Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

that the lobby could contain more than the amendment proposed to admit, without inconvenience, it might be further opened; but he was of opinion that the galleries ought to be opened. It was the nature of power to shut its doors, and hide its proceedings from the public eye; but those who resisted power had an interest in giving to their efforts the utmost publicity. He wished the whole people of the United States to have an opportunity of witnessing what passed in that chamber. desired to have the question essentially on the opening of the galleries, he should vote for the amendment.

As he

Mr. BENTON had but one word to say, and that was drawn from him by what he had heard of the hardship of those who were almost suffocated in the crowds attending the little gallery, while so few occupied the large one. Whoever encountered that hardship, he would undertake to say, had brought it on himself, because he could easily be relieved of it, by taking a lady under his arm, and going into the other gallery; and if he had such an antipathy to the ladies as to prefer the crowds of the little gallery to their society, he (Mr. B.) had no sympathy for him. The circular gallery was freely open to all, under the rule as it then stood. Every gentleman could go there if he pleased; and if he did not know how, he (Mr. B.) would tell him. He had simply to get a young lady, or an old one, or any lady he pleased, to go with him, and he would find the doors open.

Mr. TALLMADGE said he should vote against the amendment of the gentleman from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON,] and if the amendment of that gentleman did not succeed, he would then offer an amendment to admit a certain number in the circular gallery. He was willing to give to each Senator the privilege of admitting a certain number of persons in that gallery. He had no objection to affording every facility to spectators; but owing to the inconvenience mentioned by some of the gentlemen, growing out of an unlimited privilege, he would prefer extending the convenience to the circular gallery. Mr. SHEPLEY suggested to the gentleman from New York, [Mr. TALLMADGE,] to submit his views in the form of an amendment to the amendment. The resolution, thus amended, would accomplish the object the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] had in view. Mr. TALLMADGE then submitted the following amendment to the amendment:

"That each Senator have the privilege of admitting into the circular gallery number of gentlemen."

[SENATE.

Mr. BUCHANAN said he had not expected this debate could possibly assume the character which it had now taken. The change of the rules of the Senate, in regard to the use of the lobby and galleries, had been made by common consent. It was not the work of any political party in this body. The change was made, as he had supposed, for the accommodation of all parties in the Senate, as well as for that of the people. Under these circumstances, he could not but feel surprised when the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] very broadly insinuated that there was a struggle in this body between two parties--the one the advocates of liberty, the other of power, and that the advocates of power desired secrecy.

[Mr. CALHOUN here said that he had affirmed it.] The Senator, then, has affirmed it. Sir, said Mr. B., if the gentleman intends to assert that the friends of the administration on this floor desire to envelop the proceedings of this body in mystery and darkness, the assertion is wholly unfounded. In saying so, I mean no personal offence. We are not the advocates of power against liberty, and our conduct has never shown that we were. It is easy for the Senator to make general charges of this kind, but he will find it very difficult to place his hand upon any single fact to support them.

Mr. B. said he was neither ashamed nor afraid to speak, and to vote, and to act, openly, and fearlessly, and directly, upon every question which may come before the Senate. He did not shun, but courted, publicity. Neither his political friends nor himself had any thing to conceal. He had never been consulted in respect to the existing rule. He should now vote for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Delaware, [Mr. CLAYTON.] He was willing that the upper gallery should be thrown open to all visiters who might think proper to attend. Although our convenience might be sacrificed by again crowding the lobby behind the seats of the members, he could endure this inconvenience as well as any other Senator. On this subject he would go as far as he who should go farthest. Let all the American people who can be accommodated be received into this chamber.

Mr. CALHOUN remarked that he was much gratified at what had been said by the Senator from Pennsylvania, and hoped that every gentleman on the same side would concur with him. It was not for him or that gentleman to decide which of them were on the side of liberty in the contest between liberty and power-that must be Mr. WEBSTER said the public had a right them-left to time and to posterity for a fair decision. He was selves to the use of the galleries until they were filled. He was opposed to granting tickets, and was for opening the galleries to all, without distinction of persons. was preferable that fathers and brothers should meet and sit together in the same gallery, to having them forced into separate galleries, merely because some of them happened not to have ladies in their charge.

It

Mr. CALHOUN said that the amendment to the amendment of the Senator from New York did not answer his purpose at all. He did not wish to be troubled with applications for admission there, nor did he wish to put the people to the trouble of asking for admission. They had a right to be there, to come there, and stay there, whenever the Senate was in session. It was impossible to look at that debate without seeing the nature of it, and from what quarter the opposition to the resolution came. Those who had got power were not willing that the truth should be heard boldly and openly. We, said he, who are on the opposite side, and who oppose power, ought to desire to give the utmost publicity to our proceedings. No, sir, said he, no modification of the amendment will answer my purpose; nothing which will exclude a single individual, will ever meet my consent.

not called on then to show the many arbitrary acts of the present administration; but, on a proper occasion, he would be ready to go into the subject. He did hope that this session would show that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and those with whom he acted, were not the advocates of power. He did hope that when that great measure, the expunging resolutions, came up, it would be seen that those gentlemen will be found on the side of liberty in its contest with power.

Mr. BUCHANAN said the Senator from South Carolina had acted very wisely in referring the great questions now before this body and the country to time and to posterity. If he had submitted them to the people of the present generation, they are already decided against him.

In relation to his future course, Mr. B. said he would wait for the proper occasions to present themselves, and should express his opinions on subjects as they came before the Senate. "Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." He had no hesitation, however, in now declaring his opinion upon the expunging resolution, as the Senator had introduced it into this debate. On that question he should be found in direct opposition to the gentleman.

[blocks in formation]

The question was here taken on Mr. TALLMADGE'S motion, and it was lost: Yeas 6, nays 34, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Prentiss, Shepley, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright-6.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Niles, Porter, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster, White-34.

The question then being on Mr. CLAYTON's amendment,

Mr. NILES moved to divide it so as to take the question first on the first clause, as to opening the galleries. Mr. BENTON suggested that this division was not sufficiently explicit. To say "open the galleries," implied that they were closed; whereas one was already entirely open, and the other open to gentlemen accompanied by ladies. The division ought to be more explicit, otherwise those who voted against the first clause might seem to vote against admitting spectators.

Mr. NILES then moved to amend the resolution by inserting the word "circular," so as to apply the amendment to the opening of the circular gallery; which modification being accepted by Mr. CLAYTON, the division of the question was ordered, and it was accordingly taken on the first clause of the amendment, and decided in the affirmative: Yeas 35, nays 7, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing, Goldsborough, Grundy, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, Linn, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster, White-35.

NAYS-Messrs. Benton, Hendricks, Porter, Ruggles, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright-7.

The question was next taken on the second clause of the amendment, allowing each Senator to admit number of spectators into the lobby, and decided in the negative: Yeas 18, nays 24, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing, Goldsborough, Leigh, Mangum, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster--18.

NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Linn, McKean, Moore, Morris, Niles, Porter, Prentiss, Ruggles, Shepley, Southard, Swift, Tallmadge, Tipton, White, Wright--24.

The question being on the resolution, as amended, Mr. BENTON asked the Secretary to read the resolution of the present session, by which the old rule was changed, and it was accordingly read.

Mr. BENTON remarked that he only wished to make sure of the words of the resolution, as it applied to the circular gallery, and he now held that gallery to be open, and that all that had been said in relation to it had been misapplied. He did not wish to give a vote which was to be understood, there or elsewhere, as intending to shut up either of the galleries; nor did he wish to give any vote admitting, what every body knew to be untrue, that the galleries were closed. He wished in the most emphatic manner to declare that the circular gallery, instead of being closed, was open to every gentleman who could get a lady to accompany him; and by lady he meant each respectable female in the United States. It might be that some few strangers here would not be sufficiently acquainted in Washington to get ladies to accompany them; those few, he thought, could always be accommodated in the small gallery; but the great mass could easily find female acquaintances, and if they

[ocr errors]

[JAN. 7, 1836.

did not take the trouble to wait on a lady, they might encounter the inconvenience (if any) of the smaller gallery. The point, however, he wished to bring out, was, that his friend from Louisiana, [Mr. PORTER,] Who had introduced the resolution now in force, who had been put forward by the general understanding of the inconveniences of the old rule, and who had since been abandoned by so many, never contemplated by his resolution to shut the galleries against the public. He wished to give that gentleman his support, by assisting him in bearing the brunt in defence of a resolution which was introduced and adopted by general consent of the Senate.

There was one gallery [pointing to the small one] open to every body, and there was the other [pointing to the circular gallery] equally open to all, save those whose limited acquaintance with females prevented them from being accompanied by a lady. Certain he was that there were more who could get ladies willing to accompany them, by hundreds upon hundreds, than the gallery would hold. Were they, then, under these circumstances, to vote so as to admit the fact that the galleries were closed. Were they on an occasion like that to call for testimony. If they did, the doorkeeper would tell them that once already this session hundreds had to go away from that very gallery, because it was already crowded almost to suffocation. He had made these few observations, because he wished to avoid, if possible, the imputation that this gallery had been shut up by the resolution of his friend from Louisiana, [Mr. PORTER;} and he should go with that gentleman in support of the rule as it stood.

Mr. CLAYTON did not consider the adoption of the resolution, or the amendment he had offered, as any attempt at censuring the committee by whom the resolution now in force was proposed for adoption. He had adopted the rule as a matter of experiment, but it had failed. He had observed the gallery into which gentlemen were admitted crowded, while the circular gallery had been occasionally vacant. True, the circular gallery was not directly, but it was virtually, shut against any gentleman, who had come even five hundred miles, who had not a lady under his charge.

The question was then taken on the resolution as amended, and it was adopted: Yeas 31, nays 11, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Black, Brown, Buchanan, Calhoun, Clayton, Crittenden, Davis, Ewing, Goldsborough, Hubbard, Kent, King of Alabama, King of Georgia, Knight, Leigh, McKean, Mangum, Moore, Morris, Niles, Prentiss, Preston, Robbins, Robinson, Shepley, Swift, Tomlinson, Tyler, Wall, Webster, White―31.

NAYS--Messrs. Benton, Grundy, Hendricks, Hill, Linn, Porter, Ruggles, Southard, Tallmadge, Tipton, Wright--11.

The resolution was thereupon adopted in the following form:

"Resolved, That the circular gallery of the Senate be opened for the admission of spectators." On motion of Mr. HENDRICKS, The Senate adjourned.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 7.

SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Mr. MORRIS presented two petitions from Ohio, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.

Mr. CALHOUN demanded that the petitions should be read.

The Secretary having read the petitions,

Mr. CALHOUN demanded the question on receiving them; which was a preliminary question, which any

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

[SENATE.

will, stop these petitions but a prompt and stern rejection of them. We must turn them away from our doors, regardless of what may be done or said. If the issue must be, let it come, and let us meet it, as, I hope, we shall be prepared to do.

Mr. HILL moved to lay the question on the table. Mr. MORRIS asked leave to present other petitions which he had received on the same subject, that they might be all disposed of together.

Mr. PORTER. One at a time.

The CHAIR decided that the petitions under consideration must be first disposed of.

Mr. MORRIS. In presenting these petitions he would say, on the part of the State of Ohio, that she went to the entire extent of the opinions of the Senator from South Carolina on one point. We deny, said he, the power of Congress to legislate concerning local institutions, or to meddle in any way with slavery in any of the States; but we have always entertained the opinion that Congress has primary and exclusive legislation over this District; under this impression, these petitioners have come to the Senate to present their petitions. The doctrine that Congress have no power over the subject of slavery in this District is to me a new one; and it is one that will not meet with credence in the State in which I reside. I believe these petitioners have the the constitution of their country, when they come to ask of Congress to exercise those powers which they can legitimately exercise. I believe they have a right to be heard in their petitions, and that Congress may afterwards dispose of these petitions as in their wisdom they may think proper. Under these impressions, these petitioners come to be heard, and they have a right to be heard. Is not the right of petition a fundamental right? I believe it is a sacred and fundamental right, belonging to the people, to petition Congress for the redress of their grievances. While this right is secured by the constitution, it is incompetent to any legislative body to prescribe how the right is to be exercised, or when, or on what subject; or else this right becomes a mere mockery. If you are to tell the people that they are only to petition on this or that subject, or in this or that manner, the right of petition is but a mockery. It is true we have a right to say that no petition which is couched in disrespectful language shall be received; but I presume there is a sufficient check provided against this in the responsibility under which every Senator presents a petition. Any petition conveyed in such language would always meet with his decided disapprobation. But if we deny the right of the people to petition in this instance, I would ask how far they have the right. While they believe they possess the right, no denial of it by Congress will prevent them from exercising it.

member had a right to make. He demanded it on behalf of the State which he represented; he demanded it, because the petitions were in themselves a foul slander on nearly one half of the States of the Union; he demanded it, because the question involved was one over which neither this nor the House had any power whatever; and that a stop might be put to that agitation which prevailed in so large a section of the country, and which, unless checked, would endanger the existence of the Union. That the petitions just read contained a gross, false, and malicious slander, on eleven States represented on this floor, there was no man who in his heart could deny. This was, in itself, not only good, but the highest cause why these petitions should not be received. Had it not been the practice of the Senate to reject petitions which reflected on any individual member of their body; and should they who were the representatives of sovereign States permit petitions to be brought there, wilfully, maliciously, almost wickedly, slandering so many sovereign States of this Union? | Were the States to be less protected than individual members on that floor? He demanded the question on receiving the petitions, because they asked for what was a violation of the constitution. The question of emancipation exclusively belonged to the several States. Congress had no jurisdiction on the subject, no more in this District than the State of South Carolina: it was a ques-right to present themselves here, placing their feet on tion for the individual State to determine, and not to be touched by Congress. He himself well understood, and the people of his State should, understand, that this was an emancipation movement. Those who have moved in it regard this District as the weak point through which the first movement should be made upon the States. We (said Mr. C.) of the South are bound to resist it. We will meet this question as firmly as if it were the direct question of emancipation in the States. It is a movement which ought to, which must be, arrested, in limine, or the guards of the constitution will give way and be destroyed. He demanded the question on receiving the petitions, because of the agitation which would result from discussing the subject. The danger to be apprehended was from the agitation of the question on that floor. He did not fear those incendiary publications which were circulated abroad, and which could easily be counteracted. But he dreaded the agitation which would rise out of the discussion in Congress on the subject. Every man knew that there existed a body of men in the Northern States who were ready to second any insurrectionary movement of the blacks; and that these men would be on the alert to turn these discussions to their advantage He dreaded the discussion in another sense. It would have a tendency to break asunder this Union. What effect could be brought about by the interference of these petitioners? Could they expect to produce a change of mind in the Southern people? No; the effect would be directly the opposite. The more they were assailed on this point, the more closely would they cling to their institutions. And what would be the effect on the rising generation, but to inspire it with odium against those whose mistaken views and misdirected zeal menaced the peace and security of the Southern States. The effect must be to bring our institutions into odium. As a lover of the Union, he dreaded this discussion; and asked for some decided measure to arrest the course of the evil. There must, there shall be some decided step, or the Southern people never will submit. And how are we to treat the subject? By receiving these petitions one after another, and thus tampering, trifling, sporting with the feelings of the South? No, no, no! The abolitionists well understand the effect of such a course of proceeding. It will give importance to their movements, and accelerate the ends they propose. Nothing can, nothing

[ocr errors]

Mr. MORRIS Concluded by asking that the question be taken by yeas and nays; and they were ordered.

Mr. HILL moved to lay the whole subject on the table, but afterwards remarked that, as he understood this might be considered as a rejection of the petition, he would withdraw his motion.

Cer

Mr. PORTER, of Louisiana, said he could scarcely agree with any thing that had fallen from the honorable Senator from Ohio, [Mr. MORRIS,] save that the petitioners came here with their feet on the constitution. tainly nothing could more forcibly convey an idea of their position. They did come here with their feet on the constitution. But if, instead of placing themselves in that attitude, they had that instrument in their eye, and the great principles on which it was established in their hearts, they would not to-day be found throwing firebrands on this floor. The constitution was established, not merely in spirit, but in letter, in reference to

SENATE.]

Abolition of Slavery.

this great interest of the South. The right to the property which the petitioners sought to impair was solemnly recognised by that instrument; and it was a violation of the compact to seek, either directly or indirectly, to shake the security which the slaveholding States had a right to look for under it. It was melancholy, Mr. P. said, to reflect how soon the wisdom and enlightened policy of the framers of the constitution were forgotten. Fanaticism and ignorance were about to take the place of the knowledge and deep-searching views of human prosperity which enlightened and directed the measures of the fathers of their country; and no one could look at the prospect before him without dismay, if these sinister influences were not removed. It was in vain, Mr. P. said, to disguise the fact; the public mind was becoming morbidly excited in one quarter of the Union on this subject, and most painfully in another. Things have come to such a pass that it behooved all good and patriotic men to consult together, and devise some mode by which an end could be put to the dangerous agitation of this question.

[JAN. 7, 1836.

no more from them. We have lately had a striking example of the influence of such a step on the part of the legislative authority in another country. I allude, said Mr. P., to what has lately occurred in England in regard to an agitation got up there and in Ireland for a repeal of the union between the two islands. It began to take possession of the public mind, and was rapidly spreading, when Parliament at once put an end to it by a solemn declaration, nearly unanimously made, that, under no circumstances whatever, would they consent to the measure. From that day, sir, nothing more has been heard of it; and the great mover of the agitation has given his turbulent passions another direction. What I wish, said Mr. P., is a similar declaration of determined purpose from the American Congress on this question. I do not know any mode in which it can be more significantly expressed than by a decision that no petitions on this matter will be taken into consideration. But, sir, said Mr. P., we are met by an objection from the honorable Senator from Ohio, that we are infringing on the sacred right of petition. No one, sir, values that right more highly than I do, nor would guard it more scrupulously. I hold that the people have a right to petition and to remonstrate on any subject they please. But just as that right is unlimited, and should be free as air, so do I hold the right of those to whom memorials are addressed to sustain or reject them, and that they have perfect freedom to mark their disapprobation of their purpose or tendency. This disapprobation, I hold, sir, may be conveyed by a refusal to consider the petition at all, as well as by a denial of the prayer of it after it is considered. Why go through the mockery of examining that which we have examined fifty times already, and on which we have so often come to a conclusion? I call on any honorable Senator to show the difference between rejecting a petition at once, or refusing its prayer after deliberation--to show me how the first mode of disposing of the demand any more affects or impairs the right of petition than the last. No, sir, said Mr. P., there is no difference. It is only a question of terms, and more or less perfect con

There were, said Mr. P., some who thought this object could be best attained by consigning all appli. cations of this kind to a committee, where they were permitted to sleep, and were soon forgotten. Such, he believed, had been the general, though not the uniform course, and he would willingly suffer these petitions to take the same direction, if experience had shown him that any good resulted from it. But what, said Mr. P., is the fact? Why, that the boldness and illiberality of those who claim the right to interfere with other men's property was increasing by the forbearance which had been exhibited towards them. Year after has the national Legislature, by its votes, told them how unwise it was to agitate this subject. They continue still to agitate it; and each year they increase in audacity. This winter we have seen the protest; yes, Mr. President, the protest of the anti-slavery society against that portion of the President's message which touches on the attempts made to emancipate the slaves at the South! and this protest has been forwarded here by Senators, as a public document from a public body, of which it is im-viction on the subject. portant we should have a knowledge. In this precious document they speak of the purity of their motives, their exemplary lives, and their increasing numbers, and deny to the Chief Magistrate of the Union the right to speak of their incendiary character, unless he gives them, in the first instance, what they call a fair trial! It was clear, therefore, that nothing had been obtained by dealing gently with these people. If any other evidence was wanted of this truth, it would be found in the petition now offered, in which one half of the free citizens of this country are denounced as tyrants, oppressors, and murderers.

Sir, said Mr. P., it is evident, from the tone lately assumed by these people, that they are laboring under the impression that we are afraid to meet this question. They have worked themselves up to the belief that the South is ashamed of its position, and that it seeks to stifle or evade what it dares not defend. It is more than time, said Mr. P., that they should be undeceived. They must be taught at once that, on this subject, we are determined, and will neither take nor give quarter.

He did not, Mr. P. said, know whether any declaration which Congress could make would stop the wicked men who prompted these movements, but he thought it would have a great effect on the honest but misguided persons who were their dupes and their instruments. A clear, decided expression of the determination on this subject of the national Legislature, he could not help thinking, would have a most beneficial influence. The continued efforts of these persons were nourished by the hope of success. Take that away, and we should hear

But it is said, though you may reject at once, you must receive. Sir, said Mr. P., I consider the difference merely verbal. It is a dispute about terms, and wholly overlooks the substance. We must receive it, if it can be called a reception, to learn from it to what subject it relates. But if he who presents it does (as I understand, by the rules of this body, he must do) state what is its object, I hold, sir, that the right exists in the Senate to refuse its consideration. It is only another mode in. which our refusal of the prayer of the petition, and our strong disapprobation of its purport, are more distinctly marked.

And, sir, I shall vote against the reception of this petition, because I am anxious to mark my abhorrence of its purposes, and my irrevocable determination to meet those persons, here and elsewhere, with the most uncompromising opposition. There are subjects, sir, (said Mr. P.,) which we cannot stop to consider at all. If I were to go before the Legislature of any of the free States, and ask of them to dispossess the owners of land within their limits of their inheritance, or acquisition by purchase, because, according to my opinions, all laws which secure exclusive right to property were a violation of the intentions of Providence, who created all things for the use of all men, that the soil they tread should be as free for common use as the air they breathe, would that petition, sir, receive consideration any where? Would any public body consent to receive it for consideration? Would it not be considered the ravings of a maniac, or something worse? Sir, (said Mr. P.,) these are propositions so revolting that we

[blocks in formation]

The

cannot approach them for the purposes of investigation,
and such, I consider, are those contained in the peti-
tion.
There is another objection to receiving this petition.
Sir, the language is most indecorous and insulting to a
large portion of the members of this body. It does not,
indeed, in direct terms, accuse them of being robbers
and tyrants, but, by a strong implication, it does make
that accusation. For if slavery includes all the crimes
which the petition enumerates, these slaveholders must
be criminals. I am clear, (said Mr. P.,) that no men in
this country have a right to come here, and, in the form
of petition, accuse this body or any of its members of
offences against the laws of God or the laws of man. It
is not quite two years, sir, since the Senate refused to
receive a petition which accused a majority of it of vi-
olating the constitution. If (said Mr. P.) I could con-
sent to waive this indignity, so far as I was personally
concerned, the duty I owe to the people whom I have
the honor to represent warns me of the course I ought
to pursue. I never will be so false to the allegiance I
bear to them as to consent to receive any petition
which, speaking of the institutions that prevail among
them as tyrannical, cruel, and murderous, necessarily
charges them with being tyrants and murderers.
accusation, sir, (said Mr. P.,) is as false as it is calumni-
ous. They are neither tyrants nor murderers. They
found relations existing in their country, either at the
time of their birth or of their emigration to it, which they
in no way contributed to establish, and for which they
are not responsible. They feel that they cannot abolish
them without utter ruin to themselves. So circum-
stanced, they have comported themselves in a manner
which gives them no cause to blush. I wish, sir, (said
Mr. P.,) that those who denounce them would visit
their country before they poured out these effusions of
ignorance and malignity. They would find these men
imbued with as lofty and disinterested patriotism as the
world can exhibit, and the love of the union of these
States so entwined with every fibre of their heart as to
constitute, as it were, a part of their being. They
would see women as pure and as gentle as the earth
holds or the sun looks at; and they would behold homes
and hearths consecrated by the practice of every do-
mestic and Christian virtue. Instead of oppression and
tyranny displayed to slaves, they would see kindness
practised to those whom Providence has placed under
the care of the inhabitants of this region; and they
would receive readily at the hands of these very men,
if they were in want or suffering, a full measure of that
charity which they now so cruelly refuse to extend to
them.

Such a people should not, and with God's blessing they shall not, with impunity, be made the objects of vituperation. Year after year have they quietly heard themselves, their wives, and daughters, denounced by miserable wretches who are animated only by a sickly love of notoriety, and who hate the virtues which they cannot practice. Aware of the danger which hangs over our glorious Union by agitating this subject, they have practised forbearance until it has ceased to be a virtue. But I warn our estimable brethren in the non- | slaveholding States that another feeling than that of patient endurance is rising rapidly among the people of the South, and that, unless provocation ceases, no man can contemplate without dismay the point to which that feeling rapidly tends.

Men who think justly, but who have never permitted themselves to enter into our condition, tell us we should treat this matter calmly. But it is not, sir, (said Mr. P.,) in human nature to treat such a matter calmly. How, I ask, would any of our friends feel if associations were formed among them to disturb their quiet, to rob

[SENATE.

them of their property, to wrap their dwellings in flames, and to deliver their untainted wives and daughters to the lust of brutal slaves? I venture to say, sir, they would feel quite as strongly as we do, and I also venture to assert that their indignation would not be the least diminished on being told that no such enormities were contemplated by their assailants. Whatever they might think of their motives, they would look to the tendency of the means employed against them.

There was another reason (Mr. P. said) why he would not receive the petition. It was a wanton attack on the right of property of the slaveholders of this District. It surely (said Mr. P.) can require no time or deliberation to enable us to decide whether A has a right to take what belongs to B, because A does not wish B should hold such property.

Mr. P. said he had insensibly, and contrary to his intention, been drawn somewhat from the argument which strictly belonged to the question. The subject was pregnant with observation, which at this moment he refrained from making. He firmly asserted, because he honestly believed, that so far the domestic institutions of the South had worked no injury either to the white man or the black; and, if the occasion was a proper one, he thought he could demonstrate that he was not in error. He thought, too, he knew the motives of the abolitionists, and he believed he saw the plan by which they hoped to accomplish their objects. They had taken for their model men in another hemisphere, and they imagined that the same success, by the use of the same means, awaited their efforts, which had followed those of the persons they imitated. He could, however, inform them that, in this case, they counted without their host. They had left out of their calculation an important element, which was, that in this country they had to convince not others of the impropriety of slavery, but the slaveholders themselves. I have no doubt (said Mr. P.) but they can find many and ready converts in those who look at the institution from a distance, and have no interest in the question save that which may be derived from the wish to carry out their abstract opinions. But they never did, they never will, convince any man who lives amidst these institutions, who sees their practical operation, and whose rights, social and political, are involved in their existence. They might, if their heated zeal gave the smallest chance for any exercise of their judgment, learn, from what took place in other countries, how vain and futile all their efforts must be. For twenty-five years this subject was the matter of debate in Great Britain. Year after year the halls of its Legislature rung with the sounds of eloquence which has never been surpassed. Constant appeals were made through the press during the same time, and the preachers in the pulpit aided to extend and enforce the delusion. What was the consequence? The end of a quarter of a century's discussion left the slaveholder in the West Indies just where it found him-left him totally unconvinced either of the justice or the practicability of the measure. And if the decision of the question had been left to him, he would have so remained to the end of time. I think the agitators here should take warning by this example. They can never accomplish their object. He knows little of human nature who expects it. They may (said Mr. P.) excite partial insurrections, render the condition of the slave worse, alienate the affections of their Southern brethren, and endanger our Union. But all, and ten times more, will only tend to perpetuate that condition of society which they seek to change.

Mr. PRESTON. I must confess that I am somewhat surprised at the introduction of petitions of this character, after the occurrences of the last summer, which must naturally have made the Southern people extreme

« AnteriorContinuar »