E390 
 
 mm 
 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDDD5Dfll35 
 

 V* ..•:c.'* Ci 
 
 
 \> « • • 
 
 
 ■» O 
 
 
 •^ •"' * "^ 
 
 
 ?^: "by 
 
 
 
 
 >^ . t • 
 
 
 V<S' 
 
 'vP<i- 
 
 
 
 V-o^ 
 
 
 
 ^^-^^4^ 
 
 
 ;* <.^' 
 
 
 
 
 vv 
 
 v/^C,- 
 
 
 
 
 
 ,«>'^^ 
 
 v , . . , 
 
v .♦t^ 
 
 ^.^^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 %.^" 
 
 
 %.^ 
 
SPEECH OF EDW.'STANLY, 
 
 OF NORTH CAROIilNA, 
 
 ESTABLISHING PROOFS TUAT THE y.- 
 
 ABOLITIONISTS ARE OPPOSED TO GEN. HAPvRISON, 
 
 AND THAT 
 
 GEN. HARRISON IS OPPOSED TO THEIR "UNCONSTITUTIONAL EFFORTS." 
 
 Delivered in the House of Representatives, April 13, 1840. 
 
 Mr. Stanly said : I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am under the necessity of de- 
 taining the committee, in presenting to their consideration the evidence 1 now 
 have relative to the charge which has been made a^gainst General Harrison during 
 this debate — that he is allied to the abolitionists, and that the Emancipator has 
 *' raised the Harrison flag." 
 
 It will be remembered, I hope, sir, that, when the member from Ohio (Mr. 
 Duncan) was making his " by authority" speech, 1 rose and protested against the 
 irregularity of the debate. He has lead the way. His political friends kept their 
 seatc, without raising any objection to his unjust and unjustiliable attack upon the 
 character of the candidate of the people. They are in the majority, and have the 
 control of this House ; let them not, therefore, impute the blame to the Whigs, 
 that they consumed time in debates out of order, when one of their own men has 
 set the example. I intend, sir, before I resume my seat, to read a few extracts 
 from the letter published by the member from Ohio, giving his opinions of slavery, 
 that the younger members of Congress may know who it is has undertaken to 
 charge General Harrison with being hostile to the South. I intend the people of 
 the Southern States shall know the feelings and opinions of some of these unwor- 
 thy revilers of Harrison. I intend to furnish some choice extracts from writings 
 and sayings of Ohio Van Buren men, who are volunteering to assail one who has 
 made greater sacrifices for the Southern country than any other politician now 
 alive. 
 
 I understood the member from Ohio to say, that the " Emancipator had raised 
 the Harrison flag;" that Harrison, as proved by one of his own letters, was an 
 abolitionist ; and that it was " contemptible to publish garbled extracts intended 
 to suppress or pervert the truth." This has been unblushingly stated in the House 
 of Representatives, and, if uncontradicted, may by some be believed. I deny, 
 and will prove it is untrue, that the " Emancipator has raised the Harrison flag." 
 It is directly the reverse. I deny, and will prove that it is untrue, that Harrison 
 ever admitted he was an abolitionist. I fully admit, and agree with the member 
 from Ohio, that it is contemptible to publish garbled extracts for the purpose of 
 misrepresentation. If I prove he himself has done this, I am relieved from the 
 necessity of uttering any condemnation of it, as he has said it was " contemptible." 
 I will at once proceed to the proof, as I do not wish to detain the committee 
 by a speech, but only wish to ofifer a few facts I have collected. It is charged — 
 " the Emancipator, an abolition paper, has raised the Harrison flag." Let the 
 Emancipator speak for itself. An extract from the Emancipator has been fre- 
 quently quoted to prove that this paper approved of the nomination of General 
 Harrison. I saw the article, and have a copy of the paper before me. I read 
 now the following, as part of it which has been so often referred to. In 
 the Emancipator of December 12, 1839, there is this article : 
 
 "The Harrisburg Convention. — Well, the agony i.s over, and Henry Ceat is — laid 
 upon the shelf. And no man of ordinary intelligence can doubt or deny that it is the anti-sla- 
 very feeling cf-the North which has done it, in connexion with his own ostentatious and infamous 
 pro-slavery demonstrations in Congress. Praise to God for a great anfi-slavery victory. A man 
 of high talents, of great distinction, of long political services, of boundless personal popularity, 
 has been openly rejected for the Presidency of this republic, ou account of his devotion to slavery. 
 
t>' 
 
 ST^ 
 
 Set up a monument of progress there. Let the winds tell the tale. Let the slaveholders hear 
 the news. Let foreign nations hear it. Let O'ConnelJ hear it. Let the slaves hear it. A 
 slaveholder is incapacitated for the Presidency of the United States. The reign of the slavocracy 
 is hastening to a close." 
 
 Read this alone, and we would be disposed to admit that the Emancipator re- 
 garded this nomination as a triumph ; but, in the vei-y same article^ in the same 
 column, of the same paper, the following also appears : 
 
 " Whether the cause of human rights has gained any thing in General Harrison, beyond the 
 fact that he is not a slaveholder, we cannot say." 
 
 The Emancipator, was not satisfied, therefore, they had gained anything; 
 General H. wus not acknowledged by them as an abolitionist. But the following 
 lines conclude the article from which these extracts are made : 
 
 *' Many abolitionists have heretofore expressed the belief that the old General has repented of 
 his efforts to extend slavery to Indiana, and his opposition to its extinction in the Missouri Ter- 
 ritory ; and that he is now not only 'convinced of the great evil,' but willing to favor wise and 
 lawful efforts for its general removal. Butwc shall wait to bear his sentiments from an authen- 
 tic source before we believe all this. The unanimity of the convention in nominating for the 
 second office a more bigoted devotee of colonization and slavery tlian eve?i Henry Clay, shows 
 that the 'party' is as anxious as ever to testify its unshaken allegiance to the slave poicer,' 
 ivhile the prompt determination of the slavcholding delegates to transfer their support from 
 Clay to Harrison is j)resumptive evidence that they had satisfied themselves of him." 
 
 Yes, sir, this is a part of the very same article from which the e.xtract was 
 taken, rejoicing that " Henry Clay was laid upon the shelf." In the same arti- 
 cle, the editor remarks that " James Barbour, slaveholder," was president of the 
 convention, and " John Tyler, slaveholder," nominated as Vice President. This 
 was from the first paper published after the^Harrisburg nomination. Is this 
 " raising the Harrison flag V 
 
 The Emancipator of December 19, 1839, speaking of General Harrison, 
 says : 
 
 <' He is the man of his party, and that party have shown the absoluteness of their subservi- 
 ency, by nominating a slaveholder, a peculiarly bigoted devotee of slavery, on the same ticket 
 tvith General Harrison, and now by electing a nullifying slaveholder, from slavebreeding 
 Virginia, for Speaker. 
 
 "But we submit, further, that General Harrison's principles are already well known by his 
 deeds, of which we find the following summary in the Rochester Freeman : 
 
 " 'In December, 1802, while Governor of Indiana Territory, he was president of a conven- 
 tion of the people of that Territory, held at Vincennes, and transmitted to Congress a memorial 
 of the convention, praying that the sixth article of the 'Ordinance of '87', which prohibited sla- 
 very there, 7night be suspended. (See Am. State Papers, 1803.) His efforts to make Indiana 
 a slave State were prosecuted for j^ears while he was Governor of that Territory. 
 
 " 'In 1819, February 16, General Harrison voted, as a member of the House of Representa- 
 tives, against a clause prohibitiKg the further introduction of slavery in Missouri ; and against 
 a clause for the farther emancipation (at 25) of slaves born within that State. Two days after- 
 wards he voted against a clause prohibiting the future introduction of slavery into Arkansas, 
 and against the future emancipation of slaves born in Arkansas. 
 
 " 'So basely did he bow to slavery, that even Ohio was shocked. He was indignantly re- 
 jected at the next Congressional election in 1822. The National Intelligencer, of October 20, 
 1822, says : ' It is confirmed to us that Mr. Gazcly is elected in opposition to General Harri- 
 son. A friend informs us, which we are sorry to learn, that he was opposed particularly on ac- 
 count of his adherence to that principle of the constitution which secures to the people of the 
 South their pre-existing rights.' It seems, then, that General Harrison claimed for the South 
 the right to fasten slavery upon any soil which the nation might have or purchase. 
 
 " ' He has had but little opportunity to act in a public capacity upon the subject of slavery 
 since that time; but an address from his pelitical friends in Virginia, in 1836, says, ' he is sound 
 •to the core on the subject of slavery.' 
 
 " Under these circumstances, we submit that conscientious abolitionists are bound to regard 
 the'two parties and their candidates as standing precisely on the same ground — that of unlimited 
 subserviency to the dominion of sLAvocnACT. It is true. General Harrison's personal demon- 
 strations are less recent than Mr. Van Buren's. But they are much stronger, for Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren helped to send Ritfus King to the United States Senate to oppose slavery in Missouri, and 
 he has 7iever attempted to extend slavery to regions where it was already, abolished. And, fur- 
 ther, the demonstrcdions of the Harrison party are mure recent than those of the other. And 
 if it said that we should give the old General a chance to repent of his pro-slavery, we reply. 
 
that it belongs to the man who repents to exhibit his own repentance. Certainly there are no* 
 
 circumstances in the case which wariant the slightest presumptions in favor of his repentance. 
 
 Ijet him or his friends, if they choose, show wherein his views now difler from his actions ia 
 
 1802, and 1819, p.nd 1836. And, in default of thi.s, let the friends of human rights come at 
 
 '^~- once to the conviction, that the cause they have espoused is, by Divine Providence, entrusted to 
 
 ^ their own guardianship, and that, for its success or failure, their country and posterity will hold 
 
 j them responsible." 
 
 '^ A part of this article I have quoted in a previous speech ; but the extracts are 
 g equally appropriate now. Thus we see, that for a period of more than thirty 
 <^ years, General Harrison unflinchingly, and without change, adhered to his opin- 
 ions of the constitutional rights of the South. 
 
 December 12th, the Emancipator said : " We shall wait to hear his senti- 
 ments." January 16, 1840, the editor publishes his Vincennes speech with these 
 remarks : 
 
 "General Harrisox and abolition. — We have long iconclered at the expectations which, 
 seem to have been cherished by some of our associates, that General Harrison, if he should ob- 
 Jain the whig nomination, would show himself so favorable to the anti-slavery cause as to make 
 it possible for conscientious and consistent abolitionists to give him their support. Certain 
 proofs in regard to his views of slavery, which we knew were in existence, have not been with- 
 in our reach. We have just obtained possession of one of them, which we now lay before our 
 readers, begging that those who insist, fii'sl, that all abolitionists are bound always to vote ; sec- 
 ondly, that they cannot vote for a friend of slavery ; and, thirdly, that it would be a breach of 
 faith for abolitionists to nominate a candidate for the Presidency — will just tell us how w^ shall 
 conti'ive to vote at the next Presidential election, in such a manner as not to make child's play 
 of it." 
 
 Thus we see that, after " waiting," and having obtained certain proofs of his 
 views in regard to slavery, (he Emancipator says it would be " child's play" not 
 to nominate a candidate of their own. The Vincennes speech I will refer to 
 presently. The Emancipator, 16th January, 1840, publishing this speech, re- 
 marks : 
 
 "We submit this document as plenary proof that the whig convention of 1839 has taken a 
 lesson in tactics from the democratic convention of 1836, pledging its support to the slave power 
 by nominating a Northern man with Southern principles for President. " 
 
 From the Emancipator of January 30, 1840, I read the following article, to 
 which I invite the attention of those who think the • abolitionists favor the cause 
 of Harrison : 
 
 " The Harrisbuhg nominations. — The general sui-prise and excttcment produced by the 
 Harrisburg convention having now subsided, we trust the readers of this paper are prepared to 
 •take a calm survey of the matter, and examine its relations to the great auESTioN which vir- 
 tually controls all our American politics. 
 
 We hazard no contradiction in saying, that when the convention met, there were very few 
 .people north of Pennsylvania, who expected General Harrison would receive the nomination. 
 For this reason, the abolitionists had given themselves less concern about him, and had taken 
 hut little pains to ascertain his true position with regard to the slavery question. We kneiv, in- 
 deed, /hat he had been a zealous sxipporier of the slave power in the days of th". Missouri con- 
 troversij, and had done ivhat he could to assist in that grand consummation, hy which the free 
 principles of the const itutioJi xuere trampled down, and the slave interest obtained an acknowl- 
 edged supremacy in the (Jovernment of the nation Also, that he had assisted- in an attempt 
 to violate the solemn guaranties of the ordinance of '87, older than the constitution itself, by 
 •spreading the curse of slavery over the rich valleys and beautiful hills of Indiana. * * * 
 We may remark, hoioever, that, so far as we are acquainted, there was not a single known, 
 abolitionist present in the Harrisburg convention. 
 
 " Let us now turn our attention to the southern aspect of the proceedings. It is well known 
 that nearly all the Southern delegates, as well as many of the pro-slavery men of the North, 
 went to the convention fully determined to support Henry Clay and nobody else ; and many of 
 them were instructed and some of them actually pledged to that effect. And the ground of this 
 determination was, chiefly a belief that the slave interest required that he and no other should 
 receive the support of Southern whigs. And no one will believe that this determination could 
 have been changed, tmless they tvere furnished with the fullest assurances that the paramount 
 interest would be as tuell promoted by faking another man For there is probably not a slave- 
 holding whig who would not have rather the present Administration perpetuated, than the least 
 injury or danger brought upon the darling object of his idolatrous devotion — slavery. And when 
 • we find these men so cordially rclinq^uishing their chosen candidate, and so enthusiastically 
 
pledging their support to General Harrison, every one is certain, at once, that something has - 
 teen said or done in the convention, which has assured the slaveholders that his nomination, 
 and possible election, would be at least as well for slavery as that of Henry Ciay. It is true, the 
 Southern delegates continued to vote for Mr. Clay to the very last ballot, and wc have no doubt 
 he was their first and heartiest choice, and that they felt they were making a sacrifice — of feel- 
 ing — in consenting to abandon him. And had they made the manifestations of temper which 
 slaveholders ordinarily exhibit when defeated, we might have been somewhat less confident in 
 our conclusions respecting General Harrison. But instead of manifesting the slightest emotions 
 of chivalry at being so resolutely withstood by the men from the North who were always wont to 
 cower at their frown, we find them turning round as easily as possible to the enthusiastic sup- 
 port of the Northern man, and even, it is said, shedding tears of joy at the happy result! 'I'here 
 can be but one conclusion, when we see such men as Benjamin Watkins Leigh, of Virginia, so 
 cordially abandoning the man of their choice, and who was eminently the man of their choice 
 on account of his devotion to the interests of slavery." 
 
 In the same article, the Emancipator, quoting a part of his Vincennes speech, 
 remarks 1 " These extracts show, that so late as 1835, General Harrison retain- 
 ed, with all its bitterness, the spirit of devotion to slavery, which had marked his 
 course when in Congress fifteen years before." The same nimiber of this 
 paper abuses John Tyler, as hostile to abolitionists. I hope it is not necessary 
 to say, no man in his senses accuses him of being an abolitionist. But I should 
 not be surprised to hear this soon. 
 
 The same paper remarks, in continuation : 
 
 " The Richmond Whig, the leading Harrison j^aper in Virginia, in an article vn the same 
 subject, January 17///, refers to Harrison's meritorious services to slavery, in 1818, lohen Jlli- 
 oiois presented herself for admission as a State with a virtual recognition of slavery incorporated 
 in her constitution. James Tallmadge and Marcus Mortoii opposed the admission, hut Harri- 
 son sustained it, on the ground of the right of a State to adopt slavery, notwithstanding the 
 ordinance of '87. The Whig also refers to Harrison's support of slavery in Missouri and the 
 Arkansas Territory, and mentions the argument by which he attempted to justify his vote on 
 the latter question, ivhere no cmistitutional grounds could be alleged. He said the South had 
 equal right with the North to the new territo7-y purchased tuith the common treasure of the na- 
 tion, and that to abolish slavery in Arkansas would shut out Southern emigrants. The Whig 
 says that, at that day, caricatures ivere circulated in Ohio, representing General Harrison 
 in the character of a negro-driver, with his ichip, following a gang of slaves in chains. It 
 closes by declaring, that the true issue before the South now lies ' between a Northern man 
 •with Southern feelings, and a Southern man with Southern feelings.' 
 
 " What will abolitionists say to these developments? We ask them, also, to look into those 
 "whig papers, in their respective districts, which have heretofore manifested a friendly ii]terest in 
 the anti-slavery cause, and see if they find a single manifestation of anti-slavery spirit since the 
 Harrisburg nomination. Let it be borne in mind, also, that the unanimous rally of all the whig 
 anti-slavery men of Congress in behalf of a nullifying slaveholder for Speaker immediately fol- 
 lowed the Harrisburg nomination." 
 
 The Emancipator, of February 6th, 1840, says : " The whigs have nomimated 
 a Northern man with Southern principles, of the exlremest sect, for President, 
 backed by a slaveholder of tried bigotry for Vice President." Thus we have 
 evidence that the abolitionists regard Harrison as a Northern man with Southern 
 principles. Let Mr. Van Buren's friends show what are his Southern principles. 
 I am unacquainted with them. 
 
 The next number of this paper, to which I wish to call the attention of those 
 who feel any interest in this matter, is dated March 12th, 1840. This number of 
 this paper is remarkable for its violence. I will read a ievf extracts : 
 
 " A desire to do strict justice, induces us to copy the following rather apologetic account of 
 the relations of General Harrison to the slavery question. Our brother of the Philanthropist is 
 mistaken in supposing that the Emancipator has ever recognised the ' selection of General Har- 
 rison" as <a concession to the spirit of liberty in the North.' We declared the ^rejection of 
 Mr. Clay''' to be a triumph of abolition ,- but from the beginning we felt assured that the nom- 
 ination of Harrison and Tyler was a concessioii the other way — as definite an act of subser- 
 viency to the slave power as has ever been performed by any party. The manner in which this 
 nomination was received and acquiesced in by the slaveholders, with Benjamin Watkins Leigh 
 at their head, left not a partidle of doubt on our mind ; and the language of the slave press, with 
 the general conduct of the party managers since, has confirmed our first impressions. It was 
 not necessary that the Harrisburg convention should make any specific 'pledges to the South.' 
 Their nominatiou was pledge enough, and was so received by the Southern delegates. They 
 
evidently felt that in giving up Henry Clay, they had only sacrificed a favorite man, but hzS. 
 rather gained than lost in regard to the strength of their favorite institution, which they love 
 more than they do even Henry Clay. 
 
 "The Philanthropist, in gently palliating the atrocity of General Harrison's speech at Vin-- 
 cennes, in 1835, omits to mention his visit to Virginia in 1836, wliere he went into an elaborate 
 statement of his views on slavery, for which he received a unanimous vote of thanks from the 
 planters, right in the glory of the domestic slave-trade, then so prosperous. And as to the de- 
 monstrations of the whig party since the nomination, we should like to know what Dr. Bailey 
 thinks of the votes given for Speaker ] And what of the general silence of the whig papers ort 
 the subject of slavery 1 
 
 Now, Mr. Chairman, do you think our constituents, when they read this, 
 will believe this is from the paper which is said to have raised the Harrison flag? 
 What will they think of him who asserts hi But, sir, the same number of this 
 paper, of date March 12, 1840, furnishes additional evidence of the bitterness of 
 feeling cherished by abolitionists towards General Harrison. This paper had 
 contained what it called Harrison's " infamous Vincennes speech," and, in refer- 
 ring to this and other opinions, the Emancipator remarks: 
 
 " Will our readers look at the position of General Harrison, as developed on our first page, by 
 those who evidently designed to present it in as fair an aspect as truth would allow ? Add to 
 this his avowals to the planters of Virginia in 1836, and the nomination of John Tyler, of Vir- 
 ginia, one of the most bigoted devotees of the slave interest. Add to this the earnestness with 
 which nearly every whig Speaker in Congress has disavowed all sympathy with the objects of 
 the abolitionists, and all intention ever to do anything for the abolition of slavery in the District 
 of Columbia, and we have a full view of the national policy of the whig party on this subject.'* 
 
 Here we see the abolitionists dissent with the views of the whig party, and the 
 *' whig Speakers in Congress, who have disavowed all sympathy with the objects 
 of the abolitionists." 
 
 But the same paper continues, as follows: 
 
 " We have, we think, adduced sufficient evidence to prove, that the devising of this ticket; 
 was a concession to the slave power, satisfactory to the most zealous champions of that interest. 
 It was, therefore, a sacrifice of the greater to the lesser ; an agreement to surrender the slave 
 question for the lesser and comparatively ins?^«/^CG?2i objects that are now in litigation betweeii 
 the rival parties, the principal one being that of ins and outs. It is plain that slavery caa 
 never be abolished, nor its encroachments successfully resisted, by yielding to its claims. Hence^ 
 the fact that the nomination of Harrison and Tyler ivas satisfactory to the slaveholders, on^ 
 slavery grounds, is proof thai it was a surrender of abolition. 
 
 ^' By recurring to General Harrison's expressed views with regard to the abolition of slave- 
 ry, ive find that they amount to just this : a vague sense of the evil of slavery in its effects 
 upon the prosperity of the country, and a loilliugness to devote the resources of the 7iation to 
 the purchase and expatriation of slaves, WHENEVER THE SLAVE STATES SHALL 
 REQUEST IT; in other words, the vain dreams which prevailed a dozen years ago, and which 
 the developments of « modern abolition' have partially dissipated. For abolitionists to hold up 
 these notions as anti-slavery, is, therefore, to abandon all loe have gained, and to bring us 
 back precisely where we started seven years ago. 
 
 " We grant that it would be gratifying to see Mr. Van Buren so deservedly rebuked for his 
 servility, as he would be should he lose his re-election on that ground. But we do not see hovir 
 a vote for another ticket, equally servile, could admit oi such a construction. We, therefore, 
 conceive, that as between the two tickets, in themselves considered, abolitionists have no choice. 
 Something may be gained by a change, as a change, by weakening the present coalition with the 
 slave power, but we should deprecate the purchase of this incidental advantage at so great ail. 
 expense of principle as would be involved in the support of the Harrison ticket by abolitionists^ 
 
 " We are suprised at the attempt, in the Philanthropist of March 3, to show that the append- 
 ing of Tyler to the ticket is a matter of no moment. The slaveholders never reason so. They 
 have not been careful for twenty-five years to secure the casting vote in the Senate without a 
 reason. It is that which makes the ticket so acceptable to the slave power. It is that which 
 marks it with the ineflfaceable brand of servility. j 
 
 " We have said but a part of what ive intended; but close noio by expressing our conviction, 
 that the support of the Harrisburg nomination by the body of the abolitionists would be a 
 surrender to the political dominion of the slave poiver as irresistible, and an abandonment of 
 all that we have gained. It is giving up to slavery its most important support and defence — 
 political power. " It is, in fact, a renewal of the Missouri compromise, under circumstances 
 more disgraceful, if not more disheartening than that melancholy occurrence. And the slave- 
 holders would quiet themselves to bear our northern denunciations on learning that we mean 
 notliing by them, and will do nothing in conformity to them. While, on the other hand, should 
 
6 
 
 ihe Harrishnrg nomination be defeated, by the withholding of abolition votes, it would, we be- 
 lieve, forever after prevent a resort to such a measure of circumvention to bafjle the vigilance 
 vr gull the sagacity of the uncompromising friends of liberty." 
 
 Altliougli lliis is a long article, I prefer giving so much of it, that T may do jus- 
 tice to those who never do justice towards us. It will be seen this paper charges 
 the President with " servility" to the South, and speaks of both tickets as " ec|ual- 
 }y servile." I might easily have garbled this, and have omitted all that referred 
 to the President, but it is " contemptible" to garble extracts. I wish only to deal 
 with truth. The whig cause — the Harrison cause, scorns the help of falsehood. 
 I defy any honest man, who knows truth from falsehood, to read this article and 
 assert that this paper has raised the Harrison flag. 
 
 Tiie next number of tliis paper, from vvliicli I wish to read an extract, is dated 
 April 2, 1840, published but a few days ago. This paper, like the Globe, cen- 
 sures the Cincinnati committee for their letter to the Oswego association, and 
 makes use of some of the same terms which, I think, I have seen in the Globe. 
 
 This committee, as far as 1 know, had no authority for writing sucii a letter, 
 "from General Harrison ; but supposing they had, what do we learn from their let- 
 ter ? They tell us, " the General's views, in regard to all tlie important and ex- 
 citing questions of the da}', have heretofore been given to the. public, fully and 
 explicitly; and, that those views, whether connected with constitutional or other 
 questions of a general interest, have midcrgoncito change.'''' 
 
 The committee also say, in their answer to the Oswego association : 
 
 " The committee are now puliiishing, in pamphlet form, many of the former expressed opinions 
 of the General, and facts and incidents connected with his past Ufe, which will be forwarded to 
 ^^ou at an early period." 
 
 These facts have been published in pamphlet form, and in that pamphlet is the 
 Vinceniies speech. As far as the committee have answered, we are to regard this 
 speech as containing General Harrison's present opinions. 
 
 There is no foundation for the assertion that General Harrison has changed 
 his opinions ; and if he had, 1 would not rely upon him. Why could he not change 
 again and again 1 I am willing to regard his opinions as expressed in his Cheviot 
 speech, in his Vincennes speech, and in his letter to Mr. Sloo of New Orleans, as 
 being his opinions now. Abolitionists who arc determined to oppose Harrison, 
 regard his "infamous" Vincennes speech, as the "ultimatum of the whig party 
 on the subject of abolition." I have no objection. 
 
 But, let the paper speak for itself. Fiom the Emancipator of April 2d : 
 
 " General Hauhison and the South. — Most of our readers are aware that a letter of in- 
 quiry on the subject of slavery was addressed to General Harrison, during the Presidential can^ 
 vass in 1836, by some gentlemen in Vermont, to which he promised an explicit reply, but the 
 reply never came. From the silence which ivas observed on the subject, many abolitionisto 
 were led to believe that he was personally favorable to our objects, and only kept in silence from 
 prudential considerations, and that he would keep himself entirely impartial and free from 
 the entanglements in which the slave pifver haa held our statesmen of all parties for the last 
 twenty years. Henct the suspense ivhich most of the abolition editors maintained respecting 
 him. The first announcement oj his nomination by the Harrisburg convention, notwithstand- 
 ing the peculiar circumstances of that nomination, and the appending of a peculiarly bigoted 
 devotee of slavery to the ticket ought to have satisfied every mind at once that it was a pro- 
 slavery nomination, which, if successful, ivould bind the luhig party, as a party, to the same 
 shameful subserviency to slavery with their rival party. 
 
 "To show the present position of General Harrison, who, it is admitted by all, cannot be 
 elected without the votes of abolitionists, we call attention to a couple of facts. Not long since, 
 a letter of inquiry was addressed to General Harrison by the chairman and secretary of a meet- 
 ing at Oswego, New York, asking an expreasiori of his views on several subjects ; asnong others, 
 asking whether he was in favor of receiving and referring petitions for the abolition of slavery 
 and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia ; a point on which he has never said a word, to 
 our knowledge. 
 
 "These inquiries were answered, not by General Harrison himself, but by a committee of 
 .gentlemen at Cincinnati, who seem to have taken his opinions into their keeping. We give 
 the letter in full, having italicized a few sentences which .show that the infamous Vincennes 
 address is to be regarded as the ultimatum of the whig party on the subject of aboHtion." 
 
 The same paper also remarks : 
 
"Now it will be observed tbat all interests were represented at Ilarrisburg except the abo- 
 lition interest, which had not, so far as we know, an individual representative." 
 
 In the Emancipator of January 30, (before read,) the editor says : 
 " We may remark, however, that so far as we are acquainted, there was not a single known 
 abolitionist present in the Harrisburg convention." 
 
 On the 2d of April, this assertion is repeated. Abolitionists, tlierefore, could 
 not have exercised any influence over the Harrisburg convention. 
 
 Thus much for the Emancipator. Now, T ask, who that regards truth, who 
 that values his own cliaracter, dare assert that this paper, which has denounced 
 General Harrison from the first week he was nominated until this time, has raised 
 the Harrison flag 1 
 
 Let us now see what is the opinion entertained by other abolitionists. The 
 "Friend of Man" is an abolition paper, published in Ulica, New York. After 
 the election of Mr. Tallmadge to the Senate of the United States, the Friend of 
 Man, of date the 22d January, 1840, contained the following article : 
 
 "On the whole, we congratulate the friends of the cause, that the delusive spell which has 
 led so many abolitionists in this State to connect their prospects of success with the predomi- 
 nancy of the whig party, is at length broken. The dream is over, and the illussion has vanished. 
 It can never return." 
 
 The " Rochester Freeman," another abolition paper, also denounced Harrison,, 
 as I have shown before, in an article to which I referred just now. 
 
 Next I will give a k\v extracts from the " Liberator," an abolition paper pub- 
 lished in Boston. This paper, of February 7th, 1840, published the Vincennes 
 speech, with these remarks: 
 
 " It shows conclusively that General Harrison is no more worthy of the support of abolition- 
 ists than Martin Van IJuren or Henry Clay. They cannot give him their suffrages without 
 grossly violating their principles and giving the lie to all their solemn professions. Thei/ will 
 not do it. They will scatter their votes, and thus, if possible, defeat the choice of Presidential 
 electors ; or, if they cannot produce this result, they will at least throw the responsibility of 
 electing a pro-slavery President upon those to whom it appropriately belongs. 
 
 " General Harrison's course on this subject since his first nomination, has been neither frank 
 nor honorable." 
 
 Here I might have " garbled" again, and have omitted this censure of Mr. Van 
 Buren; but I prefer to give the whole truth. 
 
 From the Liberator of April 3d, 1840,1 see an article entitled spurious demo- 
 cracy. The Liberator quotes as follows, from some political meeting : 
 
 "Spurious Demochacy. — At a meeting of the Royalston Democratic (1) Association, in 
 this State, January 8th, 1840, the following resolution was adopted : 
 
 " Resolved, That modern whigism, federalism, toryism, bankism, and abolitionism, are all 
 united as one common enemy against the national Administration ; therefore, it is the duty of 
 every democrat to use every honorable means in his power, to disseminate political truth, as 
 avowed by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and Van Buren, which is equal 
 rights and equal privileges.'" 
 
 This sounds so much like the language we sometimes hear on this floor, that I 
 am tempted to believe it was written here and sent to the Royalston Association. 
 But the Liberator dissents from this, and says : 
 
 " This is a rare specimen of logic, as well as of veracity. To assert that abolitionism is 
 allied with whigism, is not only a silly falsehood, but a reproach to democracy. Abolitionism 
 goes for 'equal rights and equal privileges' — « therefore, it is the duty of every democrat' to 
 be an open and uncompromising abolitionist, or else confess that he is a hypocrite or a knave." 
 
 For once I agree with the Liberator, and pronounce this a " silly falsehood." 
 
 In the Liberator of April 24th, published after these remarks were made, there 
 is the following article : 
 
 " As for ourselves, we are satisfied that General Harrison is as rotten as any slaveholder in 
 the land, on the subject of slavery, as facts showing this to be the case are daily coming to 
 hand." 
 
 I have before me a number of another abolition paper, published in Boston, 
 dated January 30,-1840, called "The Abolitionist." This paper, publishing 
 an extract from the Vincennes speech, remarks : 
 
8 
 
 " For the whole, recur to our last paper. We have no better light than this in regard to Mr. 
 Harrison's views on the great question. We have seen no recantation. His speech at Vin- 
 cennes was delivered after the principles and measures of the abolitionists had been fully explain- 
 ed to the community, and after the 'force of public opinion^ and the 'frowns' of our fellow- 
 citizens were well understood to imply brick-bats, tar and feathers, rotten eggs, and lyiicli justice. 
 He not only denies that the North has any thing to do with slavery, but he is for smothering 
 and gagging her free citizens under the folds of the compact. The party that has nominated 
 Mr. Harrison, is certainly desirous of votes. A single vote may be their victory. They have 
 certainly no votes to lose. If they could present a stronger inducement to abolition votei-s, why 
 have they not done it 1 Why do they not present us with some document to show that their 
 candidate has reconsidered his decision — that he is now ready, in case of his election, to use his 
 official influence in favor of liberty 1 Why do they wish us to take this_ point for granted 1 
 The answer is obvious, they have nothing to show. Mr. Harrison succumbs to sluverv. He is 
 willing, nay, anxious to become the tool of the South to stop the abolition movements." 
 
 Now, is it not too ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, that it should again and again be assert- 
 ed on this floor, that General Harrison is supported by the abolitionists 1 I shall 
 in charity suppose these accusations have been made in ignorance. If they are 
 repeated, I shall conclude they are made with malice aforethought, and in a 
 shameful disregard of truth. But the same article of this paper has more still 
 against Harrison. Hear it further : 
 
 *' If there is any truth in the principle contended for, and adopted by a great majority of the 
 Albany convention, that abolitionists should not give their votes for any pro-slavery candidate, 
 now is the time to act up to it. To all who do not renounce that principle we need not say 
 another word to persuade them not to vote for Harrison." 
 
 Here Harrison is regarded by " The Abolitionist," more than a month after 
 his nomination, as the '■'■pro-slavery candidate.'''' Not only is the editor of this 
 paper opposed to the whig candidate, on account of his defence of and attach- 
 ment to the South, but he is a regular sub-Treasury abolitionist. He approves 
 " the disjunction of bank and State." Let him speak for himself. From the 
 same paper I read as follows: 
 
 " We speak intelligently and feelingly on this subject. Setting aside the great question of 
 slavery, we are a democrat. We go for the strict construction of constitutions and the most 
 sparing grants of power. We deny the right of Government to create monopolies any farther 
 than is necessary to secure a due reward to discovery and invention. We approve of the dis- 
 junction of bank and State, and hold that giving corporations the power to create money is only 
 giving legality to swindling. But the chattelizing of MAN so overshadows all these matters, 
 that we lose sight of them for the sake of first restoring inalienable rights to THREE MIL- 
 LIONS." 
 
 The Cazenovia Abolitionist, published in New York, joins the chorus against 
 Harrison. In a nuniber of that paper, published on the 8th of January, 1840, 
 the editor remarks, of the whig party: 
 
 " Let abolitionists beware how they cast their influence in favor of a party of no principles, 
 or any principles, as the interest of the party, not the country, shall demand. The recent nom- 
 inations of the party, of one of the meanest apologists for slavery, for President of the United 
 States, and a slaveholder, and probably a slavebreeder, for Vice President, are enough to opea 
 the eyes of the blind as to the whig party being the handmaid of abolition." 
 
 The same paper, speaking of General Harrison, whom it calls a mean apologist 
 for slavery, also says : 
 
 " The abolitionists cannot aid his election, unless they betray their principles, as their whig 
 friends have done, in electing a sub-Treasury Speaker, connected as he (Harrison) is with John 
 Tyler, a slaveholder, for Vice President." 
 
 Surely, sir, I have shown enough to " open the eyes of the blind" as to the 
 abolitionists being opposed to General Harrison. 
 
 Surely, sir, no honest conscientious man can say now that the abolition papers 
 support the cause of Harrison. I will trouble the committee, sir, with but a few ex- 
 tracts from one more paper. It has been said, by gentlemen, Southern gentlemen, 
 here, that the Philanthropist, published at Cincinnati, is in favor of General 
 Harrison's election. I am able, sir, to show this is altogether wrong. I might 
 sin)ply deny this, and call for proof; but instead of entering into a contest here, 
 with those who can wilfully and deliberately accuse Harrison of being an abo- 
 
litionist, of merely rebutting assertion with assertion, I choose rather to nail the 
 ciiarge to the counter. 
 
 The Philanthropist, of February 4, says : 
 
 "Let us not be misunderstood. We do not hold ourselves responsible for the objections. 
 We are not the advocate of General Harrison nor any other candidate for the Presidency. Our 
 simple desire is to present to the reader both sides of the question." 
 
 The same paper, after publishing some extracts from one of his letters or 
 speeches, remarks : 
 
 " We have thus given our readers all we know concerning this matter, and leave the whole 
 subject to them, without comment. The interest of our cause, we believe, does not demand 
 from us, at this time, any expression of opinion. It is proper, however, that we should guard 
 ourselves by declaring — that we are no partisan ; that we advocate no man's claims to the Pres- 
 idency; that we belong to no political party; and, that, in our belief, the success of abolition 
 efforts does not now depend on the success of either whigs or democrats ; or, indeed, on the ac- 
 tion of Siuy political party whatsoever." 
 
 A number of the Philanthropist, of 24th March, 1840, publishes an editorial, 
 entitled " Defining my position." Referring to General Harrison this paper re- 
 marks: 
 
 '•No sooner was this gentleman announced as a candidate for the Presidency, than some of 
 the anti-slavery prints began to hunt up every circumstance which could tell against him in the 
 minds of abolitionists. He was denounced unsparingly. The rest of the anti-slavery papers 
 soon joined in the general clamor. We thought they were too hasty. No harm ivould have 
 come from waiting a while, and giving General H. a chance of revoking his evil speeches about 
 aboliiionists. We did not feel free to commit ourselves. All the information we could get on 
 General Harrison's sentiments or doings, in regard to slavery, we laid before our readers, for- 
 bearing any expression of opinion, not assuming to give advice, and answering questions in such 
 a way as not to pledge ourselves pro or con. 
 
 "This course has strangely been mistaken by a highly esteemed friend. In a letter, of recent 
 date, he accuses us of having concluded to go for Harrison and Tyler — of having committed 
 ourselves openly and decidedly in their cause. 
 
 "The fact that our friend, a man of candor and temperate judgment, (although an advocate for 
 a third party,) should have so misconstrued our course, leads us to suspect that others may have 
 imbibed the same notion. 
 
 " This leads its to make an avowal, which ive had intended to defer. It is, that unless ive 
 can have better evidence thati is now in oiir possession, that Genercd Harrison, if elected, ivill 
 act in behalf of liberty against slavery, loe cannot give him our vote." 
 
 From this we learn distinctly, that from the first some of the anti-slavery prints 
 unsparingly denounced General Harrison. That the rest of the anti-slavery 
 papers soon joined in the general clamor, and that abolitionists admit General 
 Harrison has not revoked his evil speeches about aboliiionists. 
 
 The same paper also says: 
 
 "In conclusion, we remark, that, until we can see clearly how we are to benefit our cause by 
 meddling greatly with the present Presidential contest, we shall for the most part let it alone. 
 When a man cannot see his way before him he had better stop till the light shines." 
 
 The Philanthropist, of April 24, 1840, publishes the letter of the Cincinnati 
 committee, and remarks: 
 
 "The pamphlet promised by the committee is now published. It contains General Harrison's 
 letter in reply to the accusation of pro-slavery, published in 1822, and his notorious Vincennes 
 speech. The necessary inference is, that the sentiments expressed in this speech, concerning 
 abolition and abolitionists, he slill holds. In fact the committee assures us, that the ' General's 
 views in regard to all the important and exciting questions of the day, have heretofore been giv- 
 en to the public, fully and explicitly, and that those views, whether connected with constitu- 
 tional or other questions of any general interest, have undergone no change.' To show what 
 those views are, they publish, among other things, his Vincennes speech." 
 
 After this the Philanthropist says : 
 
 " We had thought that General Harrison was too independent a man to truckle to the slave- 
 holder; but, with the rest of our public men, he has passed under the yoke." 
 
 Here, sir, I leave this part of the subject. And 1 assert that, as far as I have 
 seen the abolition papers, not one has raised the Harrison flag — not one is satis- 
 fied with his opinions on this subject. 
 
 Nor is this the only evidence that the abolitionists are opposed to General Harri- 
 
10 
 
 son. Some of the bitterest revllers of the South, some of those who have expressed 
 sentiments, conceived only in hearts full of diabolical malignity, are violent in 
 their opposition. I allude to the well-known and publicly-expressed opinions of 
 the Van Buren Senator from Ohio, and his colleague (Mr. Duncan) on this floor. 
 I shall refer to these anti-slavery patriots presently. The abolitionists, in tlieir 
 conventions, have denounced General Harrison. I will offer several instances of 
 this. At an anti-slavery convention for Western New York, held at Arcade, 
 Genesee county, January 29, 1840, seven or eight hundred persons present, 
 with delegates from the States of New York and Pennsylvania, the following, 
 among other resolutions, were passed: 
 
 " 8. Resolved, That, in our opinion, General William H. Harrison ought not to receive the 
 vote of any freeman in the United States for the office of Preirident thereof, because he has apos- 
 tatized from the faith of his father, one of the si'^ners of the Declaration of Independence, and 
 habitually made war upon the most essential of human riglits: 
 
 •'1st. In urging the National Legislature to suspend the prohibition of slavery in the North- 
 western Territory, which he did, as president of a convention held therein in 1802, for the pur- 
 pose of introducing it there, though the prohibition had been solemnly enacted by the unanimous 
 vote of the old continental ("ongress, and ratified by the lirst Congress under the new constitu- 
 tion, with only one dissenting vote. 
 
 "2d. In giving his influence and his vote, as a member of Congress, in 1819, in favor of ad- 
 mitting the State of Missouri into the Union with a provision to legalize slavery therein, and in 
 doing the same, during the same year, in respect to the l^crritory of Arkansas. 
 
 ♦'3d. In misrepresenting the abolitionists and the constitution, to their prejudice, and to the 
 injury of the great rights of free inquiry — freedom of speech and of the press — in a speech de- 
 livered at Vincennes, in 1835, in which also, in efl'ect, he encouraged tlie lawless violence of 
 Tnobs to suppress the movements of the abolitionists, though they were rightful and constitutional, 
 by declaring that they ' should be immediately stopped * * by the force of public opinion, and 
 and that cannot too soon be brought into oncration.' 
 
 "4th. In authorizing a committee of his political friends, in Virginia, in 1836, for the sake 
 of procuring him the support of slave owners, in the election for the Presidency then pending, 
 to say that ' he was s cund to the core on the subject of slavery.' 
 
 " 5th. In consenting this year to be run as a candidate for the Presidency on a ticket which 
 cannot receive a vote which is not at the same time given for a slave holder as Vice President." 
 
 In pursuance of a call at this Arcade convention, the abolitionists met in Al- 
 bany, on the 1st of April, to discuss the question of an independent nomination 
 of abolition candidates. Delegates were in attendance from the States of Ver- 
 mont, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. This 
 convention nominated James Birney, of New York, and Thomas Earle, (an ac- 
 tive Van Buren partisan,) of Pennsylvania, as candidates for the Presidency and 
 Vice Presidency. Among other resolutions they passed the following: 
 
 *' Resolved, That the Presidential nominations of the democratic and whig parties, (so called,) 
 being equally satisfactory to the supporters of perpetual slavery, and being both headed by men 
 who have publicly avowed a higher regard for the pretended rights of slaveholders than for the 
 real rights of freemen, cannot be supported by abolitionists without doing great, if not fatal, 
 violence to their principles." 
 
 The Emancipator of April 9, 1840, publishing these proceedings, remarks : 
 
 •'The letter of the Cincinnati committee was read, reaffirming the sentiments and determi- 
 nations heretofore avowed by General Harrison. 
 
 This letter seems to have convinced the abolitioni:rs that General Harrison's 
 opinions, as made known in his speeches at Cheviot and Vincennes, are unaltered 
 and unalterable. It is hard to settle, whether this letter has given greater offence 
 to the federal spoilers of the Van Buren party or to the abolitionisis. 
 
 The Emancipator remarks of Mr. Birney: 
 
 •'He is, in clearness of vision., simndness of judgment, and purity of patriotism, better fitted 
 to adorn the high office for wbi "h he is nominated, and to build an enduring memorial of 
 praise by his administration of public affairs, than either of his rival candidates." 
 
 I have now furnished evidence enough to satisfy any sensible man that the 
 Harrisburg nomination was not only not brought about by abolitionists, but has 
 met their decided and irreconcilable hostility. I defy any Van Buren federalist 
 in this House to produce any proof that abolitionists are pleased with this nomi- 
 nation. 
 
11 
 
 I have thus far, Mr. Speaker, proceeded to show tliat the abolition papers were 
 opposed to the whig candidate. I have also satisfactorily shown that in their 
 conventions, composed of hundreds, they have unsparingly denounced Harrison 
 and Tyler. 
 
 I will now, sir, exhibit the pretension of some of the Van Kuren party in Con- 
 gress to " Southern principles." 
 
 The member from Ohio, (Mr. Duncan,) who has brought this subject into discus- 
 sion here, published a letter in 1838, which I commented on in the last Congress. 
 As this may liave been overlooked in some parts of our country, and as some of 
 the younger members of this House may not have seen this letter, I will again 
 give a few extracts. My reason for this is, tiiat the author of this infamous letter 
 is furnished with materials to manufacture spe-jches for the country, and that he 
 has, with unparalleled audacity, undertaken to charge Harrison with being allied 
 •with the abolitionists. 
 
 I will only remark as to this letter, that the author acknowledged it on this floor. 
 
 This letter is signed Alex. Duncan, written by a supporter of Mr. Van Buren, 
 vho charges William Henry Harrison with being an abolitionist ! 
 
 Hear the following: 
 
 "There is no man living, perhaps, who is more deadly hostile to slavery than I am. My 
 feelings, my education, the circumstances that have surrounded me through life, together with 
 my principles of what I believe to constitute the natural and political rights of man, all conspire 
 to make me abhor it as one of the greatest evils on the face of the earth. 
 
 "Yes, greater in its moral effects and corrupting tendencies than all other human evils put 
 together. It is not only a moral and political evil within itself, nor intrinsically so of the darkest 
 and most damning character, but in all its bearings and effects calculated to produce the most 
 fatal etlects on both the moral and political institutions of the country. 
 
 "It is an evil that has, does now, and will in all time to come while it exists, involve in it, 
 as well in its present possession as in its future operations, crime, fraud, theft, robbery, murder, 
 and death. For the truth of what I say as to its present eflects upon the institutions of our 
 country, I have only to refer you to a view of the slave States in our Union, and a comparison 
 between the relative condition of the improvements of them and the free States. Y ou see the 
 free States happy and flourishing, to the admiration and astonishment of all who see them. 
 Public improvements and private prosperity are swift, and head and head in the race ; while, on 
 the other hand, poverty, lean and hungry sterility, and squalid wrelhchedness, seem to cover 
 the face of the land in many parts where slave institutions have a residence. 
 
 " Cross the line that separates the free from the slave States, or stand upon it and look across 
 the former, you will see comparatively all life, all happiness, all prosperity, both public and pri- 
 vate ; but turn your eyes upon the latter and survey it, every thing material (except a few of 
 the wealthy proprietors) bears the impress of poverty and dilapidation — all look as if pestilence 
 and famine had been making their sad innovation. 
 
 "The anger of God and the vengeance of Heaven seem to rest upon every thing upon which 
 you can cast your eyes. Every prospect seems withered and wilted by the frown and disappro- 
 bation of avenging justice and violated humanity. In short, almost every institution, every 
 prosperity, public and private, seems to be sickening and dying from thefcorrupting and corro- 
 ding effects of lavery. But the curse be on the head of those who sustain such an institution." 
 
 " Questio)is2d. Are you opposed to the admission of any new State into the Federal Union 
 whose constitution tolerates slavery 1 
 
 ^'Answer. I am." 
 
 Here, sir, is proof of the patriotic, kind, charitable, and humane feelings of this 
 friend of Mr. Van Buren for the slaveholding States ! Here is the man who 
 charges William Henry Harrison, a native of Virginia, a son of a signer of the 
 Declaration of Independence, with being an abolitionist ! This is the man who 
 accuses Harrison, who sacrificed his seat in Congress in 1819 for the South, who 
 so often risked his life in the service of his country — this is the man who charges 
 the Southern people with being encouragers of " theft, robbery, and murder," that 
 also accuses General Harrison of favoring abolition ! I will forbear further com- 
 ment. 
 
 Take another instance : Mr. Benjamin Tappan, the Van Buren Senator from 
 Ohio, was a judge in that State. I have before me a voluine entitled " Tappan's 
 Reports." The case is Barrett vs. Jarvis, on the 212th page. One man said of 
 another he was " akin to negroes." For this an action of slander was commenced, 
 and Tappan delivered the opinion, which he afterwards prepared for publication. 
 
12 
 
 There can, therefore, be no mistake as to the correctness of the report as made 
 by him. Speaking of the negroes, in this report, he says : 
 
 " If the action does not lie for imputing a want of moral virtue, can it lie for imputing a con- 
 sanguinity with any particular race of men 1 for saying of another that he has a drop of African 
 blood in his veins ? that he is of kin, in some degree, remote or near, to the negroes — to that race 
 of men who have been, for ages, the victims of a bloody and unrelenting avarice, and who are 
 bound down to the ground, and trodden under foot by oppression, so wide and so enormous that 
 no man can tor a moment contemplate their situation without the deepest commiseration and hor- 
 ror — commiseration for their sufferings, and horror at the immense mass of wickedness and 
 crime which holds them in subjection 1 
 
 "I know of no principle of ethics or law which would forbid a descendent of the fair-haired 
 and ruddy Teutone from marrying the swarthy native of Africa." 
 
 This language is very proper from one who has refused to present abolition pe- 
 titions ! But, in this refusal, Tappan has at least the merit of consistency. He 
 does not wish to abolish slavery by legislation, or any peaceable means. He likes 
 Nat. Turner's plan, which met his decided approbation. Some time since, when 
 I referred to this man's declarations, a gentleman from Ohio asked me for my au- 
 thorit}', and I then said if his Senator would deny it I would prove it. Nov»', sir, 
 I should be glad to be called on again for the authority. But this 1 know will not 
 be done. I must, therefore, produce it voluntarily. I hold in my hand, sir, a 
 letter written by James Collier, of Steubeiiville, where Tappan lives, in which he 
 gives a conversation he had with Tappan relative to abolition. In this conver- 
 sation this man showed he had a heart dead to all the dictates of humanity. Mr. 
 Collier says : 
 
 "In the conversation alluded to, Judge Tappan observed, 'that as he was returning from Co- 
 lumbus, he was waited upon at Zanesville, by a committee from the State Abolition Society, 
 then in session at Putnam, with a request that he would accept some appointment, or some of- 
 fice, (what particular oflice I do not now recollect,) from the society.' The Judge stated that 
 he declined, and assigned as a reason, that he disapproved of the course they were taking ; ' but,' 
 said he, ' I told them if they wanted five hundred dollars to purchase arms and ammunition, to 
 put into the hands of the blacks that they might free themselves, I would give them the moHey.' 
 I then asked him if he had reflected upon the consequences of such a step ; that insurrection 
 would be the inevitable result ; and that he might thereby put in peril the lives of his connexions 
 and neighbors. He inquired how 1 To which I replied, that the President was bound, by his 
 oath of office, to suppress insurrections, and, to do that, was authorized to call out the whole 
 armed force of the country. He remarked, that the President would do no such thing. To this 
 I replied, that the President had ordered the troops to Southampton, and would do it again, if 
 necessary. I then said, 'Judge, I think I can put you a case where you would go yourself.* 
 •Let me bear your case. Colonel,' said he. 'i^uppose, sir,' I observed, ' that the county of 
 Brooke, opposite to us, in Virginia, contained a dense population of slaves ; that they should 
 rise up against their masters, and that you should be standing with your neighbors on one side 
 of the river, and see them marching down on the other side, burning and destroying every thing 
 within their reach, and murdering, without distinction, men, women, and children, and that 
 our friends and acquaintances should call upon us for assistance, would not you gol' • No by 
 God,' said he, • I would not, and would disinherit any child I have that would go !" 
 
 This conversation uas held since the Southampton insurrection. And this is a 
 warm friend of Mr. Van Buren's, and charges General Harrison's friends with 
 being allied with abolitionists ! 
 
 Mr. J. H. Hailock writes — " He (Tappan) habitually denounced slavery and 
 slaveholders ; his expressions were very strong, such as — ' that the slaves ought to 
 rise and cut their masters' throats ;' ' if they (the slaves) should rise, he would not 
 aid in subduing them, but would rather aid them.' " 
 
 Mr. D. S. Collier, in a letter dated March 6, 1840, confirms the statements of 
 Mr. Hailock and Mr, James Collier. D. S. Collier says : 
 
 "In a conversation between the Judge (Tappan) and a gentleman then resident of this place, 
 but now of Baltimore, on the subjects of slavery, this case was presented to the Judge : ' Sup- 
 pose, sir, we should see the slaves rising against their masters, on the opposite side of the river, 
 (Virginia,) and about to succeed in subduing them, or in cutting their throats, would you not 
 interfere to prevent this, and save their lives'!' To which he replied, in substance, 'that if he 
 interfered at all, it would be to supply the slaves with ammunition." 
 
 Mr. D. S. Collier lives in Steubenville. I have these original letters. I dare 
 any supporter of this Administration to contradict them. Is it not an honor to 
 
13 
 
 General Harrison that such monsters should oppose him ? General Harrison said, 
 in his Cheviot speech, that the measures of the abolitionists, if successful, would 
 produce scenes which only an " incarnate devil" could look upon with approbation,^ 
 Sir, he did not know Ben. Tappan, the Van Buren Senator from Ohio. And 
 this is the man, a cherished friend of this Administration, who accuses General 
 Harrison's friends with favoring abolition ! Does the political history of the world- 
 afford such another instance of malignity and of audacity ? But I have more proof 
 still. I have before me the original " Western Herald and Steubenville Gazette," 
 published in September 1837, sent to me from Ohio, in which Mr. James Means 
 publishes a letter corroborating the statements of Messrs. Collier and Hallock. 
 Hesides Mr. Means is a Van Buren man, and this publication was not intended 
 for any slaveholding people, and was published before Tappan was in Congress. 
 In this Mr. Means says: 
 
 "There is another thing. I consider him the worst kind of an abolitionist, as he holds to 
 doctrines the most mischievous and absurd on the subjects of slavery. I believe it could be prov- 
 ed that he has said he vpould give $500 to purchase arms to put in the hands of the slaves to 
 free themselves ; and that they ought to cut their masters' throats. Ho has also said, if the slaves 
 were butchering men, women, and children, on the opposite side of the river, he would not lift 
 a finger to rescue them ; and that he would disinherit a son who would offer to go to their relief. 
 ]Vo\v, although not an advocate for slavery, I would not support any man for office, who enter- 
 tains such inhumane feelings and opinions as these." 
 
 How well qualified such a wretch is to be a reviler of General Harrison I 
 What an excellent instrument Southern Van Buren men have selected to charge 
 General Harrison's friends of favoring abolition ! It is a shame such a creature 
 should be allowed to sit in this Capitol. And this is the man of " invulnerable 
 principles," as the Globe says, in whose hands the rights of the people would be 
 safe ! 
 
 But he is an object of pity. The fiendish malignity of his soul must have ban- 
 ished all the nobler feelings of man's nature; his rancorous hatred of his fellow- 
 man must debar him of all the enjoyments which feelings of charity and a quiet 
 conscience can alone bestow — feelings without which life must be any thing but a 
 blessing. I leave him for the present. I make no apology for bringing up his say- 
 ings and doings to the public gaze. He has endeavored by vile slander to identify 
 General Harrison with abolition. I have repelled the falsehood ; and, unless 1 
 am misinformed, I can furnish other things not much better than that which I have 
 given to-day. I leave his Southern Van Buren friends to circulate his speeches, 
 and to regale themselves in listening to his conversation, and dwelling with satis- 
 faction on his interesting countenance — a countenance from whose gaze charity 
 turns away with horror, and mercy flies afrighted — a countenance whose repulsive 
 obliquity is a fair index of the rancorous venom which fills his soul. 
 
 At a convention of Van Buren men in Indiana, in 1836, which assembled at 
 Indianapolis on the 8th January, an address was published, and, among other ob- 
 jections to General Harrison, the convention charges him with endeavoring to in- 
 troduce slavery in Indiana. 
 
 The address, after giving other objections, calls this a ^^ grave objection." It 
 proceeds then to state that, in 1803, when he was Governor of Indiana, when in- 
 vested with almost unlimited powers, he, "in conjunction with the two Territorial 
 judges," made a law compelling all njgroes, coming into that Territory bound to 
 service, to perform the same. 
 
 This Van Buren convei'tion also charges him with approving bills of the Ter- 
 ritorial Legislature in 1805 and 1807, which, the convention states, the Supreme 
 Court of Indiana have decided to be of no validity, because " they authorized sla- 
 veryy The address of this convention then concludes with this language : ^^Whaf 
 claims for political support has that man on the people of Indiana 2oho dimmed 
 her escutcheon with the foul blot of slavery, arid desecrated that soil with a de- 
 graded popidation ichich the fathers of the republic had decreed shoidd remain 
 forever the exclusive and hallotocd abode of freemen." 
 
 My friend from Indiana, (Mr. Proffit,) who called my attention to this, in- 
 
14 
 
 forms me the address was written by James Wliitcomb, Esq., who then lived in In- 
 diana, but who has since been brought to this city, and is now Commissioner of the 
 General Land Office, at a comfortable salary of three thousand a year ! Among 
 other prominent persons, there were four land office receivers, one now elector 
 on the Van Buren ticket in Indiana, Geo. Boon ; one Indian agent ; and the Sec- 
 retary of State and Treasurer of State in Indiana. One of these men, during this 
 session, has been appointed receiver at a land office. 
 
 Is not this sufficient to satisfy any man that abolitionists oppose Harrison? Why 
 do the supporters of Mr. Van Buren bring "grave objections" against him, because 
 he advocated the rights of the South ? Are not these accusers and vilifiers of 
 General Harrison themselves enemies of tlie South? And, if so, why are they 
 appointed to office by Mr. Van Baren 1 Well may the Emancipator remark, with 
 exultation, " that the honors paid to Legget, (the abolitionist whom Mr. Van Bu- 
 ren sent on a foreign mission,) and the election of Morton as Governor of Massa- 
 chusetts, and other little matters, show that his party do not mean to reject, de- 
 finitively, the support of abolitionists at the North." Wiiat the " other little mat- 
 ters" are those acquainted with Van Buren abolitionists can answer — probably 
 a promise to the editor of the Emancipator of a good office. 
 
 I finish with this branch of the subject. I have thus far shown that abolitionists 
 are opposed to General Harrison. The abolition papers, the abolitionists who 
 wish to forward emancipation by reasoning, and the cut-throat abolitionists are op- 
 posed to him. Why is this? I propose to give a k\v reasons. 
 
 Harrison's hostility to abolition. 
 
 In 1819, when Missouri applied for admission into the Union, a bill was re- 
 ported, which contained this clause : 
 
 " And provided, also, That the furtlier introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be pro- 
 hibited, except for the punishment of crimes, M'hereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that 
 all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, 
 shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of 25 years." 
 
 It was proposed to strike out this section. The whole country was convulsed 
 with this discussion. Mr. Jefferson said, it alarmed him like a fire-bell in the 
 night. Mr. Rufus King (whom Mr. Van Buren supported) was the leader of the 
 party which proposed to admit Missouri with this restriction. Every Southera 
 man was opposed to it. 
 
 A motion was made to strike out this part of the resolution : 
 
 '^ And provided, also, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be pro- 
 hibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted." 
 
 Upon this vote General Harrison voted with the South. A motion was then 
 made to strike out this part of the resolution : 
 
 "And that all children of slaves, born within the said State, after the admission thereof into 
 the Union, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of 25 years. " 
 
 Upon this also, as upon all other votes touching this question, General Harri- 
 son voted with the South. 
 
 The following were the Representatives from North Carolina in Congress at 
 that time: Jos. H. Bryan, Will. Davidson, Chas. Fisher, W. N. Edwards, Thos. 
 Hall, Jas. Owen, Lemuel Sawyer, Thos. Settle, Jesse Slocumb, Jas. S. Smith, 
 Jas. Stewart, Felix Walker, and Lewis Williams. Eight of these gentlemen still 
 live. They can bear testimony to these facts. General Harrison voted with 
 them on that occasion. For this the abolitionists have never forgiven him. The 
 House, by a majority of two or three votes, refused to strike out this restriction, 
 and, on account of this, the bill was lost, and Missouri was not admitted until the 
 next year. 
 
 General Harrison acted from the deliberate conviction of his judgement and 
 the dictate of his conscience. He returned to his people, and lost his seat in 
 Congress on account of this vote. He knew the risk he incurred. I learn from 
 a respectable source in North Carolina that the honorable Thos. Settle (now judge 
 
15 
 
 of the Superior Courts in North Carolina) recently said that, " on the night be- 
 fore the question was taken on the bill to admit Missouri, without restriction, Gen- 
 eral Harrison said to him, ' I have often risked my life in the field in defence of 
 my country, and I shall to-morrow risk my political life in favor of the Union of 
 the States.'" What a glorious example! How worthy was such conduct of a 
 native of Virginia — a son of a signer of the Declaration of Independence ! 
 
 In the fall of 1822, General Harrison was a candidate, and was opposed on ac- 
 count of his votes in behalf of the rights of the South. 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia, (Mr. Hopkins,) among others, I regret to per- 
 ceive, seems to have forgotten what was due to his own character for fairness, and 
 has published a garbled^account of the letter written by General Harrison at that 
 time. The letter appears in the gentleman's circular as one of recent date, and 
 does great injustice to General Harrison. 
 
 [Mr. Hopkins explained, by saying, in the paper in which he saw the extract 
 he had published, it stood alone ; he had never seen the whole letter.] 
 
 Mr. Stanly said he was glad to hear this explanation ; but he hoped the gen- 
 tleman would now repair the injury, by publishing to his constituents the whole 
 letter. Here I will give the whole : 
 
 "to the prsLic. 
 
 "FELLOw-ciTizE?rs: Being called siuldenly home to attend my sick family, I have but a 
 moment to answer a few of the calumnies which are in circulation concerning me. 
 
 "I am accused of being friendly to slavery. From my earliest youth to the present moment, 
 I have been the ardent friend of human liberty. At the age of IS, I became a member of an 
 Abolition society established at Richmond, Virginia, the object of which was to ameliorate the 
 condition of slaves, and procure their freedom by every legal means. My venerable friend Judge 
 Gatch, of Clermont county, was also a member of that society, and has lately given me a cer- 
 tificate that I was one. The obligations which I then came under I have faithfully performed. 
 I have been the means of liberating many slaves, but never placed one in bondage. I deny 
 that my votes in Congress, in relation to Missouri and Arkansas, are in the least incompatible 
 with these principles. Congress had no more legal or constitutional right to emancipate the 
 negroes in those sections of Louisiana, without the consent of their owners, than they have to 
 free those of Kentucky. These people were secured in their property by a solemn covenant 
 with France when the country was purchased from that Power. To prohibit the emigration 
 of citizens of the Southern States to the part of the country, the situation and climate of which 
 was peculiarly suited to them, would have been highly unjust, as it had been purchased out of 
 the common fund. Particularly, too, when it is recollected that all the immense territory to the 
 Northwest of the Ohio had been ceded by Virginia, and that with an unexampled liberality, she 
 had herself proposed, by excluding slavery from it, to secure it for the emigration of those States 
 which had no slaves. Was it proper, then, when her reserved territory was in a great measure 
 filled up, to exclude her citizens from every part of the territory purchased out of the common 
 fund ] I was the first person to introduce into Congress the proposition that all the country 
 above Missouri, (which having no inhabitants was free from the objection made to Missouri and 
 Arkansas,) should never have slavery admitted into it. I repeat luhat I have before said, that 
 as our Union toas only effected by mutual concession, so only can it be preserved. 
 
 " My vote against the restriction of Missouri in forming her constitution was not a conclu- 
 sive one ; there loould have been time enough, had I continued to be a member, before the ques- 
 tion was decided, for my constituents to have instructed me, and 1 should have rejoiced in any 
 opportunity of sacrificing my seat to my princijiles, if they hadinstruciedme, in opposition to 
 my construction of the constitution. Like many other members from the non-slaveholding 
 States, of whom I mention Shaw, Holmes, Mason of Massachusetts, Lanman of Connecticut, 
 and Baldwin of Pensylvania, 1 could see nothing in the constitution which I had sworn to sup- 
 port to warrant such an interference with the rights of the States, and which had never before 
 been attempted. And where is the crime in one set of men not being able to interpret the con- 
 stitution as other men interpret it? As we hud all sworn to support it, the crime would have 
 been in giving it a construction ivhich our consciences would not sanction. And let me ask 
 for what good is this question again brought up "! It has been settled as all our family differen- 
 ces have been settled, on the firm basis of mutual compromise. And patriotism, as well as pru- 
 dence devoted the effects of that awful discussion to eternal oblivion. Is it not known that from 
 that cause the great fabric of our Union was shaken to its foundation? Is it not known that 
 Missouri would not have submitted to the restriction, and that the other slaveholding States had 
 determined to support herl But for this compromise, the probability is, that at this moment 
 we might look upon the opposite shore of Ohio, not for an alfectionate sister State, but an arm- 
 ed an hnplacable rival. What patriotic man would not join the gallant Eaton in execrating the 
 head and the hand that could devise and execute a scheme productive of a calamity so awful 1 
 
16 
 
 *" Upon the whole, fellow-citizens, our path is a plain one; it is that marked out as well by 
 humanity as duty. We cannot emancipate the slaves of the other States without their consent, 
 but by producing a convulsion which loould u?idu us alt. For this much-to-be-desired event, 
 we must wait the slow but certain progress of those good principles which are everywhere gain- 
 ing ground, and which assuredly will ultimately prevail. 
 
 *********** 
 
 "WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON." 
 
 This society in Richmond, Virginia, was in existence in 1791, — many Revo- 
 lutionary patriots were members of it. Every man of sense knows, that in the 
 abolition societies, as they now are, no abolitionists could live comfortably in Vir- 
 ginia at this lime. Harrison was then about 18 years old; at 19 he was in Wayne's 
 army, with a commission from Washington. But weigh well the whole language 
 of this letter. Does be repent of his support of the rights of the slaveholding 
 States 1 Nothing like it. He says, he would have rejoiced in an opportunity of 
 sacrificing his seat to his principles, if he had been instructed in opposition to his 
 construction of the constitution. He repeats, " we cannot emancipate the slaves 
 of the other States, without thoir consent, but by producing a convulsion which 
 would undo us all." Is this the language of an abolitionist 1 He asks, " what 
 patriotic man, would not join the gallant Eaton, in execrating the head and hand 
 that could devise and execute a scheme, productive of a calamity so awful." 
 This, sir, is the language of one who had risked his life for his country. 
 
 The next cause of complaint against General Hdrrison by abolitionists, is his 
 speech at Cheviot, 1833. 
 
 I give as much of this speech as relates to slavery, at length. 
 
 Extracts from General Harrison''s speech at Cheviot, Ohio, July 4:, 1833. 
 
 "There is, however, a subject now beginning to agitate them, [the Southern States,] in rela- 
 tion to which, if their alarm has any foundation, the relative situation in which they may stand 
 to some of the States, will be the very reverse to what it now is. I allude to a supposed dispo- 
 sition in some individuals in the non- slaveholding States to interfere with the slave population of 
 the other States, for the purpose of forcing their emancipation. I do not call your attention to 
 this subject, fellow-citizens, from the apprehensio7i that there is a man among you who will 
 lend his aid to a project so pregnant ivith mischief, and still less that there is a State in the 
 Union which could be brought to give it any countenance. But such are the feelings of our South- 
 ern brethren upon this subject — such their views, and their just views, of the evils which an in- 
 teference of this kind would bring upon them, that long before it would reach the point of re- 
 ceiving the sanction of a State, the evil of the attempt would be consummated, as far as we are 
 concerned, by a dissolution of the Union. If there is any principle of the constitution of the 
 United States less disputable than any other, it is, that the slave population is under the exclu- 
 sive control of the States which possess tliem. If there is any measure likely to rivet the chains 
 and blast the prospects of the negroes for emancipation, it is the interference of unauthorized 
 persons. Can any one who is acquainted with the operations of the human mind doubt this ? 
 We have seen how restive our Southern brethren have been from a supposed violation of their 
 political rights. What must be the consequence of an acknowledged violation of these rights, 
 Cfor every man of sense must admit it to be so, J coiijoined with an insulting interference with 
 their domestic concerns ? 
 
 " Shall I be accused of want of feeling for the slave, by these remarks ? A further examination 
 will elucidate the matter. 1 take it for granted that no one will say that either the Government 
 of the United States or those of the non-slaveholdmg States can interfere in any ivay with the 
 right of property in the slaves. Upon whom, then, are the efforts of the misguided and pre- 
 tended friends of the slaves to operate 1 It must be either on the Governments of the slaveholding 
 States, the individuals who hold them, or upon the slaves themselves. What are to he the ar- 
 guments, what the means, by which they are to influence the two first of these ] Is there a man 
 vain enough to go to the land of Madison, of Macon, and of Crawford, and tell them that they 
 either do not understand the principles ofj the moral and political rights of man ; or that, under- 
 standing, they disregard them "? Can they address an argument to the intereiit or fears of the 
 enlightened population of the slave States, that has not occured to themselves a thousand and a 
 thousand times 1 To whom, then, are they to address themselves but to the slaves 1 And what 
 can be said to them, that will not lead to an indiscriminate slaughter of every age and sex, and 
 ultimately to their own destruction 1 Should there be an incarnate devil who has imagined 
 with approbation such a catastrophe to his fellow-citizens as I have described, let him look to 
 those for lohose benefit he would produce it. Particular sections of the country may be laid 
 waste, all the crimes that infuriated man, under the influence of all the black passions of his na- 
 ture can commit, may be perpetrated for a season ; the tides of the ocean, however, will no more 
 certainly change than that the flood of horrors will be arrested, and turned upon those who may 
 get it ia motion. 
 
17 
 
 " Iwill not stop to inquire into the motives of those who are engaged in this fataland uncoti- 
 stitutional project. There may be some who have embarked in it without properly considering 
 its consequences, and who are actuated by benevolent and virtuous principles. But, if such there 
 arc, I am very certain that, should they continue their present course, their fellow-citizens will, 
 ere long, 'cui-se the virtues which have undone their country.' 
 
 "Should I be asked if there is no way by which the General Government can aid the cause of 
 emancipation, I answer, that it has long been an object near my heart to see the whole of its 
 surplus revenue appropriated to that object. With the sanction of the States holding the slaves, 
 there appears to me to be no constitutional objection to its being thus applied; embracing not 
 only the colonization of those that may be otheivvise freed, but the purchase of freedom of others. 
 By a zealous prosecution of a plan formed upon that basis we might look forward to a day, not 
 very distant, when a North American sun would not look down upon a slave. To those who 
 have rejected the plan of colonization, I would ask, if they have well weighed the conseuuences 
 of emancipation without it! How long would the emancipated negroes remain satisfied with 
 that? Would any one of the Southern States then (the negroes armed and organized) be able 
 to resist their claims to a participation in all their political rights 1 Would it even stop there 1 
 Would they not claim admittance to all the social rights and privileges of a community in which, 
 in some instances, they would compose the majority 1 Let those who take pleasure in the con- 
 templation of such scenes as must inevitably follow, finish out the picture. 
 
 " If I am correct in the principles here advanced, I support my asscrtiun, that the discussion 
 on the subject of emancipation in the non-slaveholding States, is equullij injurious to the slaves 
 and their masters, and that it has no sanction in the principles of the conntitution. I must not 
 be understood to say, that there is any thing in that instrument which prohibits such discussion. 
 I know there is not. But the man who believes that the claims which his fellow- citizens have 
 upon him, are satisfied by adhering to the letter of the political contract that connect them, must 
 have a very imperfect knowledge of the principles upon which our glorious Union was formed, 
 and by which alone it can be maintained. I mean those feelings of regard and affection which 
 were manifested in the first dawn of our Revolution, which induced every American to think 
 that an injury inflicted upon his fellow-citizen, however distant his location, was an injury to 
 himself; which made us, in eflect, one people, before we had any paper contract ; which induced 
 the venerable Shelby, in the second war for independence, to leave the comforts which age re- 
 quired, to encounter the dangers and privations incident to a wilderness war ; which drew from 
 the same quarter the innumerable battalions of volunteers v hich preceded and followed him; and 
 from the banks of the distant Appomattox, that band of youthful heroes, which has immortalized 
 the appellation by which it was distinguished. Those worthy sons of immortal sires did not 
 stop to inquire into the alleged injustice and immorality of the Indian war. It was sufficient for 
 them to learn their fellow-citizens were in danger, that the tomahawk and scalping-knife were sus- 
 penj^ed over the heads of the women and children of Ohio, to induce them to abandon the ease, 
 and, in many instances, the luxury and splendor by which from infancy they had been sur- 
 rounded, to encounter the fatigues and dangers of war, amidst the horrors of a Canadian winter." 
 
 This speech requires no comment. It has been garbled and made to bear a 
 construction never intended by its author. Let it be borne in mind that this speech 
 was made in 1833, before General Harrison had been nominated for the Presi- 
 dency. He was requested not to allude to this subject ; but llie instinct of patriot- 
 ism, the feelings of benevolence, a sense of duty to his country, operated on him 
 with resistless force. In the midst of a people opposed to slavery — among non- 
 slaveholders, he gives utterance to this language. On the 4th of July, witii a heart 
 full of the o-lorious recollections of that great day on which his father had signed the 
 Declaration of Independence, turning his thoughts to his dear native land — the 
 land of his kindred and friends — the land of Washington, Madison, and Henry — 
 defyiu"- the suggestions of a cold, calculating prudence-, he spurned the selfish pro- 
 posal of non-committal, and reproved, in language worthy one who had often' risked 
 his life for his country, the attempts of those who were endeavoring to agitate the 
 country upon the subject of abolition. Such conduct is beyond the reach of praise. 
 I leave it to the American people to pronounce the eulogy. 
 
 The next cause of offence to abolitionists is General Harrison's Vincennes 
 speech. This is the speech which abolitionists call " m/«mow.f" and notorious. 
 I will give part of this speech with no other comment than this. It was made 
 AFTER he was nominated for the Presidency. He knew he was beaten for Con- 
 t^ress in 1822, on account of his votes upon the Missouri question ; he knew there 
 was great excitement in the country relative to the question of slavery ; there wa.s 
 no necessity for an expression of his opinion, but again, in the midst of a non-slave- 
 holdino- people, he repeats his censure of their illegal and unconstitutional attempts. 
 8 
 
18 
 
 This leltt r has been published by the Cincinnati committee, wlio tell us General 
 Harrison's opinions upon the exciting questions of tiie day have undergone no 
 change. 
 
 Extracts from General Harrison^ speech at Vinccnuen, Indiaiia, July A, 1835. 
 
 " I have now, fellow-citizens, a few words more to say on another subject, and which is, in 
 my opinion, of more importance than any other that is now in the course of discussion in any 
 part of the Union. I allude to the societies which have been formed, and the movements of 
 certain individuals, in some of the States, in relation to a portion of the population in others. 
 Tiie comluct of these persons is the more dangerous, because their object is masked under the 
 garb of disinterestedaess and benevolence ; and their course vindicated by arguments and propo- 
 sitions which, in the abstract, no one can deny. But, however fascinating may be the dress with 
 which their schemes are presented to their fellow-citizens, with whatever purity of intention they 
 may have been tormed and sustained, they will be found to carry in their train mischief to the 
 whole Union, and horrors to a large portion of it, which it is probable some of the projectors 
 and many of their supporters have never thought of; the latter, the first in the series of evils 
 which are to spring from this source, are such as you have read of to have been jierpetrated on 
 the fair plains of Italy and Gaul by the Scythian hordes of Atilla and Alaric ; and such as most 
 of you apprehend upon that memorable night, when the tomaliawks and war-clubs of the fol- 
 lowers of Tecumseh were rattling in your suburbs. I regard not the disavowals of anj' such in- 
 tention on the part of the authors of these schemes, since, upon the examination of the publi- 
 cations which have been made, they will be found to contain every fact and every argument 
 which would have been used if such had been their objects. I am certain that there is not in 
 this assembly one of these deluded men, and that there are few within the bounds of the State. 
 If there are any, I would earnestly entreat them to forbear, to pause in their career, and deliber- 
 ately consider the consequences of their conduct to the whole Union, to the States more immedi- 
 ately inter,>sted, and to those for whose benefit they profess to act. That the latter will be the 
 victims of the weak, injudicious, presumptuous, and unconstitutional eflorts to serve them, a 
 thorough examination of the subject must convince them. The struggle (and struggle there 
 must be) may commence with horrors such as I have described, but it will end with more firmly 
 rivetting the chains, or in the utter extirpation of those whose cause they advocate. Am I 
 tvrong, fellow-citizens, in applying the terms iveak, presumptuous, and iinconstitutioaal, to 
 the measures of the emancipators ? A slight examination will, I think, show that I am not. 
 In a vindication of the objects of a convention which was lately held in one of the towns of Ohio, 
 which 1 saw in a newspaper, it was said that nothing more was intended than to produce a state 
 of public feeling which would lead to an amendment of the constitution, authorizing the abolition 
 of slavery in the United States. Now, can an amendment of the constitution be efl'ected without 
 the consent of the Southern States 1 M^hat, then, is the proposition to be submitted to them "? 
 It is this : The present provisions of the constitution secure to you the right (a right which you 
 held before it was made, and which you have never given up) to manage your domestic con- 
 cerns in your own way ; but as we are convinced that you do not manage them proj)erly, we 
 want you to put in the hands of the Gener-il Government, in the councils of which we have the 
 majority, the control over these matters, the effect of which will be virtually to transfer the pow- 
 er from yours into our hands. Again, in some of the States, and in sections of others, the 
 black population far exceeds that of the white. Some the emancipators {)ropose an immediate 
 abolition. What is the proposition, then, as it regards those States and parts of States, but the 
 iilternatives of amalgamation with the blacks, or an exchange of situations with theml Is there 
 any man of common sense who docs not believe that the emancipated blacks, being'a majority, 
 will not insist upon a full participation of ])olitical rights with the whites, and, when possessed 
 of these, that they will not contend for a full share of social rights also? What but the extrem- 
 ity of weakness and folly could induce any one to think that such propositions as these could be 
 listened to by a people so intelligent as those of the Southern States? Further, the emancipa- 
 tors generally declare that it is their intention to eflect their object (although tlieir acts contradict 
 the assertion) bv no other means than by convincing the slaveholders that the immediate eman- 
 cipation of the slaves is called for both by moral obligation and sound policy. .\n unfledged 
 youth at the moment of his leaving (indeed, in many instances before he has left it) his Theolo- 
 gical Seminary, undertakes to give lectures upon morals to the countrymen of Wythe, Tucker, 
 Pendleton, and Lowndes, and lessons of political wisdom to States whose affairs have so recent- 
 ly been directed by Jefferson and Madison, Macon and Crawford. Is it possible that instances, 
 of greater vanity and presumption could be exhibited ! 
 
 •' But the course pursued by the emancipators is unconstitutional. I do not say that there 
 are any words in the constitution which forbid such discussions as they say they are engaged in, 
 I know that there are not. And there is even an article which secures to the citizens the right to 
 express and publish their opinions v.-ithout restriction. But in the construction of the constitu- 
 tion it is always necessary to refer to the circumstances under which it was framed, and to ascer- 
 tain lis meaning by a comparison of its provisions with each other, and with the previous situa- 
 tion of the several States who were parties to it. In a portion of these slavery was recognised, 
 and they took care to have the right secured to them to follow and reclaim such of them as were 
 
19 
 
 fugitives to other States. The laws of Congress passed under this power have provided punish- 
 ment to any who shall oppose or interrupt the exercise of this right. Now, can any one believe 
 that the instrument which contains a provision of this kind, which authorizes a master to pursue 
 his slave into another State, take him back, and provides a punishment for any citizen or citizens 
 of that State who should o[)pose him, s-hould at the same time authorize the latter to assemble to- 
 gether, to pass resolutions and adopt addresses, not only to encourage the slaves to leave their 
 masters, but to cut their throats before they do so ? I insist that, if the citizens of the non slave- 
 holding States can avail themselves of the article of the constitution which prohibits the restric- 
 tion of speech or of the press, to publish any thing injurious to the rights of the slaveholding 
 States, they can go to the extreme that I have mentioned, and effect any thing further which 
 writing or speaking could effect. But, fellow-citizens, these are not the principles of the con- 
 stitution. Such a construction would defeat one of the great objects of lis formation, which was 
 that of securing the peace and harmony of the States which were parties to it. The liberty of 
 speech and of the press were given as the most effectual means to preserve to each and every cit- 
 izen their own rights, and to the States the rights which appertained to them at the time of its 
 adoption. 
 
 " It could never have been expected that it would be used by the citizens of one portion of the 
 States for the purpose of depriving those of another portion of the rghts, which they had reserved 
 at the adoption of the constitution, and in the exercise of which none but themselves have any 
 concern or interest. If slavery is an evil, (and no one more readily acknowledges it than I do,) 
 the evil is with them. If there is guilt in it, the guilt is theirs, not ours, since neither the States 
 where it does not exist, rmr the Government of the United States, can, without usurpation of 
 power and the violation of a solemn compact, do any thing to remove it without the consent of 
 thos' ivho are immediately interested. With that consent, there is not a man in the whole 
 world who would more willingly contribute his aid to accomplish it than I would. If my vote 
 could effect it, every surplus dollar in the Treasury should be appropriated to that object. But 
 they will neither ask for aid nor consent to be aided, so long as the illegal, persecuting, and dan- 
 gerous movements are in progress of which I complain ; the interest of all concerned requires that 
 these should be immediately stopped. This can only be done by the force of public opinion, and 
 that cannot too soon be brought into operation. Every movement which is made by the aboli- 
 tionists in the non-slaveholding States is viewed by our Southern brethren as an attack upon 
 their rights, and which, if persisted in, must in the end eradicate those feelings of attachment 
 and affection between the citizens of all the States which were produced by a community of in- 
 terests and dangers in the war of the Revolution, which was the foundation of our happy Union, 
 and by a continuance of which it alone can be preserved. I entreat you, then, fellow-citizens, 
 to frown upon the measures which are to produce results so much to be deprecated. The opin- 
 ions which I have now given, I have omitted no opportunity for the last two years to lay before 
 the people of my own State. I have taken the liberty to express them here, knowing that, even 
 if they should unfortunately not accord with yours, they would be kindly received.'' 
 
 Surely, sir, this is enough to satisfy any patriot; enough to convince any man 
 whose better judgment is not clouded by loco-focoism. The Southern man who 
 can read these speeches, and pronounce Harrison an abolitionist, has no sense of 
 gratitude and no regard for truth. There are office-holders enough paid to vilify 
 liim. It is an agreeable and becoming task for the " medicine man" of his party, 
 (Mr. Duncan,) and for liie Senator from Ohio. 
 
 But this is not all. 1 hold in my hand General Harrison letter to Mr. Sloo of 
 New Orleans, of a later date than his Vincennes speech : 
 
 From the New Orleans Bee. 
 
 *«Ge>-ekal Habkisox — ABOLiTio>". — The following letter was writen by General Hariison 
 to a gentleman well known to the people of this city : 
 
 "'Cincinnati, November 26, 1836. 
 
 " ' Mt dear sin : I answer the question you proposed to me this morning, with great pleasure. 
 
 " * 1st. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the States, or in any mannerin- 
 terfere luifh the property of the citizens in their slaves, but upon the application of the Slates, 
 in which case, and in no other, they might appropriate money to aid the States so applying to 
 get rid of their slaves. These opinions I have always held, and this was the ground upon which 
 I voted against the Missouri restriction in the 15th Congress. The opinions given above are 
 precisely those which were entertained by Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson. 
 
 " ' 2d. I do not believe that Congress can abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, ivithout 
 the consent of the States of Virginia and Maryland, and the people of the District. 
 
 " « I received a letter some time since from John M. Berrien, Esq., of Georgia, proposing ques- 
 tions similar to those made by you, and I answered them more at length than I have now done, 
 but to the same import. 
 
 " 'In haste, yours truly, 
 
 " ' W. H. HARRISON. 
 
 *« 'To Thomas Sioo, Jr., of Neiv Orleans, now in Cincinnati.^ 
 
20 
 
 " These were the sentiments of General Harrison less than four years ago. They were writ- 
 ten after the last Presidential election, and refer to similar opinions written to Judge Berrien 
 before that election." 
 
 Judge Berrien, in a letter dated the lltb April, 1840, confirms tliis statement: 
 he says, " General Harrison denied the right of Congress to abolisli slavery in 
 the States, or in the District of Columbia." 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr, Hopkins) proposes to address letters to 
 General Harrison and Mr. Van Buren, calling upon them for an expression of tiieir 
 opinions. Both their opinions are known. Mr. Van Buren admits Congress can 
 abolish slavery in the District of Columbia: General Harrison denies it. Sir, I 
 would as soon tliink of questioning the gentleman himself, or any other man on 
 this floor, as General Harrison. The gentleni.an, however, has some excuse; he 
 was a ^ew months since opposed to this corrupt Administration. He has, as one 
 of the investigating committee, contributed to expose this Administration for its 
 culpable negligence. The evidence is before us in this bill, that they keep in- 
 conipetfMit men in office. But the gentleman ought to remen)ber, all men do 
 not change with as much facility as he does. General Harrison, when he voted 
 with the South in 1819, was more than fori}' years old. He was capable of 
 forming an opinion then. In 1822, he told his constituents his constitutional 
 opinion forced him to give that vote; he told them he had sworn to support the 
 constitution, and it would have been a crime not to have done so. 
 
 At Cheviot in 1833, at Vincennes in 1835, in his letters to Messrs. Berrien and 
 Sloo, he repeats his long-cherished opinions. Is it not ridiculous to suppose he 
 has changed his opinion'? Does not the question carry insult with it 1 If he was 
 so weak minded, or if he was so inuch of a Van Buren man, as to be capable of 
 changing Iiis opinions upon a great constitutional question, might he not change 
 again before November'? 
 
 I have now furnished abundant evidence of the hostility of abolitionists to Gen- 
 eral Harrison, and have also given the cause of that hostility. I leave it to the 
 sound judgment of the American people. 1 fear not the opinion of any honest 
 searcher after truth. 
 
 Mr. Van Buren's Abolition. 
 
 I wish now to contrast his opinions and conduct with General Harrison's. Mr. 
 Van Buren has been called a " Northern man with Southern principles;" not so 
 called by his enemies, but by friends who are trying to strengthen him in the 
 South. 
 
 I have referred before to his vote in the Senate of New York, when the Mis- 
 souri question agitated the whole country, but I will give it again. 
 
 The following resolution was introduced in the Senate of New Yoik : 
 
 " Preamble an^d Resolution. — Wherras the inhibiting of tlie further extension of slavery 
 in these United States is a sxibject of deep concern to the people of this State ; and whereas we 
 consider slavery as an evil much to be deplored, and that every constitutional barrier should be 
 interposed to prevent its further extension ; and that the constitution of the United States clearly 
 giving Congress the right to require of new States not comprehended within the original boundaries 
 of the United States, the prohibiting of slavery as a condition of their admission into the Union : 
 therefore, 
 
 "Resolved, (if the honorable Senate concur therein,) That our Senators be instructed, and our 
 Representatives in Congress be requested, to oppose the admission as a Stale into th§ Union of 
 any Territory not comprised as aforesaid, making the prohibition of slavery therein an indispen- 
 sable condition of admission. 
 
 "On the 29th January, 1820, the Senate took up the resolution and passed the same unani- 
 mously, the following Senators being present : 
 
 *« Messrs. Adams, Austin, Barnum, Bartow, Browne, Childs, Dudley, Dayton, Ditmiss, 
 Evans, Forthington, Hammond, Hart, I^ivingston, Jjoundsberry, McMartin, Moons, Mallory, 
 Moore, Noyes, Paine, Ross, Rosencrantz, Skinner, Swan, VAN BUREN, Wilson, Young — 29." 
 
 Here was evidence of " Southern principles!" Observe the date; Missouri 
 was not adn)itted. In 1819, the bill failed, on account of opposition to slavery. 
 And when tliis awful discussion threatened a dissolution of the Union, Martin Van 
 Buren, was adding fuel to the flame. 
 
21 
 
 In 1821, he voted to allow free negroes the right of suffrage. Another evidence 
 of " Southern principle." 
 
 In 1822, in the Senate of the United States, there vas a bill for the establish- 
 ment of a Territorial Government in Florida. I copy the following from the 
 journals of the Senate : 
 
 "The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill for the 
 establishment of a Territorial Government in Florida ; and, the bill having been amended, it 
 was reported to the House accordingly ; and, 
 
 "On the question to concur in the amendment to the 11th section, to strike out, after the 
 word 'freedom,' in the 14th line thereof, the residue of said section, as follows : 
 
 " 'No slave or slaves shall, directly or indirectly, be introduced into the said Territory, ex- 
 cept by a citizen of the United States removing into the said Territory for actual settlement, and 
 being, at the time of such removal, bona fide owner of such slave or slaves; or any citizen of 
 the United States travelling into the said Territory with any servant or servants, not exceeding 
 two; aqd every slave imported or brought into the said Territory, contrary to the provisions of 
 this act, shall thereupon be entitled to and receive his or her freedom.' 
 
 " It was determined in tlic aflirmative: Yeas 23, nays 20. 
 
 " On motion by Mr. iMills, 
 
 "Thayeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present, 
 
 "Those who voted in the affirmative are, 
 
 "Messrs. Barbour ofVa., Benton of Mo., Brown of Lou., D'Wolf of R. I., Eaton ofTenn., 
 Elliott of Ga., Gaillard of S. C, Holmes of Miss., Johnson of Ken., Johnson of Lou., King 
 of Ala., Lloyd of Md., Macon N. C, Noble of la., Pleasants of Va., Smith of S. C, South- 
 ard of N. J., Stokes of N. C, Van Dyke of Del., Walker of Ala., Ware of Ga., Williams of 
 Miss., Williams of Ten. 
 
 "Those who voted in the negative are, 
 
 "Messrs. Barton of Mo., Boardman of Conn., Brown of Ohio, Chandler of Me., Dicker- 
 son of N. J., Findlay of Penn., Holmes of Me., King of N. Y., Knight of R. L, Lanman of 
 Conn., Lowrie of Penn., Mills of Mass., Morril of N. H., Otis of Mass., Palmer of Vt., 
 Parrott of N. H., Ruggles of Ohio, Seymour of Vt, Thomas of 111., VAN BUREN of N. Y." 
 
 Mr. Van Biiren and his colleague, Mr. King, who was tlie leader of those that 
 opposed the admission of Missouri, voted against the Senators Macon and Stokes 
 from North Carolina, and other Southern Senators. He voted against striking 
 out this restriction. Another " Southern principle" vote. 
 
 And what has he done for the South ? He admits in his letter to several gen- 
 tlemen in North Carolina, that Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the 
 District of Columbia ! What wonderful attachment for " Southern principles !" 
 Hovv well calculated to excite the enthusiasm of the " Southern chivalry !" 
 
 (In a late letter to a gentleman in North Carolina, Mr. Van Buren says his 
 opinions are unchanged.) 
 
 Let the comparison be made between him and General Harrison. 
 
 But what other " Southern principles'''' has Mr. Van Buren 1 Are his tariff' votes 
 " Southern V He voted for the tariff of 1^24:, 
 
 He voted for the tariff of 1828, called the " bill of abominations." I learn 
 from the Journal that Mr. Hayne moved " that the bill be postponed indefitiitely." 
 Messrs. Berrien, Branch, Hayne, Macon, Tazwell, and Tyler, voting to postpone, 
 and Messrs. Benton, Johnson of Ky., and Van Buren voting against it. On the 
 question "■ shall the bill pass as amended," it was determined in the aflirmative. 
 Mr. Van Buren voting for the bill, and the Southern gentlemen I have mvntioned 
 votinc against it. Yet he is called in compliment, "a Northern man with South- 
 ern principles." He not only voted for these tariffs, but when in the State of 
 New York, in 1827, he was accused of dodging a vote on the wollen bill. On 
 the 10th of July, 1827, before a meeting in Albany, held to send delegates to a 
 tariff convention, he gave his reason in full. He not only advocated a tariff for 
 revenue, but for '■'■protection.'''' 
 
 "Mr. Van Buren said that, having now stated, as fully as the time would admit, his general 
 views upon the subject, his opinion of the settled policy of the State as to the propriety and expe- 
 diency of affording legislative protection to the manufacturing interests of the country, by temper- 
 ate and wise, and therefore salutary laws, and his readiness to aid in the passage of all such 
 laios, he would trespass for a few moments," &c. 
 
 And, to afford another instance of his "Southern principles," so worthy the ad- 
 
miration of" all the chivalry," I quote the following patriotic reasons for his sup- 
 porting a tariff. Mr. Van Buron said : 
 
 "He owed many thanks to the meeting for the very kind attention with which he had been 
 listened to by gentlemen, between many of whom and himself there had, upon public matters!, 
 been differences of opinion of long standing. (Xj'His situation in reference to the wool-growing 
 interest was well known to most of them. He had at present invested more than $20,000 in 
 SHEEP, and farms devoted, and which he meant to devote, to that business. He felt all proper 
 concern for his own interest, and would, of course, cheerfully unite in all suitable measures for 
 its advantage. "4IX) 
 
 What a candidate for gentlemen advocating " Southern principles !" Twenty 
 thousand dollars in siieep and farms, thirteen years ago, must have increased by 
 this time, and as he is well known to feel " all proper concern for his own inter- 
 est," he is unquestionably a tariff man now. Well may a man so rich in sheep 
 and lands sneer at the candidate of the hard-cider and log-cabin men ! 
 
 Sir, Mr. Van Buren may boast of his " proper concern" for his own iiiterest ; 
 he has never shown any concern for the interests of his rnuntry. This nation, left 
 bu " prosperous and iiappy" by General Jackson, has been convulsed with dis- 
 tress since Mr. Van Buren has presided over its destinies. He has never suggest- 
 ed any thing for the alleviation of our sufferings. Ho does not acknowledge he 
 is bound to do any thing for tlie country. Let the Government take care of it- 
 self; all communities are apt to e.xpect too much, is the consolation we receive 
 from the sheep candidate of " Southern principles." But the people are coming 
 to the rescue. They will take a farmer from his plough, who, although he has 
 not invested twenty thousand dollars in sheep, though he has not at the pnblic ex- 
 pense visited the King of England, though his sons have not been to visit Queen 
 Victoria, and been treated like lords, among dukes, earls, and princes of the earth, 
 yet he is one of the people. His life has been spent in the service of his country. 
 His life has been often risked for that country. His friends do not advocate his 
 election as a " Northern man with Southern principles," or a Western man with 
 Eastern principles, but as an American with American principles, wliich he has 
 supported with unwavering fidelity. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have detained the committee longer than I expected. If this 
 debate has been irregular and out of time, it is not my fault. The example was 
 set by the Administration. Charges have been made which I felt it a duty to ex- 
 pose. Slanders have been started here which I Ml bound to delect, which I have 
 refuted. When this irregular debate commenced, I rose in my seat and protested 
 against it. The Adminislration parly allowed and encouraged it. Let them take 
 the responsibilit}'. 
 
 Sir, I hold the President responsible before the American people, for the agi- 
 tation of this subject. The Globe, which he reads daily, supported by his pat- 
 ronage, the official authorized expositor of liis opinions, is incessantly endeavor- 
 ing to excite the Southern country upon this subject. Continual efiforts are made 
 by this paper, to array one portion of our people against the other. It spares 
 no pains to create sectional differences. The President can control this at his 
 will. If he believes there is no danger to be appr(!hended, why does he not say 
 sol If he believes there is danger, why has he not raised his voice against the 
 abolitionists? Why could he not last summer, when travelling in New York, take 
 occasion to say to them, as Harrison did at Cheviot and at Vincennes,<hat their 
 measures were presumptuous and unconstitutional 1 When he addressed his 
 democratic fellow-citizens at Castle Garden, could he not have said a word of 
 reproof? Why has he not introduced the subject into his message to Con- 
 gress? Is it because a " proper concern for his own interests," requires him to 
 devote his considerations to his large investments in sheep and farms ? 
 
 Sir, I have never believed there was any danger to be apprehended from abo- 
 litionists; I have always told my constituents so. I believe a large majority of 
 our Northern people are devotedly attached to our glorious Union ; I believe a 
 large majority are disposed to protect our constitutional rights ; I hiow they are. 
 The subject gives me no uneasiness. The people cannot always be duped. The 
 
23 
 
 whig party — the true democratic party of tliis country— have determined to resist 
 the monstrous schemes of this corrupt Administration. Against the sub-Treasury 
 — the Executive mammotli banl< — with their proposal, so appalling to a republican 
 heart, for raisinn an army of two hundred thousand men, we are now contending. 
 
 We offer a well-tried patriot—- well tried in the field and in the councils of the 
 nation — to lead us on to victory. He is identified with the people. His interests 
 are our interests. Having spent the larger portion of his life among the poor, he 
 feels for ihem. He is pledged to serve but one term. He will not be election- 
 eering, or trying to elect a successor after he is elected. Believing, if elected, 
 he can have no otlier object in view than his country's good, we offer him to the 
 people as the candidate of reform. 
 
 We raise our banner ; our watchword is, " There's no such loord as fail.'''' 
 And " with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," we cheer- 
 fully leave the issue io the hands of the American people. 
 
 Every abolition paper anbrOb aJJUional cvidouce of the unmitigated liostility of abolitionists 
 to General Harrison. The Emancipator is incessant and bitter in its attacks. This paper, as 
 late as May 12, contains the proceedings of the annual meeting of the abolitionists; in which 
 General Harrison is denounced. 
 
 Ttie Philanthropist, of Cincinnati, of May 13, publishes a letter from David Gwyn and John C. 
 Wright, to a locofoco in Illinois, who asked them for General Harrison's opinions relative to sla- 
 very. This letter states : " For a correct and full understanding of General Harrison's views, upon 
 the dilferent subjects referred to in your letter, we call your attention to his Vincennes speech, in 
 1835." If this committee are of any authority, the Vincennes speech is still adhered to. The 
 Philanthropist remarks of this: "At one period, we could hardly persuade ourselves that, at this 
 time of day. General Harrison would endorse the abominable sentiments contained in that 
 speech. But we find ourselves mistaken." The same paper says, General Harrison has been 
 "bending in base obeisance before the moloch of slavery," and "all the good he has done can- 
 not palliate such conduct." 
 
 GE-NERAL HARRISON, A MEMBER OF AN ABOLITION SOCIETY— EXPLAINED. 
 
 A late number of the Richmond Whig contained a letter from Tarlton Woodson Pleasants, of 
 the county of Goochland, in Virginia; in which Mr. Pleasants states, about the year 1798, he 
 was "a member of a society in Richmond called the 'Humane Society.'" Robert Pleasants, 
 of Curies, was president of the society. The object of this association was, in conjunction 
 with the parent society in Pliiladelphia, "Aj aid in abolishing tlie slave trade, and to assist ne- 
 groes who are illegally held in bondage to obtain their rights tlfrough the courts of justice." 
 Mr. Pleasants also says he was a delegate from the society in Richmond to a convention in Phil- 
 adelphia; and that a very lengthy discussion took place upon the slave trade; that "this was the 
 principal subject before the convention. If the abolition of slavery in the United States^yvas al- 
 luded to at all I do not recollect it." 
 
 Mr. Pleasants states further, "I have no doubt this was the very society of which he was a 
 member, about which so much has latterly been said in the public journals. I should have stated 
 that General James Wood was vice president of the Richmond society." 
 
 It v/ill ho observed that it is stated in this teller, that "Robert Pleasants, of Curies, was 
 president of the society." When General Harrison was in Richmond, in 1836, he said Robert 
 Pleasants, of Curies, was president of this humane society. Thus is this, like all other charges 
 against General Harrison, satisfactorily explained. 
 
 But I am able to throw additional light upon this subject. I have obtained a copy of the "min- 
 utes of the proceedings" of the convention of delegates which assembled at Philadelphia in 1797. 
 I have looked through these proceedings, and there is not the slightest evidence of any design of 
 interfering with the rights of the slaveholding States. The proceedings of this convention fully 
 sustain Mr. Tarlton Woodson Pleasants in his statement. Delegates were in attendance from 
 the States of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, from Baltimore, Richmond, and Alex- 
 andria. No man can be foolish enough to suppose that societies could be formed in Baltimore, 
 Richmond, and Alexandria, in the midst of slaveholders, and appoint delegates to consult upon 
 the propriety of abolishing slavery, as abolitionists now propose. 
 
 At this convention, in 1797, a committee was appointed, "to whom was referred the several 
 communications made to the convention, and who were directed to consider what objects are 
 proper for the attention of the convention." 
 
 The committee, of which the delegates from Baltimore, Richmond, and Alexandria were 
 members, recommended to the convention, "to address a letter, or memorial, to the Secretary of 
 State of the United States," "and to inform him of the attempts made, by citizens of the Uni- 
 ted States to evade the law, prohibiting our citizens from supplying foreign countries with slaves, 
 by clandestinely using the Danish flag and registers, and praying such aid and interference of the 
 Government of the United States, with the Court of Denmark, or with other Governments under 
 
24 
 
 whose authority such practices now obtain, as may consist with propriety," &.c. The convention, 
 in this, was sustained" by the Southern members. They asked nothing in this which it would 
 be wrong to ask at this day. The principal object the convention had in view was, to put a stop 
 to the slave trade, which was forbidden by tlie laws of the United States, and to aid, by suits in 
 courts of justice, the emancipation of such slaves as had once been liberated and were afterwards 
 unjustly and unlawfully reduced to slavery. 
 
 This seems to have been the " very head and front of their offending." 
 
 There is another fact which explains most satisfactorily their proceedings, and affords a justi- 
 fication to this convention. They were entirely different in their objects and feeHngs from abo- 
 litionists of the present day. 
 
 They did not assemble, officiously and impertinently, to devise ways and means for taking 
 away their neighbors' property, nor did they propose or intend, by issuing inflammatory pam- 
 phlets, to excite insurrection. At this time, as appears from the pamphlet to which I have re- 
 ferred the States of New York, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey were slnveholding 
 States. Whatever measures, therefore, were adopted by this convention must have operated on 
 themselves— must have affected their own rights, and the welfare of their own neighbors, kin- 
 kred, and friends. 
 
 The convention publish "abstracts of the existing laws respecting slavery in the States repre- 
 sented in the convention." I quote some of the.io, ae pulUhod by iliu convention in 1797. 
 T5t the !,::sttn(j l.!.v3 of Coj^necticut 
 
 " Any negro, inulatto, or Indian, servant or slave, who shall be found wandering out of the 
 hounds of the place to which he belongs, without a pass from a magistrate or from his owner, 
 shall be treated as a runaway ; and citizens are empowered to secure such persons, and bring 
 them before the magistrate, the owner being liable for all charges accruing thereby. 
 
 "Ferrymen are required not to suffer such persons to pass their ferries, under penalty of 
 twenty shillings, for each olfence, to the owner. And if free negroes shall be out without such 
 certificate, and be stopped or taken up, they shall pay all charges arising thereby. 
 
 " Any person presuming to buy or receive from an Indian, mulatto, or negro servant or slave, 
 any money or g6ods, without order from the owner, shall be sentenced to restore all such arti- 
 cles, and also forfeit double the value thereof, and treble if the article is not to be obtained. And 
 if the person so offending do not make restitution as awarded, then to be publicly whipped, not 
 exceeding twenty stripes, or make satisfaction by service. 
 
 " Any servant or slave^ as above, if found from home after 10 o'clock at night, may be taken 
 before a magistrate, who may order him or her to be whipped on the naked body, not exceeding 
 ten stripes, and pay cost of court, unless redeemed by the master's paying a fine not exceeding 
 ten shillings. And any person entertaining or tolerating any such persons in his house, after 
 such hour, shall forfeit ten shillings." 
 
 TnE LAWS OF New York. 
 
 " Any slave striking a whke person may be committed by a justice of the peace, and be tried 
 and suffer the punishment inflicted for petit larceny. 
 
 "No person shall harbor a runaway slave, or trade with a slave without consent of the owner, 
 under the penalty of five pounds. 
 
 "Slaves convicted of any crime, under a capital offence, may, on the request of the owner, 
 and at the discretion of the court, be transported out of the State." 
 
 The laws of New Jerskt, 
 at the same period, forbid any slave "to carry any gun or pistol, or take any dog with him, into 
 the woods or plantations, unless accompanied by his owner, or some other white person by order 
 of his owner." 
 
 The laws of this State also forbid the trafiicking with any negro, Indian, or mulatto slave, 
 without the consent of the owner, 6cc. ; and authorized the taking up and whipping any slave 
 that may be found five miles from his master's or mistress's habitation, &c. 
 
 The laws of New Jersey also forbid, under penalties, the harboring or entertaining any slave 
 without the consent of the master, &c. 
 
 The laws of Pennsylvania. 
 
 It was within the borders of this State that the convention met. Pennsylvania was then a 
 slaveholding State, and the extracts from her laws show — 
 
 "Trials of negroes and mulattoes shall be the same as of other persons ; but the evidence of 
 a slave shall not be admitted against a freeman. 
 
 " When sentence of death shall be executed against a slave, the master shall be indemnified 
 for the loss." 
 
 By the laws of the same State it was enacted that " slaves belonging to members of Congress, 
 foreign ministers, and consuls, and of persons passing through the State, should not be detained;" 
 and it was expressly enacted that " no shelter or relief should be given to runaways from slavery 
 or servitude." 
 
 Abolition societies in those days were not what they are now. And if North and South Car- 
 olina, Georgia and Tennessee, should assemble a convention within their borders, composed of 
 men from slaveholding States alone, to consult upon any matter relating to slavery, who would 
 call them abolitionists 1 
 
 Z9 W 
 

 
 
 \,^^ 
 
 '^-.^^ 
 
 '■ * aV -^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^-n^ 
 
 
 
^./ 
 
 .'*'' > : 
 
 
 .^^"-. 
 
 
 L~ .r 
 
 
 
 
 r ... 
 
 ; '>o 
 
 ^^ * 
 
 • .^ 
 
 
 ^"^ "^O 
 
 
 
 :i>^^. \ 
 
 ^^' -^ -.j^js^.* /\ ^'^^J ^^'K '^^J J\ ''< 
 
 ^^"^ \ '"■w^*\'^^^\ ^^^*"' ^^^"^^^ °->^w*' ^^^\ 
 
 
 •^oV* 
 
 
 
 
 1? rO* » 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " ^ * «^ 
 
 
 ^*'' ^^ ^^ "^Wm^: <^' ^^^ -y^^"^** .'^ '^^J' \ 
 
 
 
 
 ik 
 
 0^ ^^,'*ir,.*^^^