University of South Carolina Libraries
saml w. melton^ e?or^ J Independent. Journal: For the Promotion of the Political, Social, Agricultural and Commercial Interests of the South. |?2 pee ahbitm, nr advahce VOU,. 4=. YOBKVILLE, S. C., THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 1858. ]STO. 45. JjuIitioJ. SPEECH OP HON, JAS. 1. HAMMOND, Delivered at Barnwell, Court* House, S. C., October 27 th, 1858. I thank you very sincerely for this kind and cordial reception. To stand here and speak to the people of Barnwell reminds me of times gone by. I have done it, I believe, but once in twenty years. But those were stirring times when a quarter of a century ago, I so often spoke to you here of the Constitution and the Union?of your rights and wrongs in this Confederacy. No, not to you, but to your fathers. Iam, indeed, happy to recognize in this assemblage many who were aotors in those scenes, but many, many more have been summoned henee; while yon have grown up to supply their places. The gallant spirits who then surrounded me here, and whose kindling eyes and heavtDg besoms animated and responded to my speech, have * *- tWa rnnaf nnrt nassfid awav. but the theme AW? Miywv Y"m - |" ^ , is still thd same; and it is my part to-day? adhering with unchanged convictions and unabated zeal to every principle I then maintained, to discourse upon the same great topics. Oar battle then was for the Constitution and our Rights, in the Union, if possible,?out of it, if need be. And this is our battle now. The lapse of thirty years has brought much experience to the survivors of those who enlisted for this great cause in South Carolina. The veil of what was then the future?a future covered with angry clouds and doubt and darkness has been removed, and looking back, we now sec the events of long years whioh were unknown to us. The hard fought fields, our chequered fortunes, our victories, our defeats, the dead, the living all then deep buried in the womb of Time, are now all clear and palpable. And to those of as who have been spared to make this retrospect, it is a proud satisfaction to know, (bat time and events have proved that our principles wore true and our cause just; to recognizo the unflinching courage and overpowering ability with which they have been so long maintained; and to feel renewed assumnce that they must finally and fully triumph. Your fathers confided in me from the first moment that we met upon this spot. They took me in their arms and lifted me into all the high places that were within their reach, and I have had man} proofs that they taught YOU to confide jq me as they had done. For this great and geneious and abiding eontidence and trust, I never koew but one reason ; and that was that I always told them the truth according to ray best knowledge sod belief. And as I dealt with them, 1 shall deal with you. The last Legislature of the State conferred on me the high honor of a seat in the Senate of the United States, and during the late stormy session of Congress, I in part, representfd you there. Yog will expect me to give yon some account of the proceedings there, and most especially of those which occupied four-fifths of the time of the Session and produced such great excitement throughout the country. I allude to the j&aqgae (jqestioq. And as no exception has been taken, so fur as 1 know, to auy act of of mine, save my course on that, I will take this occasion to give my views in foil upon it. When four years ago, the Kansas and NeD rack a act was passed, giving Governments to those Territories, I was, like most of you, a private citizen. I was earnestly engaged in renovating old lands and creating new ont of morasses hitherto impenetrable, and I had as little desire or expectation of ever again taking part in public affairs, as the least ambitions of any of you here present. I made up my mind thsq that this Bill was fraught with trouble and delusion to the South, and so expressed myself on all suitable occasions. The Bill had two leading features in it.? It enacted that every Territory in forming its Constitution for the purpose of applying for admission into the Union, should have the right to establish its own orgauic or constitutional laws and come in with itsown Institutions, with the single condition that thej should be Republican. Why, unless out Constitution is mere waste paper, all our institutions shams, and our theory of self-government a fallacy, this principle and privilege is their essence; lies at the bottom of the whole, and constitutes the corner stone. It is the very right for which our fathers fought and made a revolution. I might not o o havo refused tc re-affirm it?but it was supererogatory ; it might well weaken the whole structure, to dig up, for the purpose o! verification, its foundation. , The other feature of the Bill was the re peal of the Missouri Compromise Line. Tha was already repealed. It had long fulfillec its mission. It had calmed the troublec waters for a time. It was obsolete until th< annexation of Texas, when we acceded t< the demand to extend it through the North ern deserts of that State. But when Cali fornia came?California that should hav< been, and may yet be, a slave State?and w< demanded to extend that line to the Pacific tqd thus secure for the South a portion o the magnificent territory purchased in par ' by her blood and treasure, it was refused Then that line was blotted out everywbcr and forever. To repeal it was a mere form ality. The Supreme Court has recently pro nounced it unconstitutional, and so the re peal was, in n5 respect, of any importance But this Bil' with these new features neither of th,sm of practical importance magnified and exaggerated by orators am newspapers into a great Southern victory led the South into the delusion that Kansa might be made a slave State, and induced i to join in a false and useless issue, whicl has kept the whole country in turmoil fo the last four years, and gave fresh life am vigor to the Abolition party. Through the most disgusting, as well a: tragic scenes of force and fraud, the territo ry of Kansas at last came before Congres: for admission as a State with what is knowi as the Lecompton Constitution, embodying slavery among its provisions. But at th< same time the Convention, by an ordinance . demanded of the United States some twen ty three millions of acres of land, instead ol I the four millions usually allowed to new ! States containing public lands. It was almost certain that a majority of the people ol Kansas were opposed to the Constitution, but would not vote on it, and this additional nineteen millions, which, if allowed, would probably have kept them again from the re cent polls, was what the South was expected to pay for that worthless slavery clause, which would have been annulled as soon as Kansas was admitted. I confess my opinion was that the South herself should kick that Constitution out of Congress. But the South thought otherwise. When the Bill for its adoption was framed with what is called the Green Proviso, I strenuously objcoted to it, and felt very much disposed to vote against the whole, but again gave up to the South, which accepted it by acclamation. If that Proviso meant nothing, and so I interpreted it, it was nonsense, and had no business, being without precedent. If it could be made to mean anything, it must have been something wroDg and dangerous. But, as I said, the South took that Bill far and wide. The House rejected it. They passed there the Crittenden substitute, which proposed to submit the Lecompton Constitution to a vote of the people of Kansas, and to accept it, if ratified by them. The Senate had previously refused that substitute, and did so a second time. It then asked a committee of Conference. That oommittee reported what is called the "English Bill." By that Bill Congress accepted the Lecompton Constitution, pure and simple, without proviso.? The land ordinance of the Lecompton Convention, which was in no wise a part of the Constitution, but a separate measure, demanded, as I have said, a donation of twenty-three millions of acres of land, being nineteen millions more than had been given to any other land State. The English Bill cut this down to the usual amount of four millions of sores, and required that the people of Kansas should ratify this modification and surrender all claim to the remainder of the lands as the condition of her final admission. Such a requisition has been made on every new State, carved out of the public Lands that has been admitted into this Union?sometimes in the enabling act, and where there was not one, always after accepting the Constitution. Go to the statutes of Congress and you will find it in every one of them. It is the custom, it is necessary, and this feature in the English Bill was in accordance with strict precedeut. The only difference is this, that usually the Legislature of the State has been required to ac cept this compact by an irrevocable act, but in this case it was referred to the people of Kansas direotly. Iu this there was no sacrifice of principle whatever, nor was it without precedent altogether, for iu the case of the State last before admitted, Iowa, this question had been submitted to the Legislature or the people, as Iowa might prefer.? This is the whole sum and substanoe of this English Bill, except that it further declared that unless the people of Kansas acoepted this modified ordinance they should not be admitted as a State until they had a population that would entitle them to one Representative under the Federal apportionment. I voted for the Bill, I voted properly, I voted no compromise, I sacrificed no particle of principle or Southern interest. It is true its j phraseology is halting and bungling, ft was j drawn np hastily and in great excitement. ! I objected to the wording ot it m several j passages. But I assured myself that noth;. ing biuister was designed, and 1 voted for it leaving its authors responsible for its dictation on the Statute Book. I thought it prc. ferable to the first Bill , the Senate passed, and voted for it more willingly. It is true some Northern Democrats who voted against j the Senate Bill voted for this, and thus it . was carried. But was that a reason why I . | should not vote for it ? Does that prove - that I sacrificed any principle ? They found themselves wrong and perhaps wanted some . excuse to retrace their steps. I was happy . to assist in giving it to them without cost tc . ourselves. I was j?articularly pleased to get rid of the mysterious Proviso of the first Bill, and to require a solemn compact in rci gard to the Public Lands which has not been ; j properly provided for in that bill. The only principle involved in this whole : Kansas affair?if an affair so rotten from be f ginning to end can have a principle at allwas this : Would Congress admit a slave . State into the Union ? The Senate said yes t The House, by adopting the Crittenden sub 1 stitutflj said, yes, if we are assured that t 1 majority of the people of the State are ir ; favor of it. For this substitute all the oppo j sition voted in both houses, so that every . member of Congress of all parties first anc . I last, committed themselves to the principh > and policy that a State should be admittec ; into the Union, with or without slavery, ac cording to the will of its own people?thui f re-enacting one feature of the Kansas anc t Nebraska bill. I should myself have beer . willing to rest there, and let Kansas rest also B Whatever there was of principle or honor it . the matter was secured by the votes alrcad; given. The English bill, however, came u| in due course, and I voted for it cheerfully believing that it was better calculated thai , any that had been offered to close up thi t miserable business which has furnished tnucl j the most disgraceful chapter, so far, in ou , history. s But it is said that in submitting this lam t ordinance to a vote of the people of Kansas b Congress submitted also the Lecompton Con r stitution with its pro-slavery clause. If so d the passage in which it wa9 done can sure! be pointed out. Badly drawn up as the bii s is, I sliou d liko to see the clause or the words - that would justify such an assertion. If 3 there was such a clause, why did not Judge i Douglas and his friends vote for it? Why r did not the Black Republicans, and all who ; voted for the Critter den substitute, which , submitted the Constitution, vote for the bill. It was the very point they made. Yet to a F man they voted against it. That, I think, ' should be conclusive. But then it is said, it was a virtual sub" mission of the Constitution to the people, ( because if they refused to ratify the modified I I Land Ordinance, the admission of Kansas I under the Leccmpton Constitution was defeated. Well the facts arc so. I cannot on/t /In tint rtenr them But T should like to know how that could by any possibility be avoided or remedied. Suppose Congress had admitted Kansas without modifying any thing, yielding even to her enormous "land ' grab," which embraced many more acres than there are in all South Carolina?I should like to know if the Lecompton Constitution would not still have been submitted to the people is virtually as it was by the English IJill ; that is?not submitted at all ?but left with them; an inevitable necessity. Congress could do no more?no less, no other way. The Constitution belonged to the people of Kansas. Congress could not withhold it from them a moment; nor could it make them organize under it?assemble their Legislature, assume the position of a State, and send Senators and Representatives to Congress against their own will ? Can Congress coerce a State into the Union? Then Congress can coerce a State to remain in the Union, or drive a State oat . of it, Congress is omnipotent. But where are then the rights of the States ? Fortunately for us, the Constitution of every State and of every Territory asking to be a State, is not ouly virtually, but actually in the hands of its people at all times and under all circumstances, and they cannot be divested of that control without the utter destruction of our Constitution and an entire revolution. Tho whole power of Congress in the premises is exhausted when it accepts the Constitution without condition. There are some who go still further and assert that although there might he no way to avoid a submission of the Leoompton Constitution to the control of the people of Kansas, yet the Conference Bill was a compromise of principle, inasmuch as it specifically required them to act, and it made for them the definite opportunity to defeat the Constitution, as well as the ordinance. Now this is true as a tact, yet the inference is absurd upon its very face If Congress could not take the Lecompton Constitution out of the hands of the people of Kansas, what difference did it make whether they voted on the ordinance in August under the direction of Congress or any other time, whether fixed by Congress or themselves. August was agreed upon, for it was very well to set a time and let things end. But from August to August again and forever, this Constitu tion was in the hands of the people of Kansas aud they could do with it what they pleased. True, Congress might have avoided that specific occasion and August vote, by swallowing the Land Ordinance and all, and asking no security for the remainder of the publio lands. But still Kansas could have refused to organize as a State, and no power undcrour Constitution could have interfered. It is all words and nothing more. Congress was charged with bribing Kansas to become a slave State. But the bribe was by the Conference Bill four millions of acres of land, instead of twenty-three millions. If we had given her the whole twenty-three millions for her useless slavery clause, there might have been some ground for the charge. Yet it would have been of no avail, for Kansas could under no bribe or coercion known to our Government have been compellod to acoopt the Constitution, or Ordinance, or become a State against her will at any period whatever. I will not presume that any one is lees proficient in constitutional lore, or is less conversant with the history of Congressional proceedings in the admission of new States than myself. But I will say that I am inoapable of comprehending I them at all, if in this Conference Bill there was any "compromise" of Southern principles or interests j any concession whatever by the South ; any departure from the strictest construction of the Constitution ; or any > material deviation from the usual practice > of the Government The people of Kansas have by an overwhelming majority rejected the Land Ordi' nance, as modified by Congress, and refused to come into the Union on such terms. Be ! it so. It is what I suspected?what I rather j desired. It sorts precisely with what I felt j when I saw Kansas thrust herself into Cons gross, and demanded?reekiDg with blood j , and fraud?to be enrolled among the States. Let her stay out. I am opposed to her comt ing in before she has the requisite populai [ tion, not because she will be a free State, but because I fully approved of the prohib -1 f CnnfoMn/io Ttill anrt fnr J liory Clause Ul lue uuuivivuvv UXI) I.UM .v. I that reason voted against the admission of ; Oregon. Unless in exceptional cases?such 1 ! as that of Kansas was last winter?I do not - think that a State should be admitted with 5 less population than would entitle her to a 1 ; member of the House. It is not just to the i other States, and is not consonant with the . theory of our Government.' 1 But I will not detain you longer with what 1 belongs to the past. The present and the 5 future are what concerns us most. You desire ? to know my opinion of the course the South ] should pursue under existing oiroumstancos. s I will give you frankly and fully the results 1 of my observation and reflection on this all r important point. The first question is, do the people of the South consider the present 3 Union of these States as an evil in itself, and i, a thing that it is desirable we should get rid - of under all circumstances ? There are some >, I know who do. But I am satisfied that an y overwhelming majority of the South would, i if assured that this govermeot was hereafter to be conducted on the'true principles and construction of the Constitution, decidedly prefer to remain in the Union, rather than incur the unknown costs and hazards of setting up a seperate Government. I think I say what is true when I say that after ull the bitterness that has characterizei our long warfare, the great body of the Southern people do not seek Disunion, and will not seek it as a primary object, howeveT promptly they may accept it as an alternational abridgments of their rights. I confess that for many years of my life, I believed that our oofiatr? u?oq fltft ^ldflnlnh'nn r\f fit a Ti/iinn and openly avowed if.. . I should entertain and without hesitation express thesame sentiments now, but that the victories we have achieved and those that I think we are about to achieve have inspired me with hope, I may say the belief, that we can fully sustai a ourselves in the Union and oontrol ills action in all great affairs. It may be well asked how I can entertain suoh views and expectations, when within these few years the South has lost her equality in the Senate and the Free States have at length a decided majority in both Houses of Congress, while the unfortunate Kansas contest has swept into their political graves so many of oar ancient friends in (hose States, that it may be donbted whether they have at this moment, after the recent elections?the finale of the disastrous Kansas abortion?a majority in any single one of them ; and there seems to be at present no prospect of our extending the area of Slave* ery in any quarter. Thecc facts are true; and if you will bear with mc, I will place them all in the strongest light I can before you?for it is of the utmost importance that we should at least see clearly how we stand, and what we can do, and how avoid wasting our strength on what cannot be accomplished. The equality of the free and slave States has long been lost in the House; by the admission of California it was lost in the Senate. Since then nnether free Stale has been admitted, a ad an other yet has passed the Senate, and in a few years more we shall have Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, New Mexico, and perhaps others on our roll. The immigration from Europe to the North is sufficient to form one or more new States every year. To the South there is literally no emigration. We have since the closing of the slave trade, added to our population mainly by the natural increase of our people, and we have no snrplut population, whi tc or black, to colonize new States. We lost Kansas partly by our inability to colonize it, ?Dd we are perhaps yot to bav? a struggle for a portion of Texas. The idea, then, of recovering the equality of the two sections, even in the Senate, seems remote indeed. We have it proposed to re-open the African slave trade, and bring in hordes of slaves from that prolific region to restore the balance. I once entertained that idea myself, but on further?investigation I abandoned it. I will Dot now go into the discussion of it, further thaD to say that the South is itself divided on that policy, and, from appearances opposed to it by a vast majority, while the North is unanimously against it. It would be impossible to get Congress to reopen the trade. If it could be done, theD it would be unnecessary, for that result could only be brought about by such an entire abandonment by the North and the world of all opposition to our slave system, that we might safely cease to erect any defences for it. But if we could introduce slaves, where oould be find suitable territory for new slave States ? The Indiana Reserve, west of Arkansas, might make one. But we have solemnly guarantied that to the remnantsof the red race. Everywhere else, I believe, the borders of our States have reached the great desert which separates the Atlantic from the Pacific States of this Confederacy. Nowhere is African Slavery likely to flourish in the little oasis of that Sahara of America. It is much more likely I think to get the Pacific slope, and 'io the great valley, than anywhere else outside of its present limits. Shall we, as some suggest, take Mexico and Central America to make slave States? African slavery appears to have failed there, v Perhaps, and most probably, it will never succeed in those regions.' If it might, what are we to do with the scven.or eight millions of hardly serai-civilized Iudians, and the two or three millions of Creole Spaniards aud mongrels who now hold those countries?? We would not enslave the Indians? Experience has proven that they are incapable of steady labor, and are therefore unfit for slavery. We would not exterminate them, even if that inhuman achievement would cost ages of murder and incalculable sums of money. We could hardly think of attemptingt.o plant theblack race there, seperior for labor, though ' '? " " oris? or ronf fft lDicnor, ptiruupa, iu luicucui, auu w maintain a permanent and peacefifl industry, such as slave labor must be, to be profitable, amid those idle, restless, demoralized children of Montezuma, scarcely more civilized, perhaps more sunk in superstition than in his age, and now trained to civil war by half a century of incessant revolution. What, I say, could we do with these people or these countries to add to Southern strength ? Nothj ing. Could we degrade ourselves so far as j to annex them on equal terms, they would j be sure to come into this Union free States | all To touch them in any way is to be conj taminated. England and France, I have no doubt, would gladly see us take this burthen on our back, if we would secure for them their debts, and a neutral route across the Isthmus. Such a route we must have for | ourselves, and that is all we have to do with them If we cannot get it by negotiation or by purchase, we must seize and hold it by force of arms. The law of nations would justify it, and absolutely necessary for our Pacific relations. The present condition of those unhappy States is certainly deplorable, but the gcod God holds them in the hollow of his hand and will work out their proper destinies. We might expand the area of slavery by acquiring Cuba, where African slavery is already established. Mr. Calhoun, from whose matured opinions, whether on constitutional principles of Southern policy, it will rarely be found safe to depart, said that Cuba was 'forbidden fruit" to us, unless plucked in an exigency of war. There is not reasonable ground to suppose that we can acquire it in any other way; and the war that will open to us such an occasion will be great and general, and bring about results that the keenest intellect cannot now anticipate. But if we had Cuba, we could not make more than two or three slave States there, which would not restore the equilibrium of the North and South ; while, with African slave trade closed, and her only resort for slaves to this continent, she would, besides crush-1 ing our whole sugar culture by her competition, afford in a few years a market for all the slaves in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryl-_.1 OL _ 1? il- . iana. one is, notwithstanding me cxorDiI tant taxes imposed on ber, capable now of absorbing tbe annual increase of all tbe slaves on this continent, and consumes, it is said, twenty to thirty thousand a year by her system of labor. Slaves decrease there largely. In time, under the system praoticed, every slave in America might be exterminated in Cuba as were the Indians. However the idle African may procreate in the tropics, it yet remains to be proven, and the facts are against the conclusion, that he can in those regions work and thrive. It is said Cuba is to be "Africanized" rather than that the United States should take her. That threat, which at one time was somewhat alarming, is so longer any cause of disquietude to tbe South, after our experience of the Africanizing of St. Domingo and Jamaica. What have wo lost by that ? I think we reaped some benefit; and, if tbe slaves of Cuba arc turned loose, a great sugar culture .would grow up in Louisiana and Texas, rivalling that of cotton, and diverting from it so much labor that cotton would rarely be below its present price. . You must suppose, for a moment, that I am opposed to the "expansion of the area of African slavery." On tho contrary, I believe that God created negroes for do other purpose than to be "tho hewers of wood and' drawers of water"?' that is, to be slaves of the white race; and I wish to see them in that capacity on every spot on the surface-of the globe, where their labor is necessary or beneficial. Nor do I doubt that such will be the final result. Much less would I oppose the acquisition of territory that would place tho slave States on a numerical equality and more, with the free States in tbe Union. But this review and scrutiny of tbe resources of the South, shows, I think, pretty coeolusively, that we have not now the surplus population, nor suiikujc icrruury, within our present reach, to create any number of slave States; that to attempt It by costly, yet impracticable and abortive enterprises, will be to waste our strength to no purpose; and that the idea of recovering the equality in voting of the slave and free States, whether on the floors of Congress or elsewhere, is visionary. We had better, then, I think, at once make up our minds according to the facts, and giving up all bootless efforts, look every consequence of our position full in the face. For one, I can do so without dismay?without the slightest trepidation. Why the South, numbering twelve millions of people, possesses already an imperial domain that can well support an hundred millions more. What does she need to seek beyond her borders, or what has she to fear ? With such a sea coast and harbors, such rivers, mountains and plains; so full of the precious metals, so fertile in soil, so genial in climate, producing, in such unparalleled abundance, the most valuable agricultural staples of the world; capable of manufacturing to any extent, and possessing the best social and industrial systems that have ever yet been organized?she might have sunk into sloth from excess of posperity, had she nnf Koon tnru nn the alert bv the fierce as saults of aD envious world. Assaults which, at one time alarming, it has been in fact scarcely more than wholesome exercise to repel; an exercise which has made us the most virtuous and one of the most enlightened and most powerful people who now flourish on the globe. The South has long been undervalueing and doing great injustice to herself. She has been lamenting her weakness, and croaking about the dangers that beset her, when she might glory in her strength and hurl defiance to her enemies, j But it is said that, with'a fixed and overwhelming free State majority against us in this Union, with all our natural advantages, we must dissolve the connection to insure j our present safety and accomplish our proper destiny. Perhaps so. But permit me to suggest, not yet. The dissolution of the Union is an alternative that we have always at command, and for which we should be ever ready; but a peaceful, prosperous and powerful people may not challenge Fate a day too soon. The question still remains, can the free States be brought to concur permanently in any line of policy that will subvert the constitution, and seriously damage the South in this confederacy ? I do not believe that they can. Reckless as is politiI cal ambition, and insane as fanaticism ever I is, I have no idea that the free States can be consolidated on the wild project of ruling the slaveholders by mere brute numbers, either through the ballot box or by force of arms; whether to emancipate our slaves, or strip us of the fruits of their labor; or to govern us with the mildness and paternal care due to inferiors. The nervous in the South, and the abolition demagogues of the North may believe it. But wheo it comes to the actual test, if neither sober sense nor patriotism should prevail, the sense of danger and the love of cotton and tobacco would, with our northern brethren, in every crisis override their love of negroes. On this I think you may depend, despite the insolent boasts of the abolitionists of what they will do when they get the government in their hands. The North has only to be made clearly sensible how far she can go, and what the South will not submit to. She will not trespass beyond that, but will content herself with the glory of carrying the alternation biennial electioos, as she has just done?always leaving it to the democracy to carry that which makes the President. But I am making mere assertions. Allow me, then, to refer to facts to show the past power of the South in this Union, and the present state of the great questions in which she is most deeply interested. When, thirty years ago, wo began this arduous conflict for the Constitutional reform of this government and the security of the South, the South herself was thoroughly divided. The tariff, the bank, the Internal improvement system, nay, even abolition itself, all had the sanction of a large number of our most prominent southern men. If they did not all originate, they were all resuscitated, in that era of infatuation, when a southern Pesident proclaimed that we were "all Federalists, all llepublicans," when Southern statesmen sneered at State rights, and the constitution became for a time a dead letter. The Tariff of 1828 levied average duties of more than forty per cent on all our imports. By the tariff of 1857 the average of duties was reduced below twenty per cent. We have accomplished that much ; and besides the principle of free trade is pretty generally conceded now throughout the Union. It cannot be denied that this is a great success. I think the duties should be reduced still lower; and particularly that the discriminations against the agricultural interests should be abolished. But it is supposed that there will be a demand for their increase at the next session. If so, it will of course be resisted, and I trust successfully. Free-trade is tbe test, the touch stone of free-government, as monopoly is of despotism. I have no hesitation in saying that the .plantation States should discard any government that made a protective tariff its policy. They should not submit to pay tribute for the sup* port of any other industrial system than thenown, much less to make good the bubble speculations of any other section of the Uaion Unequal taxation is, after all, what we have most to fear iD this Union, and against that we must be always ready to adopt the most decisive measures. The internal improvement system was iD full vigor in 1828. Inaugurated also by Southern men, it absorbed all the surplus of the treasury, and being in its nature unlimited, it was capable of absorbiog all the revenue that could be exorted by the highest possible tariff. That too, if not destroyed, action. It is true that it still appears annually in Congress?but the once haughty brigand is now little more than a sturdy beggar. We had tbco, also, in full operation a Bank of tbe United States, with branches in ? . T. 1 . 1 all our principal cities, it received ana speculated on all the revenues of tfie government, and controlled and concentrated inih'e North all the exchanges, thus, levying n per' centage upon every commercial transaction of the South. That has been annihilated. It sleeps the ^leep that knows no waking. But let me say that the system which it established still exists. Despite of its destruction by the federal government, and the collection of the revenue in specie, our exchanges still centre in the North, and our otherwise stable industry is still compelled to participate more or less in all the reckless speculations of that fanatical in love of money than even in its devotion to negroes. But this is a self imposed vassalage. Through the privilcdge which our Southern Legislatures have granted to our innumerable banks, we are made tributary to New York, which is itself tributa y to London, the great world centre of exchanges in our age. Thus, by our own acts, wc pay double tribute, though nearly all the trade of the United States with England is based on Southern products. Thus has the South, by her energy and ability, disposed of the capital grievances against which she protested, with almost half her public men against her, in 1828. During this time our opponents have twice wrested the government from us, and inflicted other injuries, but they were soon stripped of their power and their acts repealed. Only four times since the organization of this government has the North had possession of it, and in each case for only one term. The North has never united long on any policy. The injuries inflicted on the South have been mainly inflicted by her own ambitious, factious and divided public men, and our history proves that no man and no measure has yet been strong enough to stand - - n ? ? . 1 Ti l? against tne ooutn wnen unitea. i Deneve none ever will. But it is thought, that the abolitionists' supposition, still credited by some of this country, that they will inevitably get the power of this government permanently into their bands, and, backed by the opinion of the world, use it for our destruction is probable. Let us consider what are the facts.? From the time that the wise and good Las Casas first introduced into America the institution of African slavery?I say institution, because it is the oldest that exists, and will, I believe, survive all others that now. flourishes?it has had its enemies. For a long while they were chiefly men of peculiar and eccentrio religious notions. Their first practical and political success arose from the convulsions of the French revolution, which lost to that empire its best colony. Next came the prohibition of the slave trade?the excitement of the Missouri Compromise in this country, and then the deliberate emancipation of the slaves in their colonies by the British Government in 1833-4. About the time of the passage of that act, the abolition agitation was revived again in this country, and abolition societies were formed. 1 remember the time well, and some of you do also. And what then was the state of opinion in tne South I Wasbingteo naa emancipated his slaves. Jefferson had bitterly denounced the system and had done all that he could to destroy it. Our Clays, Marshall, Crawfords, and many other prominent Southern men, had led off in the ooioni** tion scheme. The inevitable effect in the Sooth was, that she believed slavery to be an evil?weakness?disgraceful?nay, a sin. She shrunk from the discussion of it. She cowered under every threat. She attempted to apologize, to excuse herself, under the plea?which was true?that England had forced it upon her; and in fear and trembling she awaited a doom that she deemed inevitable.. But a few bold spirits took the question up : they compelled the South to investigate it anew and thoroughly, and what is the result? Why, it would be difficult to find now a Southern man who feels the systcm to be the slightest Earthen on huTeonscience; who does not, in fact, regard it as an equal advantage to the master and the slave, elevating both, as wealth, strength and power ; and as one of the main pillars and ?j I'UUtrUIIHJg lUUUUUU'O Ul UIUUCKU UiVlllLMlUU^ and who is cot now prepared to maintain it at every hazard. Soch have been for ns the happy results of this abolition discussion.? So far, our gain has been immense from tbis contest, savage and malignant as it fans been. Nay, we have solved already the question of emancipation by this re-examination and exposition of the false theories of religion, philanthropy and political economy whigh embarrassed our fathers in their day. With our convictions and our strength, emancipation here is simply an impossibility to man, whether by persuasion, purchase or coercion. The rock of Gibraltar docs not stand so firm on its basis as our slave system. For a quarter of a century it has borne the brunt of a hurricane as fierce and pitiless as ever raged. At the North ancl in Europe they cried "havoc" and let loose upon us all the dogwf war. And how stands it now ? Why", in this very quarter of a century our slaves have doubled in numbers, and each slave has more than doubled in valae. The very negro who, as a prime laborer, would have brought $400 in 1828, would now, with thirty more years upon him, sell for $800.? What does all this mean ? Why, that ourselves we have settled this question of emancipation against all the world, in theory and practice, and the world must accept our solution. The only inquiry is, how long this new-found superstition will survive, and hdw far it may carry its votaries elsewhere ? What changes in production, in commerce, in society or government it m^y effect? For production, commerce, society and_governmeet, must yield and change whenever they come in contact with the great ftmdanental principle of the subordination of the'fafcnor to ilie uuperiur man?as wuile liy ? and especially of the colored to the wbit?*^ races. It is, I say, only through the evils \ that this superstition may bring upon other v peoples, and especially on those of the North ' and of Europe, with whom we are so closely connected, that the South can be materially damaged by it, standing as she now does, firm, assured, united. How, then is it with others ? Permit me to say that, in my opinion, the tide of abolition fanaticism has begun to ebb everywhere, and will never rise ^^ain.?. When the English free the negroeiiltf their colonies, it was not wholly a sentimental movement) dictated by political radicals and the saints of Exeter Hall. Her statesmen, in their ignorance, thought that what is called free labor?that is "wages slavery"? would succeed in tropical culture, as welH)r better than slave labor. In their arrogance they believed also that all the world must follow their example iu this silly scheme of abolition; and that from her great wealth and world-encircling colonies, the monopoly of cotton and sugar culture would fall into the hands of England. Nature, and the indomitable spirit and intellect of the South, have disappointed all their calculations. The South still flourishes, and cotton and sugar^ and coffee and rice and tobacca, are still the heritage of the slaveholders. Galled by their utter dependence upon us for cotton, without the free use of which they would both tumble into ruin in a day, England and France, who, in their frequent frenzies, at length destroyed all their colonies by emancipation, have ransacked the universe to hod climes adapted to the cheap growth of this gTeat staple. They have failed every where. It is not that the soils and climates do not exist; but that this and the other grtat agricultural staples, sugar, rice, tobacco, coffee, can never be produced as articles of wide extended commerce, except by slave labor. This they at length found out. But such labor they had repudiated every where. No, not everywhere. Not in France nor in Great Britian, where they still hold sacred splendid thrones and palmy aristocracies amid starving laborers, only for outside barbarians they adorned freedom and equality; but failing in all their schemes, and finding that, with all their costly expenditures and high sounding manifestos, they had simply ruined their own colonies, and made themselves the vassals of the slaveholders, what have they done ? Why, renewed the slave trade. Not in name. Oh, no! Exeter Hall and the Parliament Houses still thunder execrations against that; while theoolonists, under governmental protection, and with English money, wrong by taxation from her "wages slaves," are importing by hundreds of thousands Chinese and Hindoo coolies, under conditions compared with which Algerine slavery of the last century was merciful. They do not hold them as we do our slaves, for better for worse, in siokness and health, in childhood and old age. No; in their prime of life, they seduce them from their homes, transport them to distant and unwholesome climes; for the merest pittance of wages, consume their best years in the severest labors, and then turn them out to die?the direst slavery that brutal man has ever instituted. France, less sensitive . ?having no Exeter Hall?embracing the same scheme, resorts to Africa, and openly makes purchases, for so they may be called, from slave catchers; nay, die bays from the President of Liberia, the far-ferned settlement of oar own Colonisation Society; bays the ooloniats oar own emancipated slaves,