Invasion of Harper's Ferry-- dangers and duties of the South
Clay, C. C | Clay, C. C. (Clement Claiborne), 1816-1882
+s UR MNI Ss, VM es <A j Re “ £9 ‘t f | it Ky / INVASION OF HARPER’S FERRY--DANGERS AND DUTIES ° OF THE SOUTH. ' 1; — - ane 2 ) 3 3 > 2990 ? a*, ; .. a wy. ram) = Ae >? - « »? > »? » « 1» P52 , m Ls ° 34? »,? 2, , .. ee, , Wire ? és . OF SENATORS CLAY OF ALABAMA, GWIN Ol’ CALIFORNIA, AND OTHERS, : ra rELIVERED Die AT. de WO - rt; es ; js i J / , IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 13, 1859. The Senate resumed the consideration of the following resolution, submitted by Mr. Mason, | on the 5th of December: Resolved, Thata committee be appointed to inquire into the facts attending the late invasion,and seizure of the arm- ory and arsenal of the United States at Harper’s Ferry, in Virginia, by a band of armed men, and report whether the Same was attended by armed resistance to the authorities and public force of the United States, and by the murder of any of the citizens of Virginia, or of any troops sent there’to protect the public property ; whether such invasion and seizure was made under color of any organization intended-to subvert the government of any of the States of the Union; what was the character and extent of such or- ganization ; and whether any citizens of the United States, not present, were implicated therein or accessory thereto by contributions of money, arms, munitions, or otherwise ; What was the character and extent of the military equip- ment in the hands, or under the control, of said armed band, and where and how and when the same was obtained and transported to the place so invaded. And that said com- mittee report whether any and what legislation may, in their @pinion, be necessary, on the part of the United States, - for the future preservation of the peace of the country, or for the safety of the public property; and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers. ‘Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. Doo.irrxe,] in the remarks which he submitted to the Senate the other day, used this language: **T agree, Mi. President, that the time has come when we should understand each other, and understand each other fully and distinctly; when there should be no con- ecealments, when we should make a clean breast of the whole matter, and learn how we stand upon this floor.’? In that sentiment I fully and cordially concur; and, to ascertain where we stand, reluctantly rise this morning with the purpose of addressing the Senate, in the spirit of courtesy and of candor. I wish to know how we stand, and, endeavoring to suppress any feeling of bitterness or of indigna- ‘\. * tion, which recent events and some of the debate in this Senate might justly excite in any southern \breast, shall, at the same time, speak with frank- ness, impartiality, and truth. I trust that I shall be heard with patience, and be answered with frankness, for I wish to know where we stand. _ Northern Senators, on the other side of the Chamber, profess to respect, and declare that they will observe and maintain, all the constitutional rights of the South. If you be sincere in this dec- laration, if your party intend to‘keep this pledge, | there is no cause of difference between us, and we may remain, until the final trump shall sound, brethren and equals in this Confederacy. But pardon me if I mistrust your pledges. While you may.think that such is the spirit and such the tendency of the principles and sentiments which you avow, we regard them in a far different light. I think that the manner and tone of this debate negatives this profession of friendship and fellow- pin, of respect and regard for our constitutional rights. What have we heard‘upon this floor? Ope Senator treats the late murderous foray upon Vir- ginia with a levity which would be insulting to us if it came from any other than one who seems to regard all things asa joke, and who probably will die, like Rabelais, with a jest upon his lips, and never realize the responsibilities of life or of death until he is called to judgment. Another ridicules the cowardice, the weakness, the impotence of the South in suffering a handful of men to seize the arsenal, and todefy a town of fifteen hundred or more inhabitants. Another entertains us with his newly-discovered revelations of the opinions of” Washington, Jefferson, and other fathers of the Union, and framers of the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the Federal Constitution, disap- proving of slavery. Another endeavors to exeite- domestic dissension and discord withm our own ranks in the South, by appealing to non-slave-. holders to come up to the sHDRat of the Repub-- lican party, professing to vindicate their rights, ‘and to rescue them from the curse of slavery and the oppression of slaveholders; thus striving to scatter dragon’s teeth over the plains. of the South,. in the hope, it would seem, that there will spring up armed men ready to destroy our domestic in-- stitutions, to desolate our fields, and to drench our hearthstones in fraternal blood,. Others, with frightful manner, and with fierceand brave words,. threaten us with coercion if we refuse to submit to their authority, no matter however tyrannical,. unconstitutional, and oppressive. These are the evidences of fraternal affection and of respect for the South which you tender! Mr. President, Wendell Phillips has said, I think truly said—speaking of  ee ? a ¢ cy 7 7 w OF fog f rj [z j } ‘ Ud ¢ Cone otc ¢ Co cre AAA A ~ c c é ou ce x c « - « ce , ¢T . “— . P \ 7 . 7 - } OE eee eee Oooew—aoaoa&an>nca=a=s le oot Virginia—thai ** it is the natura) result of anti- slavery.teqgching. For one, I accept it; I expected ee Pedipiré his courage and hiscendbr., «Like avother coysair, he shuns KO, question, & d “he wears no mask. He speaks his whole mihd} and the real feeling of his heart.. He indulges in no diplomatic or Delphic language, but speaks in lain Anglo-Saxon what he thinks and feels; and for this I applaud him and approve his conduct. I may claimysomewhat of prophetic ken for an opinion expressed on this floor, now near four years since. I said that the natural and necessary result of the anti-slavery teachings of the Repub- lican party \was civil strife and bloodshed, and that it would occur if that party prevailed in the North. I spoke it under a solemn sense of re- sponsibility to my State and to the Union. 1 believed it. My opinions have proven proph- ecies, and have been realized at Harper’s Ferry, How could it be otherwise? I submit to Senators whether they ought to expect to teach’ their con- stituencies to hate slaveholding and. slavehold- ers, and yet to restrain them from any violation of our rights? When you teach them that slavery is a crime against man anda sin in the eyes of Heaven, and has no guarantee in the Federal Con- stitution, how can you expect men to respect our rights or to refrain from acts of violence and of injury? The principles you profess, the senti- ments you avow, the very platform read in our hearing, bind you, as honest men, to exert every means within your power to abolish slavery, not only within exclusive Federal jurisdiction, but within the States in which it exists. Governor Chase, of Ohio, expressed to a citizen of my State and a resident of the town in which I live, what 1 do sincerely believe is the general sentiment of the Republican party. The ‘Rev. William D. Chadick, a gentleman, a scholar, and a Christian, the presiding pastor of a Presbyte- rian. church in my town, who never desecrated the pulpit by political discourses, but has proven himself a man of pure piety and peace, says, in a letter to an editor of a newspaper in that town, that, in'a conversation with Governor Chase, during the winter of 1857, at Cincinnati, where he had: gone to ascertain where he could colonize some forty or more slaves manumitted by a cit- izen of Alabama, that Governor Chase closed his remarks by saying with emphasis, that— ““6¢ For his part, he would rather never see another free negro set his foot upon Ohio soil.’ I asked his reason. ‘ Because,’ said he, ‘their moral influence is degrading.’ I then remarked, that it appeared to me a glaring incon- sistency in him and others in Ohio, to love our southern slaves so much as to desire their freedom and clamor for their emancipation, and yet hate them so much as to be. unwilling, to allow them a home in their own State; es- pecially so, since, by the existing laws in the slave States, the negro cannot be liberated and remain where he is. He replied: ‘I do not wish the slave emancipated because I love him, but beeause I hate his master—I hate slavery—I hate a man that will own. a slave.’ ”’ Such, Mr. President, I sincerely believe is the . common sentiment of the Republican party; such has been, substantially, the language of other Senators who have sat upon this floor, or, at least, the sentiment avowed by them. I do not doubt that Governor Chase said it, because I know Mr. Chadick to be a man above suspicion and without réproach, who never violates the com- mandments or dishonors the cause of the Prince . of Peace, whom he professes to follow. And yet I will say that, from my acquaintance with Gov- ernor Chase, while he was a Senator upon this floor, I was persuaded that he was among the last men of that party who would entertain feel- ings so rancorous, or indulge in their expression in such decided and bitter terms; for he is a scholar of highly cultivated intellect and refin feelings, whose deportment here was that of an affable, amiable, and philanthropic man. His colleague, in former) days, who now sits upon |this floor, has uttered ‘substantially the same sentiment, | Mr. WADE. Does the Senator refer to me? Mr. CLAY. I do refer to you, sir. The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Ohio? Mr. CLAY. I will, most assuredly., Mr. WADE. I only wish the Senator to give my language, and the time and place when such a sentiment was uttered, that is all. I think he is mistaken about it. Mr. CLAY... I will do so. If the Senator is not misreported in a speech delivered in the State of Maine, in the summer of 1855, he declared that the North and the South hated each other-as cor- dially as the English and the Russians. I do not pretend to quote his exact language, but I did so in his presence in 1856, and he did not ques- tion the correctness of my recital. His sentiment was that as cordial hatred existed between the North and the South as between the English and the Russians, who were then carrying on war in the Crimea against each other. The same sentiment has been often avowed in different language, by the distinguished Senator from New York, [Mr. Szwarp,] not now in his seat; and I feel no compunction or hesitation in referring to his remarks or criticising them, be- cause I have done so in his presence, and he did not deny the correctness of my quotation or dis sent from the construction which I placed on his language. He has denounced, throughout the State of New York, the slaveholders of this coun- try, in language not so coarse but quite as, harsh as that used by the Senator from Ohio who sits before me. ‘The Senator from Ohio has charac- terized us as Vandals who had stolen northern rights. A Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sum- NER] denounced us as robbers, and declared that— “There is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly involved in’the support of sla- very.” ‘ The Senator from Ohio declared, that— ‘¢ Slavery, founded in violence, must always be aggres- sive; and the moment it ceases to be aggressive, it ceases to be at all. That is its very life; its being is outrage,” The Senator from New York denounced us as a ‘*perfidious privileged class,”’ and charged us with fraud, perfidy, and dishonor.. Now, sir, I could multiply quotations of sim- ilar sentiments from others who sit on this floor, or have sat here, and from distinguished Repre- sentatives of that party in the other end of this _ Capitol. But we are told that these men do not express the sentiments of the Republican party, and the Senator from Illinois [Mr. 'Trumput1]} denies that they have the right to speak for that party. These sentiments were uttered previous to the elections of these distinguished men to the Senate of the United States -or to the House of Representatives; and do they think we are so fa oe stupid, and so ignorant of the character of our in- stitutions, as to be persuaded that those elected to high offices do not reflect the feelings and opin- . lons of the electors? yin this country, office-holders are generally the expositomws and advocates of principles and senti- ments which they know are congenial to the minds and hearts of the people who elect them. Hence I presume that those men spoke what the party whom they represent thought and felt; and therefore say that the Republican party cordially hate slaveholding and slaveholders. In saying this I intend no personal disrespe@t. I hate crime and criminals, acknowledge no fellowship with those who commit a felon’s acts and deserve a felon’s fate, and do not feel that apology is due to anybody for this declaration. Itis notincumbent upon those who regard slaveholding as a crime and slaveholders as criminals, to offer any apology or endeavor to excuse themselves for their hatred of us and avowal of it before the world. I might quote, from northern Republicans, ex- pressions of hatred, abhorrence, and loathing of us, until the list stretched to the length of the calendar of saints, but will forbear, because this is not pleasant to me, and may‘not be instructive or entertaining to the other side of the Senate, who doubtless have heard, and know much more, than any southern man can tell. ut your hatred for our institutions and for us is disclosed in the very platform which was. jeer- ingly read in our hearing by the Senator from Ilnois, in which you denounce slavery as a ‘twin relic of barbarism”’ with polygamy. Po- lygamy is not only in your and our estimation an unchristian, heathenish, and barbarous prac- tice, but a violation of the revealed will of God, of natural law, and of the rights, interests, and duties of humanity. It is not merely a sin, but is, also, acrime. Your laws and our laws, and the laws of all Christian States, punish it as a crime. You denounce slavery equally as a sin and a crime, and would, no doubt, proscribe and punish it if you had the power. Furthermore, your platform declares that. the negro is entitled to liberty and equality with the white man in social and political nghts. Do I misinterpret it? If so, correct me. I so under- stand it, and many of your northern States illus- trate it in their acts of legislation. In the State of Massachusetts, for instance, you accord the negro the elective franchise, enroll him in the mili- tia, and admit him to every other civil and polit- ical right which the white man can enjoy—ay, you grant him even by law the privilege of inter- marriage with the white race. Does the Senator “from Massachusetts [Mr. Witson] condemn,this? Will he say, in the presence of the American Senate, that his Legislature has erred, or that his party has, in conferring on the negro all the civil rights, privileges, and immunities of the white man, especially in authorizing amalgamation by intermarriage? If so, I will with pleasure yield him the floor. He declines to do it; and hence it must be inferred that he approves the entire equality, maintained by the statutes of his State, between the negro and the white races, even to the extent of commingling their blood by lawful marriage. The State of New Hampshire is but little, if any, behind Massachusetts, and I should propound similar questions to her representatives aa a a if they were present. Indeed, there are, if I am not misinformed, but few of the northern States in which you have not, by special legislation, ad- mitted the negro to all, or nearly all, the rights and privileges of the white man. Therefore, I repeat, that you maintain by your platform, and illustrate by your legislation, your belief that the negro,is the equal of the white man in social and political rights, and that all dispar- aging distinctions by legal enactment between the two should be obliterated. Youthusmakea chasm between the North and the South so deep and wide that it can never be filled up or bridged over You cannot pass it without sacrificing your prin- ciples or denying your faith. We cannot pass it without denying our faith and sacrificing our coun- try. Hence, we can never stand together. Hence, we can never submit to your domination until we are prepared to pass beneath the yoke, and sur- render all that.is dear to us in the present or in the futtire. You show your hatred of slaveholding and ef slaveholders, in other ways, by your non-action of legislation as wellas by youraction. For twenty- five years past, our negroes have been stolen or robbed from us, either by individuals or by organ- ized bands of predatory northern invaders. ‘Tell me, northern Senators, what non-slaveholdin State has ever, by any act of legislation, provide for the punishment of these depredations upon our property, or for the suppression and prevention of such offenses? Is thereone? If there be one, I should be glad to hearit. My friend on my right [Mr. Green] says that the State of Illinois did it; but I ask him whether it was not the act of a Democratic Legislature ? Mr. GREEN. Yes. Mr. CLAY. I knew it must be. Mr. GWIN. I will state to the Senator from Alabama that California, year after year, has passed a fugitive slave law—a local law. Mr. CLAY. [repeat to my friend the same uestion: Was it not the act of a Democratic egislature? Mr. GWIN.. Of course it was, for we never have any other, Mr. CLAY. Of course it was; but nowhere, in any non-slaveholding State of this Union, ex- cept where the Democratic party have prevailed, and while they have controlled legislation, has any act been a to suppress the thieving and robbery which have been carried on upon the slave property of the South. Thus, you have counte- nanced the robbery of our property and violation of our rights; you have encouraged it by aid non-action. In vain we have complained; we have remonstrated; we have invoked you, as brethren, living under a common Constitution, in the bond of a common Union, and professedly devoted to the same common destiny, to discharge your sol- emn obligations—obligations devolved on you by the comity of confederate friendly States—de- volved on you by the solemn injunctions of the Federal Constitution—obligations which you are adjured by asolemn oath to carry outand maintain. Suppose I paused here and went no further, Des not truly say that the sentiment of Gov- ernor Chase is illustrated by the practice of the, party to which you belong? Where is the Sena- tor of the Republican party , who, in his place, will | get up and say that he thinks it is the duty of the 4 pe Legislature of the State which he represents, by legislation, to prevent these predatory incursions into southern States, and the kidnapping, steal- ing, and running off of our slaves? Where is one who condemns it, and will say that his State ought to suppress these unfriendly and- hostile acts? [pause fora reply..-Notone. All would encourage these depredatialig upon our property, atleast by non-action. All admit, by their silence, that their Legislatures are right to discountenance, to discourage, and to destroy that institution, as far as they dare do. But your Legislatures have not been content, by inaction, to countenance these depredations upon our rights and our property. You have actually encouraged them by positive legislation. The State of Massachusetts, under Republican admin- istration, has passed an act for the purpose of nullifying the fugitive slave law. She disfranchises the lawyer who there appears for the claimant of a fugitive slave. She threatens the judge who dares try any such cause with impeachment. She punishes ignominiously, as well as by fine, the ' jailor or other officer who assists in the seizure or the restoration of a fugitive slave. She menaces with ignominious punishment all ministerial or military officers who aid in enforcing that law. No doubt she does it with the approbation of the Senators from Massachusetts. If not, let them now speak. It is not denied, and I take it for granted that they approve of this legislation. Well, similar acts bine been passed in New Hamp- shire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, New York, Michigan, Wisconsin, and, doubtless, in other States whose legislation I have not had time to review. All of those have nullified, so far as they could do, the fugitive slave law of 1850, and have provided for punishing as a crime the execution, or aiding or abetting in the execution, of that act. Will not one Senator from either of those States declare, in the presence of the American Senate, and, proclaim to the American people, his disap- proval of those acts? Will none here admit that they are, as they certainly are, gross infractions of the Federal Constitution and inexcusable abuses of rights solemnly guarantied by that instrument to the South? I pause for a reply. Not one! And yet you proclaim in our hearing, boldly, and with apparent frankness and sincerity, that your party tries and intends to observe and maintain all the constitutional rights of the South.’ Can ou make us believe it in the face of these acts? o you think you can persuade us to credit your assertions, when I ask you here to condemn, to disapprove, in any terms you may please, these acts of your Legislatures, and you sit mute, and, by your silence, acknowledge that they express your principles and your sentiments? Where is the Senator on that side of the Chamber, who, if summoned by a legally authorized officer of the Government, either State or Federal, to assist in the recapture or the rendition of a fugitive slave, would do so? I venture to say there 1s not one— ‘notone. Yea, your Legislatures have gone even further. The Legislature of Michigan has made it a penal offense to carry a slave within the limits of that State, and I believe the same is true of the State of New Hampshire. Yet the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Cuanp.Er,] the other day, pro- tested that he was in favor of observing all the obligations of the Federal Constitution. I ask him to say whether he condemns the action of the arty to which he belongs in the Legislature of ichigan, within a few years past, by which they have nullified the fugitive slave act and rendered - it a penal offense to carry a slave even within the limits of the State. He says nothing. Me admits, by his silence, his approbation of this legislation. The Senator from Wisconsin tells us, speaking for his,party, that: ‘¢ As I understand it, we stand here as equals and breth- ren, the representatives of equal and sovereign States, bound to maintain the Government of the United States, the Constitution ofthe United States, and the laws of t United States which are enacted in pursuance of the Con- stitution. As individual members of the Senate, we are bound, by our oath to the Constitution of the United States, to maintain that Constitution, and to maintain the laws which are enacted in pursuance of it, and to maintain them at all hazards and against all enemies, no matter whether they come from abroad or whether they exist at home,” And, notwithstanding I show him that the mem- bers of his party are the enemies of that Consti- tution, and the violators of the laws of the United States—that they have violated them under the solenm adjuration of an oath to support them, by their legislation—he, by his silence, approves these violations. He does not dare get up and rebuke his party. He does not dare, with all his pro- fessed devotion to the Union and the Constitution, to raise his voice in their behalf. Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President : The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Alabama yield? Mr. CLAY. Certainly. Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desire not to enter now into a discussion of the question, but simply to state to the honorable Senator from Alabama that the Constitution of the United States, construed properly, gives to the Congress of the United States no power to pass a fugitive slave law. The Constitution of the United States simply inhibits the States from discharging from service the fugi- tive who may be held by the laws of the State from which he escapes. I shall not now enter into the discussion; but at a proper time and ona proper occasion, I am willing to do so. Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, I shall enter into no constitutional argument with the Senator respect- ing the fugitive slave act of 1850, or that of 1793; but his Legislature has never passed any act for the renditién of fugitive slaves, and will the Sen- ator say here that he would advise his Legislature, in the absence of any congressional legislation upon the subject, to pass a law for the punish- ment of stealing or robbery of our negroes, and pronase. for their rendition? Would he advise is party and the people of the State he repre- sents, to pass such an act? He, too, is silent. He would not do it. What a bare’ mockery of our rights, what a sheer pretense of regard for your constitutional obligations, to tell us that you will violate the fugitive slave law because you do not regard it as constitutional, and yet, at the same time, admit that you will pass no act by your State Legislatures to maintain that Constitution and to vindicate our rights, solemnly guarantied Oy aa fathers and ours in that instrument! hus I show that, by your avowed sentiments, by your professed principles, and by the acts of your party, wherever you have obtained power within your States, you evince your hatred of siaveWol dias and slaveholders. Why should you get up and express your abhorrence of the crime 5 of John Brown? Why should you endeavor to exculpate your party from any complicity, either in act or in intention or in principle, with John Brown, when, on the platform which you flaunt in bitter mockery and raillery in our faces, you denounce the institution of slavery as a crime de- serving the execration ofall Christian and civilized ople? Would you receive Brigham Young and is followers as your equals in social life? Do you think that he is entitled even to the civilities and courtesies that are due between gentlemen? You cannot say that you do; and yet you damn us to everlasting infamy, together with him, by your platform, which you avow is the exponent of the principles of your party. They know that he is not their equal by nature, and was not made or declared their equal by the Constitution of the United States. They believe that slavery is the normal condition of the negro. They have unanswerable reasons for that belief. The history of the aboriginal negro in Africa, of the freed negro in the West Indies, in Liberia, in your own States, as well as in ours, attests the correctness of this opinion. Look at your own statistics; look at the records of your poor-houses and prison-houses, and what do they establish ? | That free-negrodom is the synonym of poverty, destitution, pauperism, viclousness, crime, dis- ease, and death! . lvrepeat, the root of the evil is your assertion | of the equality of the negro with the white man. The fruits of it are your platform pledge to pro- hibitslavery inthe Territories of the United States. You promise to go no further in your platform; but the logical and necessary sequence of that pledge and the principles you avow is to prohibit slavery wherever the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction—whenever you get the power. There is not a Senator, except, perhaps, the Senator from Illinois, who spoke the other day ,who belongs to the Republican party ,who will say here;in our presence, thatif he had the power in both Houses of Congress, and by the aid of the chief executive of his party, he would not favor passing an act abolishing slavery in the Territo- ries, if it existed there, and prohibiting slaver in ‘all the Territories of the United States. If there is one, lethimnow speak. Not one of you but is pledged by your platform to prohibit and ! abolish slavery in all the Territories of the United | | States. Such was your avowed purpose in the canvass of 1856; and such is your purpose this day, although you may not avow it. You pro- claim that it is not only the right, but that it is the duty of Congress, to prohibit in the Territo- ries ‘those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.’? Now,I submit, if you feel bound by your respect for the laws of God, which are violated, as you allege, by the institution of sla- very, by your respect for the Federal Constitu- tion, which A swore to support—the primary object and ulterior design of which you say was to secure liberty to all men within exclusive Fed- eral jurisdiction—how can you escape the obliga- tion, or neglect your duty to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, whenever you can get the power?) Many of you have declared a purpose to do so; and your great leader, Mr. Szwarp, has once offered a bill to carry out that purpose. Is there one of you who will say that Congress possesses greater power over the Territories of the United States than over the District of Co- lumbia? Not one, I presume. Why are you not equally pledged to abolish it in all the forts,. arsenals, dockyards—wherever the Federal flag floats and excludes State jurisdiction? If faithful to the peas ou profess, if you would carry them out to their logical and necessary result, you must doit. How could you, in view of this plat- form, give any countenance or protection to slavery upon the high seas? Suppose a vessel filled with negroes from the port of Charleston should sail for the port of Galveston, in Texas, and it should be seized by a British or French man-of-war, and all the slaves should be confis- cated, is there one of you who would, as a last resort, redress our wrongs by war? Is there one who would be willing even to claim and insist on recompense for our property through our foreign minister at either of those courts? I pause for a reply. Not one! We have instances to attest that your party will not seek indemnity for our losses of such property anywhere, of any State or nation, under any circumstances. Well, Senators, what does, this all illustrate and evidence? That the declaration of Goyernor Chase is a frank though perhaps impolitic avowal of the common sentiment of your party, that you | hate slaveholding and slaveholders, and that so intense and bitter is your hatred that you will not observe the solemn obligations of the Constitu- tion to protect their property and maintain their constitutional rights. Then, if your party obtain power, and you can control the legislation of this Government by a dominant majority in the House of Representatives and Senate, and by a chief executive officer, what are we of the South to expect? Why, that you will pronounce sentence of outlawry against slaveholders wherever they zo beyond the limits of the slaveholding States; that if they dare venture upon the high seas, in a non-slaveholding State, in the Territories, in the District of Columbia, in any fort, arsenal, or dock- yard in the United States, it must be at the peril of their property and their lives. You condemn them to eternal quarantine within the limits of the slaveholding States. And what is your pur-_ pose in doing this? The Senator from Vermont, [Mr. iantaeene whom I respect for his intelligence, his persona integrity, and his high bearing, avowed what that 6 Le TTR TSE STEERER ST TESS SSS SAS ASRS STENT EAT FIESTA TESTES SNES EE ere purpose is—and it has been declared by other Sen- ators of your party—when he said that the policy of the northern people, in inhibiting the spread of slavery in the Territories, was its ultimate exter- mination. To quote his exact language, he said the northern people believe *‘ that the more it is circumscribed the less is it productive, and the sooner will be emancipation.’’ Then, forewarned as we are that the purpose of your party is the ultimate extermination of slavery Mr. COLLAMER. Will the gentleman allow me to interrupt him? Mr. CLAY. Certainly. Mr. COLLAMER. f take it the gentleman understands, from the very terms which he has fia as being mine, that emancipation would be e act of the southern people themselves. Mr. CLAY. Exactly. Mr. COLLAMER. Not that we desire emanci- pation in any other way than by the act of the peo- ple who are themselves the owners of the slaves. Mr. CLAY. Iread what the Senator said. Now, the Senator disclaims, and I believe he honestly and sincerely disclaims for himself, any purpose to assail that institution within the States y an attempt to abolish slavery by congressional act. LIacquit him of any such purpose as that. Mr.COLLAMER. Itcertainly implies nothing of that kind—nothing but emancipation by the masters themselves, like manumission, sending it from the hand. ; Mr. CLAY. But the idea announced by the Senator, and expressed in the speech from which i have quoted, is that if you will circumscribe slavery and confine it within narrow limits, by the increase of that people the time must soon arrive when they will cease to be a source of profit to the master, and when they will be a tax upon him; and he will, therefore, be constrained, in self- defense, to emancipate his slaves. That is their mode of achieving thesame object whichis avowed by the Abolitionists, and the only difference be- tween-them is in the manner of the act. Both have the same will and purpose. The one goes to it directly by trampling on the Constitution, and by exerting all the powers of the Federal Gov- ernment to effect it; the other proposes only to abuse and pervert those Federal powers, by ex- cluding us from the Territories of the Teed States, and thereby indirectly accomplish what your radical Abolitionist would do directly and undisguisedly. There are men, I rejoice to say, within your own limits, not only of the Democratic party of the North, but of the old Whig party, who appreci- ate our rights, who esteem our virtues, who re- spect our honor, more than you profess to do. Millard Fillmore was one, and he spoke, | trust, the sentiment of the freemen of the South when he said that we would never submit to be governed by a Republican President, elected by a sectional majority. Said he, in his Albany speech, in 1856: ** Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a: measure can have seriously reflected upon the conse- quences which must inevitably follow in case of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate ??? I rise here to indulge in no menace. We have been menaced, during this Congress and often before, by members of your party, with the halter and the hangman, if we dare resist your author- ity and refuse to submit to subjugation. I know that those who are foremost to threaten are gen- erally hindmost to execute. I never have uttered, and never will utter, any menace. I make no pre- dictions, no promise for my State; but, in con- clusion, will only say, that if she is faithful to the pledges she has made and principles she has professed; if she is true to her own interest and her own honor; if she is not recreant to all that State pride, integrity, and duty demands, she will never submit to your authority. I will add, that unless she, and all the southern States of this Union, with, perhaps, but two, or at most, three exceptions, are not faithless to the pledges they have given, they will never submit to the govern-. ment of a President professing your political faith and elected by your sectional majority. You re- member that, after the adoption of the compromise measures, in 1850, Georgia led the van in declar- ing that, upon the happening of either of certain events, she would disrupt the ties that bind her to the Union. Those contingencies were the re- fusal to admit a State into this Union because it was slaveholding, or recognized the right to hold slaves; any repeal or modification of the fugitive slave law; any attempt to abolish the inter-State slave trade; any prohibition of slavery in the Ter- ritories of the United States, or the abolition of slavery in this District, or any place subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. Every southern State but two, or at most three, by the unanimous resolve of their Legislatures, the unanimous re- solve of State conventions, both Democratic and Whig, and, latterly, American, have pledged themselves to maintain those resolutions, and to 7 enh tn ert in a a RCE A Rh ABR oR el SRR ei Gf SSR oocyte nearer eee i tha EE SE ES dissolve this Union,ifthey possess the power,upon | sentiment and determination the happening of either of these contingencies. i of a vast majority of the inhabitants of the slaveholding States now, » Now, I submit whether there wouldnotbe much | but that it will be nearly a unanimous sentiment stronger cause, on the part of the southern peo- || in the event of such an election, and that it will ple, forseparation, upon the election of a President. 