Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, November 11, 1858, Image 1
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,