that, by the Missouri compromise, slavery had been prohibited north of 36° 30', and that slavery was to exist south of 360 30'. I wish to correct the gentleThe South has never asked that slavery should be extended by this Government any where, south or north. The Missouri compromise of 1820 never established such a principle-never. The act of 1820, by which Missouri was to have come into the Union, but never did, prohibited the existence of slavery north of 360 30'; but it said nothing at all on the subject south of that line. The South never asked such a guarantee. The guarantee which the South has asked, and which has been established in the passage of the Nebraska bill, and which the South will never yield, was simply that the people on every foot of Amer. ican soil, north or south, east or west, shall, when they come to form their State constitution, do as they please upon the question of African slavery, and shall come into the Union either with or without it, as they shall then determine for themselves. The South does not ask you that a slave State shall be admitted from Texas, unless the people there so determine. What we insisted on in the Texas annexation resolutions was, that the people there might be permitted to settle this matter for themselves. And this is all the guarantee we secured; all that we then asked; all that we asked in 1850; all that we asked in the Nebraska bill, and what we will ever maintain is, that the people in every organized community, in every Territory, when they come to form their own institutions, shall do as they please in that respect, and come into the Union either with or without slavery, as they wish. I say, sir, that is the southern doctrine; and I say, also, that it is American doctrine. That is what I mean by national doctrine.

The gentleman [Mr. MACE] said yesterday he was a National man. National! Why, sir, he is against his own section. Not only is he against took our surplus capital, and with it we bought the South, but he is against his own people. Achuman labor, human energy, bone and sinew-cording to his doctrine his own people cannot be we bought the strong arms of our own citizens, trusted in the Territories. He must be their as well as of foreigners, to come and dig down guardian-a self-constituted protector. He says the hills and fill up the valleys, and lay down the that members of Congress set up to be masters of superstructure of our railroads-we bought the their constituents, that they did not know what iron, when we could get it, in this country, and we their constituents wanted, and that they came went abroad for it when we could not get it here, here last session to be their masters by voting for and notwithstanding all that, when we brought Nebraska against their wishes. No, sir, it is the our iron into the country, we had to pay duty upon gentleman himself who wants to be master. Of it to the General Government. Twenty millions whom? Of his own fellow citizens! He and the of dollars have been spent in Georgia in construct- men who embrace his doctrine virtually say that ing highways to our markets. That is the way when the people go from the North or South into we got our thousand miles of railroad. So far a Territory they become unfit to govern themfrom coming here and receiving assistance from selves. This is what the gentleman said about the Government, we have actually had to pay a masters:

[ocr errors]

33D CONG....2D SESS.

Kansas-Nebraska-Recent Elections-Mr. Stephens, of Georgia.

"The doctrine sought to be established now is this, that we come up here as the masters of the people, that we come here not bound to consult with them at all, and that we may pass laws which we know they will disapprove of, and then call upon them, as loyal subjects, to acquiesce in our acts and cease their grumbling."

HO. OF REPS.

as he has in the past, even he, if here, may yet State has the right to come into the Union with
vote for her admission as a slave State.
such institutions as she, republican in their char-

In some things I was surprised at the gentle-acter, might adopt. Missouri was denied admis-
man's speech yesterday; for I recollected very
well the remarks he made with reference to this
Nebraska bill before it passed, and the amendment
which he offered. I beg to call his attention and
the attention of the House to the report of his
remarks-made on the 22d of May, the Saturday
before it passed:

"Mr. MACE moved to insert in the first section and the
clude slavery at any time by law. He said he offered the
Territorial Legislature shall have the power to admit or ex-
amendment in good faith, and for the purpose of testing

the sincerity of members from the western States, and
more especially the sincerity of those of the delegation
from Indiana, who were to vote in favor of the bill.
"Mr. ENGLISH. If the amendment be adopted, will my
eolleague give the bill his support?
"Mr. MACE. I will."

Mr. MACE. What reasons did I give?
Mr. STEPHENS. The only reasons he gave
are those I have read. He said that he offered

sion, and the South did reluctantly consent that slavery should be excluded north of 360 30', provided Missouri should come in as she pleased. But Missouri was again denied admission she did not come in under this act of 1820. I will not, however, go over this ground again now. The North would not adhere to the principles of the act of 1820. When the strife of 1850 became intolerable, when the ship of State seemed about to go down, and when southern men were still standing on deck with flag-staff in their hands appealing to northern patriots to come to the rescue, and stand upon the old platform, occupied by them when the Missouri question arose that is, the State-rights doctrine of letting each State settle this matter for itself-whether in accordance with the wishes of the North or South-it was then that this principle, incorporated in the Nebraska bill, was first established. This principle now fol lows the American flag wherever it floats, whether in California, Utah, New Mexico, or southern Texas. The same stars and stripes, with the same principles inscribed upon their broad folds, now wave far up in Kansas and Nebraska! Let them go, knit together, one and inseparable, over every foot of American soil. This, sir, is my [Mr. WASHBURN,] that he will not live to see the wish, and this, sir, I think, will be the result; I therefore say to the gentleman from Maine,

The gentleman says that that is what we do. I say to the gentleman, "thou art the man." That is exactly what you do. Why does he offer his bill to abolish slavery in Kansas and Nebraska? because he says the people there will have it if we do not. Why does he then propose to pass a law for them which he knows they will disapprove of, and then call on them as "loyal subjects to acquiesce in our acts, and cease their grumbling?" He says that when men go from Massachusetts, or from Indiana, or from Illinois, or from Ohio, or from Georgia, and get over into the Territories, they shall not govern themselves as they please, but as we please. We, the Nebraska men, on the contrary, treat them as freemen, as our equals, and let them do as they please. Who, then, are the masters, or would-be-masters? I the amendment in good faith, for the purpose of say, sir, it is that class of men who set themselves testing the sincerity of members, and more espeup as the only safe guardians, protectors, and law-cially the sincerity of the members of the delegamakers for men who have no choice in their elec- tion from Indiana who voted in favor of the bill; tion, and to whom they are in no way responsible. and he said that if it was adopted—that is, if the Oh, but the gentleman says, pass this bill, say, by Legislature should have the power to settle the law, that slavery never shall go into these Terri- question at any time, he would vote for the bill. tories, and then the people can do just as they Now, he wants to deprive the Legislature, or the please, just as they did in Iowa, and can form people in convention, from ever being empowered State constitutions against slavery, as Iowa did, to settle, as they want to do, it at all. Perhaps and conie into the Union as that State did. Why, when the people do settle, as they now have the sir, the gentleman's idea of liberty on the part of power to do it, he may yet sanction it, notwith-day, in my opinion, when this great movement, the people to do as they please is very much like a standing they may adopt a slavery constitution. this revolution in American politics, will ever roll story that I heard told by the late Justice Mc- Mr. MACE. Did the gentleman vote for my backwards. Its course will rather be onward. Kinley, of the Supreme Court. The incident amendment? There are some other topics to which I wish to occurred in Lexington, Kentucky, I believe. A allude. member of Congress from that State had given very much dissatisfaction to his constituents by some vote; and they went through the form of burning him in effigy. Accordingly they got up a torch-light procession to march to his house, and as they were going along with a great deal of "noise and some confusion," some person on the side-walk, not partaking of the feelings of the crowd, but believing it to be an outrage rather, whispered this opinion to a man next to him. One of the rowdies in the procession, who overheard the remark, stepped up and said to him, "What is that you say?" "You think that this is a great outrage, do you?" "Yes, I do," was the answer. "Then, sir," replied his questioner, "I want to let you know that this is a free country, and that we will do as we d-d please, and you shan't say nothing!" [Laughter.] That is the way the gentleman [Mr. MACE] would give freedom to the Territories. Oh, yes, he will make it a free Territory. He will have his way, and the people there "shan't say nothing." would give them precisely that sort of freedom He which closes the mouths of freemen. That sort of liberty he would have which says to freemen, "You shall do as I please-it is a free country, it is true; but I will have my way, and you shall not say a word. You shall not elect Whitfield, or any man who would favor the introduction of slavery.' [Laughter.]

[ocr errors]

Now, sir, the gentleman [Mr. MACE] yesterday notified the country, and notified the House that Nebraska never should come in as a slave State. This is plain and direct language. It presents the issue fairly. It is bringing up that question which has been thrice settled by this country. And, without pretending to speak prophetically, I wili venture the opinion, that if Nebraska comes here with a slavery constitution, she will be admitted; and the great body of these gentlemen who occupy the position of the gentleman from Indiana, will be at that time buried so deep under popular condemnation, that their voices against it will never reach the Capitol. A great national principle is involved in this question which the people of this country are not a going to ignore. National men will be sent from the North as well as from the South. Men will be sent to Congress who stand upon principles, and will not "back and fill," and be on one principle for one week, one month, and one moon, and upon another principle another week, and month, and moon. The gentleman's principles do not set by him a twelve-month. And if he changes in the future as rapidly and radically

Mr. STEPHENS. I did not, and for the
reason given, that by the bill we had given the
people all the power that we could under the Con-
stitution. We could not grant more, and they
could not exercise more if we had granted it.
We had done all we could on our part, and we
could not give them more.
the Territories, in my opinion, devolved upon
The government of
Congress, in the first instance. It was our duty
to govern them, or provide governments for them.
I stated then to the country, and now state, that
I believe it was right and just for us to turn over
our powers to the people, all the powers at least
that they can exercise under the Constitution. So
far as my vote was concerned, I gave the people all
the power that they could exercise under the Con-
should the gentleman have asked to give them
stitution. We could not give them more, and why
more?

The gentleman from Indiana said that he would
vote in good faith to give the people of these Terri-
tories power to admit slavery; but now he comes
passing any law by which slavery may be tolerated.
forward and wants to deprive them of the power of
I did not know then whether Kansas would be a
slave State or not. I do not know now whether it
will be or not, but this does not make the slightest
difference in my vote. Men may indulge in what-
come here with a constitution excluding slavery,
ever speculations they please. If Kansas should
and ask admission into the Union as a State,
while I am a member upon this floor, I should
vote for her admission. At least that feature in
her constitution will not cause me to vote against
her admission. I voted for the admission of Iowa,
and I have voted for the admission of every
northern State, since I have occupied a seat upon
this floor, when I have been in my place. I was
not here when California was admitted, but I
defended her admission. The odd

I want gentlemen from the North, and the gentleman from Indiana, to understand the South, or at least the position of some of her Representatives. We stand upon principle. We do not advocate a measure to-day, because it votes money into the pockets of our constituents, or because it is favored by them or advances their interests, and then to-morrow array ourselves in opposition to it, because we think a different result follows from its operation, but we stand, particularly on this upon which the Constitution itself rests. In the question, upon the fixed and immutable principles beginning, in the middle of our history, and up to this time, there we have always stood. The South, in 1820, maintained the principle that a

Why is it that gentlemen object so much to the made a speech at the last session upon this subintroduction of slavery into Kansas, if the people of that Territory desire it to go there? When I ject, I stated that I would vote for the principle of allowing the people of any section of the country to come into the Union and form institutions as

they please. This I said when I knew there might be twice as many people there from the North as from the South, and the chances of emigration I knew would greatly preponderate in favor of the North. I am willing, now, to abide by that principle. I have no desire to deprive the people of any State or Territory in our common country of the right of adopting such institutions for their government, when they become States, as they please. It is anti-American, and entirely at war with the spirit of the age, about which we hear so much. I ask why the people of any section of the country should be prevented from adopting the institutions of the South, if they wish them? Socially, morally, and politically, or in any aspect of the question, is there any reason for depriving them of such right? Is it for the sake of humanity that gentlemen are not willing for the people of Kansas to assign the African the same condition there that he occupies in the South, if they think it best to do so? Are gentlemen willing to degrade their own race by lating to their own government, while they are not permitting them to vote upon matters reendeavoring to elevate the negro to the standard of the white man? You may degrade the white man, but you cannot raise the negro to the level you purpose. It is impossible. You have to reverse a law of nature first. Men may indulge

in

different races of men.

philanthropic speculations as much as they please, but here is the great immutable law of nature, and they cannot avoid it. I am not here right, wise, and just. There is a difference, a vast to argue whether decrees of the Most High are difference, established by the Creator between the For myself, I believe that He who made us all is just, and that He made the white man as He made him, and that He made the negro as He made him-for wise and just purposes. Some vessels are made for honor and some for dishonor; one star differeth from another star in magnitude as well as in brilliancy. I beadopted by the South, defining the status or relalieve, too, that the system of government, as tion of these two races, is the best for both of them; and I am prepared to argue that question with the gentleman, here or anywhere. Take the negroes in Indiana, take them in the North gen

33D CONG....2D SESS.

erally, and compare their condition with those of the South. Take them in Africa; take them anywhere on the face of the habitable globe; and then take them in the southern States, and the negro population of the South are better off, better fed, better clothed, better provided for, enjoy more happiness, and a higher civilization, than the same race has ever enjoyed anywhere else on the face of the world. Could Howard, the philanthropist, who has left an undying fame for his deeds of humanity, have taken the same number of Africans from their native country and raised them from their barbarous condition to that of the slaves of the South, he would have added much to that stature of immortality which, in his day, he erected to himself. It would have greatly added to that reputation, which now sanctifies his memory in the hearts and affections of mankind.

Look at the three millions of Africans as you find them in the South; and where is the man so cold-hearted, and cold-blooded, as would wish to put them in the condition that their forefathers were, or their kindred now are in Africa? What has done so much for these people but that which is so much denounced by inconsiderate fanatics; men and women, too, who find fault with what they know nothing about?

Again: take our negroes, and compare their condition with that of the free negroes of the North. I have the result of the Census returns before me, and from that it appears that the increase of the free people of color in the United States, from 1840 to 1850, was only ten and ninetyfive hundredths per centum. This shows that their condition cannot be very good, or desirable; and to this increase is to be added, too, the fugitive slaves, and those who have been emancipated With all these sources of increase, that increase has only been ten and ninety-five hundredths per

centum.

Now, how is it with the slaves-the down-trodden, the abused, the half-starved slaves? Their increase, during the same period, was twentyeight and fifty-eight hundredths. Is there any such result to be presented at the North, where they are free and left to themselves? How can your missionaries in philanthropy and crusaders in benevolence account for this?

But some people say that slavery is a curse to the white man. They abandon the idea that it is a curse to the negro. They say it weakens, impoverishes, and demoralizes a State. Let us see. They say there can be no high social, moral, or material development under the institution of slavery. I have before me some statistics on this point-statistics relating to material development. But, before alluding to them, I will say upon the subject of morals, that I saw a table of crimes made out in the Census Office for 1850. From those statistics it appeared-I speak from memory; I have not the paper before me-that the number of convictions for crimes of every grade, in Massachusetts, the land of "steady habits," and where we hear so much of the immoral effects of slavery, with a population under one million, was several thousand; while in the State of Georgia, with a population not so great, the similar convictions are less than one hundred. I say, then, upon the score of crime, upon the score of morals, I am ready to compare my State with that of Massachusetts, or any one of the free States. Where, then, is the moral curse which arises from slavery?

A few facts in reference to physical development. I had occasion, some time since, for another purpose than the present, to look a little into the statistics of Georgia, compared with those of other States. I selected the State of Ohio, because it was one of the most prosperous of the North often styled, and, perhaps, justly too, the giant of the West. According to the census returns in 1850, Ohio had of improved lands 9,851,493 acres - Georgia had only 6,378,479 acres, the cash value of the Georgia land so improved and under culture was $95,753,445, while the cash value of the Ohio lands was returned at $358,758,603-Ohio had nearly one third more land in a state of improvement than Georgia had, and returned at more than three times the cash value of the Georgia lands. The whole population of Ohio was 1,908,480, the whole population of Georgia, white and black, was 905,999. The

Kansas and Nebraska, &c.—Mr. Campbell.

[ocr errors]

HO. OF REPS.

KANSAS AND NEBRASKA-GEORGIA AND OHIOFREE LABOR AND SLAVE LABOR.

OF OHIO,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 14, 1854.

population of Ohio, therefore, was more than double that of Georgia. Here we see her free labor more than double in number, working one third more land, worth, by valuation, more than| SPEECH OF LEWIS D. CAMPBELL, three times that of Georgia. From these elements it might not be surprising to see her agricultural products greatly exceeding those of Georgia, without resorting to the "curse of slavery" to account for it. But how stand the facts? Ohio produced the following articles: Wheat..................... .14,487,351 bus. at 80 cents... Buckwheat....... 638,060 66 40 66 Indian corn..... Rye...... Barley Oats....

..$11,589,880 255,224 17,723,608 212,959 177,179 3,368,182 60,168

66 30 .59,078,695 "6 50 425,918 " 50 354,358"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

66

..13,472,742

25

[merged small][ocr errors]

5,057,769" 187,991

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

50

93,995

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

..10,454,449 lbs.

Peas and beans... 60,168 (C
Irish potatoes....
Sweet potatoes...
Tobacco..
Cloverseed.
Flax...
Flaxseed.......
Maple sugar..
Molasses..
Wine...
Garden products returned in money, value..
Orchard 66

Aggregate........

66

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

275,292 69,057 48,207

214,004 695,921

.$38,137,695

This list includes nearly every agricultural product of the earth in that State except hay, which is omitted, because in Georgia there is no return for fodder, which, in that State, answers the same purpose of hay in Ohio, as food for stock. The quantity of each product produced is given from

the census tables. The values run out are such as are believed to be the usual average values of each article in that State, except the products of gardens and orchards, which are taken from the tables-no other values are put upon the products

in the tables. The estimate above stated is believed to be a fair one. Now let us take up the returns for Georgia and place upon them a like estimated average value. Here we have: Wheat.... 1,088,534 bushels at $1 00... $1,088,534 Indian corn.... 30,080,099 66 66 Cotton-bales.. 499,091 400 lbs. at 38,950,691 lbs. at 1,142,011 bushels at 6,9:6,428

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

An amount so far from falling under that of Ohio as might have been expected, actually exceeds it above a quarter of a million, without extending the Georgia list to rye, barley, tobacco, and other articles which are produced in that State. Away, then, with this prating cry about slavery's paralyzing the energy of a people, and opposing the development of the resources of a country.

If I were to take the statistics of any other State, and go through them in the same way, I have no reason to doubt that an equally favorable result to Georgia would follow. I took the State of Ohio, not as any disparagement to her, but to show that even in the South, where they say the soil is sterile, and the population inert, and cursed with slavery, as it is said to be, Georgia, with one half of the population, and only two thirds of the value of land, exceeds in agricultural products by one quarter of a million of dollars, the great giant of the West.

Now, then, if the people of Kansas, the people of Nebraska, or the people of any other portion of our territory, going from old Massachusetts, going from New York, or from Indiana, or from the South, learning and consulting wisdom from the past, and profiting by experience from all parts of the Union, should think it practically best for the happiness of themselves and for their posterity in the far distant future, to adopt the social institutions of Georgia in preference to those of Indiana, if they prefer the institutions of the South to those of the North, I say they should not be deprived of their right to do it, and the gentleman from Indiana, and those who act with him, should not set themselves up as judges and "masters" to control the matter. [Here the hammer fell.]

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia, having concluded his remarks

Mr. CAMPBELL obtained the floor and said: I regret, Mr. Chairman, that an occasion for discussion like this has presented itself now. This is the short session, and there is a large amount of unfinished business, involving the just private claims of American citizens, as well as national interests, which was postponed at the last session, by the prolonged consideration of the Nebraska bill. Sir, there is important work to do. Whatever we may think about the consequence of speeches, the country says it is time for work! But the discussion is upon us: I did not bring it: in six years of continuous service I' have never introduced a discussion involving the "vexed question of slavery;" though, when introduced, I never shrink from a proper participation

in the debate.

Although not in good health, sir, I cannot, consistently with my ideas of the duty I owe my immediate constituents, if not to the country at large, unprepared, refrain from taking my part in the contest, or from sharing in the responsibilities of its results.

Mr. Chairman, the question involved furnishes, indeed, a fertile field for thought, and for the display of a true American patriotism. It is one which, when discussed here too often, excites unkind feelings amongst those who should dwell together as brothers, in harmony. Although I may be regarded as one of those who ride back to this Hall upon the very crest of that triumphal wave of popular sovereignty which has so lately swept over the free States, I have no words of selfish exultation to utter over such as have been dashed by its power against the rocks, and have gone down. No, sir, I rise this morning with no unkind feelings in my heart towards any member on this floor, from the North or the South, the East or the West. Incidents of past debate here, which exasperated the feelings, are not forgotten; but all of my wrongs, real or imaginary, are freely forgiven.

Whilst the eloquent words of the gentlemen from Kentucky, [Messrs. Cox and BRISTOW,] the gentleman from California, [Mr. LATHAM,] and the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. SMITH,] portraying the high attainments and social virtues of the lamented PRESLEY EWING, (whose desk, during his last session, adjoined mine,) still linger upon our ears, ought we not to cultivate sentiments of mutual good will. There is something in a higher law which whispers to us "in the midst of life we are in death."

I enter the field of this discussion, therefore, with the kindest feelings. Should I utter a word, in the hour allotted to me, personally offensive to any one, I hope it will be attributed rather to the impulsive expression of a heart devoted to a great cause, than a willful design to injure a fellow member.

The remarks of the honorable gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. STEPHENS,] who has just taken his seat, present many themes for discussion. I shall not attempt to follow him in his wanderings over so many fields, or through the various mazes in which he has groped his way. I will, for the present, touch but cursorily upon some of his points, in my approach to the prominent theme of his remarks. He alludes to the tariff, and says the South has never asked protection to her industrial pursuits. When the readjustment of the revenue laws is properly before us, I am willing to meet the gentleman, and delve with him to the bottom of that great subject. He reminds the free States that they had sought, and obtained, a little protection to iron and coal, &c., omitting the fact that the slave States have protection in their important product of sugar. He seems to have forgotten that General Jackson, a great southern statesman, whose whole heart (whatever

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »