-{^""■r. 
 
 Sl^EECil 
 
 IIOK M. J. CRAWFORD, OF GEORGIA, 
 
 ELECTION 01\Si'EAK 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OP REPUESlJsfi^J^^l^tJ^KSr 
 
 Mr. Ci.EKK : Iliad hoped I should never an^nin foel it may duty to say a word 
 in this Hall upon the subject of shivery, hut, sir, I am satisfied I would not 
 only do injustice to my own feelinofs, hut also to those of tlie i)eople I represent, 
 if upon this occasion I should not give utterance to the opinions and the well- 
 settled convictions they entertain in reference to the subject of their condition 
 in the Federal Union. We have endeavored for several days to orcfanize this 
 House by the election of a presiding oflicer, and have as yet wholly failed in 
 accomplishing that result. Why is it? There is not a man throughout the 
 entire country who does not understand fully that the subject of slavery as it 
 exists in the southern States is the only reason why we cannot organize. The 
 honorable gentleman who has been pro]xised by the Republican side, is person- 
 ally unexceptionable as a presiding officer, so far as I know. But he is the 
 representative of a great idea in this country ; he is the representative of the 
 anti-slavery sentiment of the entire North, and he is presented to us as the 
 proper representative of this Republican party. As such I view him ; as such 
 we have decided to vote against his election ; and as such we shall hold him 
 up to the country as the exponent of Republican principles. The subject of 
 slavery has been a disturbing element in American politi^ for forty years, and 
 it is just as certain to destroy this Union as that time shall last. To talk of the 
 settlement of this slavery question is folly; to talk of a compromise upon this 
 subject of slavery is worse than folly ; it is madness^ and cannot be done. The 
 Republican party, which represents ahnost entirely the whole North, look upon 
 slavery as a sin against God, and a sin against man. We of the South, look 
 upon it as right and proper in itself and in accordance with the Divine teaching. 
 I ask you how, therefore, it is possible for us to compromise the matter ? It has 
 been compromised time and again. It has been settled, as it was said by its 
 friends and opponents, more than half a dozen times during the period in which 
 it has occupied public attention, and yet anti-slavery sentiments were never so 
 strong and so powerful as they are to-day. And, on the contrary, I may say 
 that the pro-slavery sentiment of my section of the country was never more 
 powerful in the breasts of our people than it is to-day. Sir, this question has 
 resolved itself at last into a question of slavery and disunion, or no slavey and 
 union. My position is taken ; that of my constituents is taken. The position 
 of the North is taken, and there is no mistaking that position. 
 
 It has been said, Mr. Clerk, that in reference to tliis subject of slavery, the 
 the South has committed aggressions against the North. It haa beou said that 
 
 PriDietl by L«mu<el Tbwei-e. 
 

 •we have violated sacred cornpacts. Before touching" on that subject, T will say- 
 to the Iloufii-' that the Snuth has not violated tht; liohts of the Nmlli hy tlie 
 taritl'ri that have been passed fur its beru-fit iVoiii tlie tbiiiidHiioii of the Gnvern- 
 juent till now. Tlie South has not a!:;-sj;i'essed ou the Nurlh on the subject of 
 bounties on fish that liave been secured to your people. The South has not 
 aggressed on the North on the subject of the navigation hiws ; nor has it ag- 
 gressed on you on the subject of slavery. 
 
 This brings me to the remark of the gentleman representing tlie Chester dis- 
 trict of Pennsylvaida, to which I propose now to direct my attention. That 
 gentleman (Mr. Hickman) says in his s|)eech ; 
 
 " Now here is the first, the second, the tliinl, the fourth, and the fifth compromises 
 which the North Imvo entered into with tlie South upon tiiis allfib-;i>rl>;ng; subject of 
 slavery; ami the North cli.ar;^es upon tlie South thdt in every sinf^le instance of com- 
 promise they have violated theni after liaviiic; received the benefit, or tried to receive 
 the benefit arising from their side of the bai'gaiu." 
 
 On this, Mr, Clerk, I take issue with the gentleman from Pennsylvavia, and 
 I say that, in regard to the territoi'ial policy of the Government for the first 
 thirty years from its organization, there was no aggression even on the part of 
 our northern brethren ; and althougli this has been shown time and again, and 
 although it has been thundered iu your ears for the last tifteen years, it has 
 been either steadily withheld from your peop''e or you have refused to ac- 
 knowledge the fact on the floor of the House or before your countrymen when at 
 home. Now, gentlemen, I ask your attention to the territorial policy from the 
 foundation of your Government up to 1820, There was no effort on the part 
 of the government, in the organization of the Territories, to extend the AYilmot 
 proviso — or freedom, in your language — to them. In the very first Crngress 
 that ever assembled under your present Constitution, a territorial government 
 ■was organized for Tennessee, and in that territorial bill, so far from southern 
 men being excluded from the enjoyment of that Territory with their property, 
 provision was expressly made for American citizens to enter and enjoy that 
 Territory with their ^iroperty. 
 
 In 1798, in the Fifth Congress, a territorial government was proposed and 
 established for Mississippi; and in that act, too, the rights of slaveholders 
 were expressly reserved. In 1804, the Orleans Territory was organized ; in 
 1805, Louisiana; in|1812, the Territory of Missouri; in 1817, that of Ala- 
 bama; and in 1819, that of Arkansas. And yet, in every one of these terri- 
 torial acts, from 1789 down to 1820, there was no exclusion of the slave- 
 holder with his property. And still, it has been reiterated on this floor — you 
 have said if to your constituents at home, and your papers have been filled with 
 it — that the liistory of this Government establishes (he fad that its early- 
 fathers were in favor of the exclusion of slavery from the public territory. 
 You have endeavoied, by your speeches, to establish the fact that the importa- 
 tion of negroes from foreign countries, instead of from the slave States them- 
 selves, was that which was prohibited. Your Government had prohibited the 
 foreign slave-trade after some of these Territories had been organized, and 
 they would not permit persons entering into the Territories to carry slaves there 
 from foreign countries ; but they could, by express permission, carry slaves 
 there from the States. It was in 1820 that the first aggression was committed, 
 either on the part ot the South or of the North. It was then the slavery ques- 
 tion came up ; and it was said that there was a compromise then, and that we 
 had violated that compromise. The gentleman from the Chester district (Mr. 
 HicKxMan) said so the other day. I desire to tell that gentleman — although it 
 may not reach his constituents — that his assertions on this floor were not sus- 
 tained by the truth of histoiy; and I ask him to tell this House what he 
 oieaus by iha Miadouii comproiaisti i 
 
Mr. Hickman. I meant to say, and I tlioncrlit I diil sny, (Imt by the com- 
 promise (Miterod into in 1«'J0, shivery w;is cxclud.-d from all the territory north 
 of the line of 30° 30'. It was not" to go there, from I heneef.)r ward, forever. 
 TliHt was tlie compromise I leferied to as havincj been entered into for the pur- 
 pose of o-etting Missouri, as a State, into the Union. 
 
 Mr. Ckawford. So I understand the gentlenmn. 
 
 Mr. Hickman. I wish to say a word furtlier. 1 will not take up any of the 
 gentleman's time, f«.r the slate of my health this mornins^r will n(<t permit me 
 to do so. 1 desire to say, that the henetits arising from that comiiromise to 
 freedom were destroyed by the sul'sequeut legislation of 1850 and 1854. 
 
 Mr. Crawford. I had expected so mueh from the geiith-man. I knew that 
 ho was wholly uninformed in regard to that (question, and I knew that his peo- 
 ])le were unirdoiined in regard to it. After thirty years of uninlerrii|ite<] enjoy- 
 tnent of slave property in all the Territories, aiid' by liic sp(^cial provisions of 
 congressional acts, Missouri came forwar.l in 1820, and abked permission to 
 frame a constitution and form a State government. And upon her aj.plication 
 the House of Representatives consented that she might form a State govern- 
 ment, upon the special condition that slavery was to be forever prohibited 
 therein. 
 
 That was the first agtrrossion. "Where did it come from ? Did it come from 
 southern liepreseiitatives, or from northern liepresentatives ? That was the first 
 time when such a condition was evci sought to be imposed up(m a people in 
 forming a constitution and State government. Call you tliat afrgressiDU upon 
 the part of the South? No, sirs ; it came from your section'of the Union, 
 where aggressions have been kept up against us from tliat hour until now. Tiie 
 bill passed the House prohibiting slavery from existing iu Missouri. It was car- 
 ried to the Senate — and what fate did it meet there ? A proposition was made 
 there to strike out that clause of the bill which the anti-slavery men of tlie 
 House in«!erted, and to add wiiat is known as the eighth section of the Missouri 
 bill, which provided that Missouri might enjoy the right of forming a constitu- 
 tion and State government, on the condition that slavery should be excluded 
 from all the territory north (,f 3G° 30', and outside of the State of Missouri. 
 That was your " compromise I" Now, how many of your men voted for that 
 "compromise"— that " compact," whi<di the gentleman from Tennsylvania held 
 to be sacred, and which he says we violated ? Upon the proposition to add that 
 eighth section, I tell gentlemen thatevery ncrrtliern Senator' except two voted 
 to place tiiis limit upon the right of a sovereign State to come into this Union ; 
 and yet, after thev had put that provision into the bill ; upon a test question ; 
 upon orderinir the bill to be eni,'rossed and read a third time, every northern 
 Senator but f<tur voted against it I Did they stand by the "comproniise?" I 
 ask you, gentlemen of the Republican party — you who go home to your people 
 and tell them that we have violated the Missouri compiomise — T ask you if it 
 is not true that tlie very Senators wlio put the Missouri compromise in the bill 
 of 1820, turned round immediately afterwards, and, upon a test (juestion, voted 
 against it? And, sir, I tell the gentleman from Pennsylvania that Missouri was 
 not admitted under that act. "lliat act was passed in March, 1820 : and in De- 
 cember of the same year, Missouri, having formed her constitution and State 
 government, came to Congress and asked admission as one of the sister States 
 of lliis Confederacy. Did you stand by the compromise and admit lier? You 
 say it was a comproinise. Did you stand by it? The Senate passed a resolu- 
 tion admitting her. She came to this House and sought admission. You who 
 stand so faithfully by compacts, and complain of the South for not standini; by 
 them, did you admit her ? Wiiy, Mr. Clerk, wlien the rest)lution of the Senate 
 came to this House, two-thirds of these compact-observing geutJcmen vot«d 
 
against tLe admission of Missouri ; and that was in the December following the 
 adoption of this veiy couipiuinise, which they say they have so failiifully kept! 
 That is the history of the matter; and Missouri was not admitted under the act 
 of 1820 at all, but under the proclamation of the President under a very differ- 
 ent one. Why did you object to her admission '] Because slavery existed 
 there; and let me tell you, that slavery had existed iu Missouri for sixteen years 
 under our French purchase, and liad a positive existence for eight years under 
 her territoiial government, when she made her application for admission into 
 the Union. And this is the sacred compact which gentlemen say we have 
 violated ! 
 
 But, Mr. Clerk, this compromise of 1820 was expected to settle the slavery 
 question, and give peace to the country ; there was to be no more disturbance 
 about it ever after. How long was it thereafter before this House and the 
 country were disturbed by petitions from the North asking the abolition of 
 slavery iu this District? Peace to the country, did I say ! I. say that there 
 was no peace upon this shivery question — there never will, and never can, be 
 peace upon it. This House and the other end of the Capitol were Hooded with 
 petitions in reference to the subject of slavery in this District! Did we have 
 peace? But at last the South yielded to the everlasting inq>ortunities of these 
 anti-slavery men, and repealed the 21st rule, which prohibited the reception of 
 Buch petitions. And then we were to have peace beyond question. Have we 
 had it ? Look to the annexation of Texa-^. Look to the growth of the anti- 
 slavery sentiment in your section when Texas was annexed. When the Mexi- 
 can acquisition came, or before it came, Mr. Polk asked for 83,000,000 to ne- 
 gociate a peace with Mexico. This anti-slavery sentiment manifested itself then, 
 and almost the entire North, in the House of Kepreseutalives, said that whatever 
 of territory should be acquired from Mexico, slavery should not exist therein. 
 These sacred compact-men knew that most of this territory would be south of 
 the line of 36° 30', and why did they not then stand by the compromise ? Why 
 did they not stand by it in 1848, when a select committee was appointed to 
 settle matters of difference between them and us? How did the vote stand 
 then ? It was proposed by the southern men composing the Clayton compro- 
 mise committee, and rejected by the northern men. We tendered it to you, in 
 1850, over and over again. You have never been willing to take the Missouri 
 compromise unless it worked in your favor, and the territoiy lay north of the 
 line. 
 
 The gentleman from Pennsylvania talks of the aggressions on the part of 
 the South, in 1850. Did we aggress upon you when we acquired this territory 
 from Mexico ? Did we aggress upon yuu then ? Who got California, with its 
 interminable gold fields, with its thousand miles of sea-coast front, extendino- 
 above and below the Missouri compromise line ? I ask the gentleman from 
 Pennsylvania if, entering upon Texas, a slave State — where pro-slavery laws ex- 
 isted in 1850 — and setting apart forty-four thousand square miles of her terri- 
 tory to New Mexico, where there were no such laws, was that an aggression on 
 the part of the South ? It was not aggression in the case of Calif^uia ; it was 
 not aggression upon this Texas boundary question. Where, then, did we ag- 
 gress upon you? It was not iu the law abolishing slavery iu this District. 
 Congress exercised the right to abolish slavery in the District. I care not what 
 reason you may have assigned for it, a man who brings a slave here with a view 
 to sell him or send him South and sell him, forfeits him, and he is free by law. 
 Congress so declared in 1850 ; and if you can exercise the power for one reason, 
 you may for any or none. The reason with which a man brings a slave into 
 the District of Columbia, neither increases nor diminishes our power over the 
 subject of slavery. Did we aggress upon your rights then ? 
 
 I f«lt, Mr. Clurk, that then was the lime for the South to have settled forever 
 
this question of slavery with our Dortlieni brethren. I, in fomnion Avith nifiny 
 otlier pMtriolic men of n)y SlJite, endenvoreil to dissolve tli*- titS wliicli l.tiund us 
 to tliis Union. We apiiealeil from the a(;tii>n of the (jovernment to thu pcoplo 
 thciiisclios. 1 toM them then that tliere W(julcl iii'ver he any peace in this lic- 
 jiublic. I knew il then, and I know it now. There is no peace. The peujile, 
 after lookino; into the (|uestion, after considerinj; it, after weiifhin<;it tli<,n>uu;hlv, 
 determined to a('(|uiesce in the comprnmise of 18.50. From that Imur, Mr. 
 Clerk, until the jaesent, I have stood with my arms folded, luokinir for the timo 
 when the ipiestion should be jjreseiited by our northern bret/irvn as il has been 
 for the last three months — ready, sir, at a moment's watniiiL,', to strike for the 
 liberties of the people I re]Meseut. 1 now tell you that my people, those who 
 felt in 1850 that the Republic could be preserved lonijer, believe that it caiirKJt 
 now be jneserved. 
 
 But, Mr. Clerk, to proceed with my argument. In 18o'2, all parties seemed 
 to acquiesce in the compromise of 1850. The North said that they were satis- 
 factory. The Democratic ]>arty said that they would abide by and adhere to them. 
 The Whig party said that they were satisfactory. They were to be n finality — 
 a ^«a/ settlement of all the differences that divided the ])eople of the North 
 from the people of the South. How long did your compromise of 1850 last? 
 For only two years — from 1852 to 1854, And, sir, when the priiu-iple of those 
 compromises was attempted to be incorporated into the Kansas-Nebraska bill, 
 this House remembers, the country remembers, the blaze of excitement which 
 was seen throughout the entire North. That settlement, tor a time, had smijth- 
 ered the anti-slavery sentiment in the North ; but, in 1854, it broke out with 
 renewed force — with more, indeed, than it ever had before. Why? Simply 
 because the slavehohler of the South was otiered the poor privilege of settling 
 the Teriitory of Kansas upon an equality with a man from the North. The re- 
 striction, which for thirty-four years had driven us from that territory, had been 
 torn from the statute-book. The men of the South stood once more forth the 
 equal of the men of the North. 
 
 It was only our contending for this privilege and this right, which the South 
 was entitled to enjoy in the Territory of Kansas, which roused the North into 
 a flame of excitement against us. It built up this powerful organization which 
 now controls tht; entire North, and in 1850 nominated an adventurer, a man 
 unknown to political fame, a man who had no antecedents which would justify 
 his election, for President of the United States, and came very nearly electing 
 liim. In fact, the opponents of slavery and the haters of slaveholders, in the 
 North, polled for that man thirteen hundred and thirty-six thousand votes, a 
 larger vote than that which Mr. liuchanau got in the North. You control the 
 entire North ; you control all northern legislation, and you strike down the 
 Democratic party of the North. Here, upon our side of the House, the few 
 Democratic Representatives from the North who have stood by the Constitution 
 and have been prepared to defend the rights of the South, have one by one been 
 swept away before this northern fanaticism. They have stood uj) and battled 
 for us — not for slavery, but for the Constitution ot their country. I honor them 
 for it; I am proud of northern Democrats who have stood by the Constitution 
 of their ctnuitry, and they deserve the thanks of our people. ]>ut I tell them 
 they are powerless to meet this great Republican horde, which conies like an 
 avalanche from the North, and drives everything before it. They have the con- 
 trol of the North, and you are weak, you are no longer able to save yourselves, 
 or the Constitution. We must look to our own people and our own section for 
 protection. We can no longer rely upon men of the North to help us in this 
 our hour of danger. I would that we could do it, but it is imjjossible. 
 
 Next comes another event in this great drama of anti-slavery. A southern 
 traitor, a poor, iciserablw wretch, who had b««u driven iVym th« towu of his na- 
 
6 
 
 tivity, seets refuge among these sacred observers of compacts, and publishes 
 a book, in whicli be calls upon the non-slaveholders of the South to put down 
 slavery by violence and blood. We have no fear for shivery ; it is an inslilution 
 which, in its relation between master and slave, cannot be disturbed by all the 
 men in the northern States. The book which makes this proposition to a class 
 of our safest and best men in the South finds sixty-eight indorsers among the rep- 
 resentative men of this body in the last Congress. Yes, sir, sixty-eight men of the 
 last House of Kepresentatives recommended the circulation of a book wiiich urges 
 the slaves of the South to sacrifice the lives of their owners, and your candidate 
 for Speaker among tbem. The great leader of tliat partv, Mr. Seward, said he 
 had read the hook ; that it was full of merit, and recommended it to the people 
 of all the States. Hear what he says : 
 
 "I have read 'Tlie Impending Crisis of tlie South* witli deep attention. It seems to 
 me a work of great merit, ricli, yet accurate, in statistical information, and logical ia 
 anah^sis." 
 
 Sufh is the language of William H. Seward. This book is indorsed by 
 your leading men, and yet you are our hrethren, and love us devotedly, and anx- 
 iously desire to preserve our rights under the Constitution of the United States. 
 We were told by the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. Corwin,) the other day, in an 
 amusing and interesting speech, that we should look upon this question calndy. 
 I know it is the purpose of the Republicans who signed that circular to make 
 the countrv believe that this is a trivial atfair. And why? Becaus-e they know 
 that they will be held to a strict accountability by those Democrats who stand 
 behind them at home. • You say we should not be alarmed; that we ought not 
 to pay any attention to it. 
 
 Let us })ursue the history of this question a little further, and see. You make 
 sport of the Brown invasion, and tell us not to be alarmed. But why was it 
 that that insurrection did not extend ? We are not indebted to the northern 
 Black liepublicans for it, hut to the fidelity of the slave po2yulaiion of Virr/inia, 
 and to thai alone. Brown expected, and had reason to expect, help froju your 
 people of the North, but he was deceived. They had the will, but they had not 
 the courage of John Brown. (Applause in the galleries.) I tell you now, that 
 the South is once more aroused. She understands that this question cannot be 
 settled ; she knows it cannot be. She sees the condition of the public mind at 
 the North ; understands, and appreciates it. She understands that there are 
 soine men at the North who are now afraid that these southern colonics oi' {hens 
 'will break loose and set u)) a government by themselves, to get rid of this ever- 
 lasting disturbance upon slavery. Hence it is, we see that they are gathering 
 all over the North, in Union meetings, to express their sympathy for us. AVe 
 ask from the North no such sympathy. We are able to take care of ourselves. 
 We are independent of you. I tell you what the South wants. She wants the 
 North to send Representatives different from those now here and in the other 
 wing of the Capitol. That we shall never get; and we know it. We under- 
 stand this question too well not to know that the North never intends to change 
 her position in that respect. When we see that the North proposes to repeal 
 her personal liberty bills, and her acts of haheas corpus ; when she throws open 
 her jails for the security of our fugitive slaves; when we can travel through the 
 northern States as brethren, and you can travel South without attempting to 
 excite insurrection; when our rights in the Territories are resjiected, then, and 
 not till then, will the South be satisfied. But until then, your Union n)eetings 
 amount to nothing. Give us these things, and then we will begin to listen to 
 what you have to say. 
 
 Hear what a distinguished Senator says in regard to the Union meetings at 
 the North : 
 
"Union-!»aving mcctinsfs are of no oartlily Mfrniticnnce. lie hnd notliincr to ony npninst 
 tlio«e |)olitical cimehs wlio gatlitT nrouml such nn'ctinirs; hut tlio!<o iiwotini;!! did not. weigh 
 a t'ertilier's \vei<;lit in MassMt-liusetls. Boston liad i^ono for tlio Uo|>iil)licaiis al tlm recent 
 election, and the Unioii-savini; nieetiiiff hehl there was eiioni;)) to |iro(luce i<\ioh n resull. 
 iS'otwithstandins; those threats ou llie floor of the Senate, the |)eo|>le of MaA.«nehusett9 
 would fjive tilty thousand majority lor whoever hhuU be iiouiinated ta the Jlepublicuu 
 candidate for I'resident." 
 
 Hear wliat else was said in one of these Uuion meetings at the Nfirih. Mr, 
 Cusliiiig says : 
 
 "All the political influences dominant in this State wore founded upon the single 
 emotion of hate — ay, hate, treacherous, ferocious, fiendisli hate, of our feilow-citizena in 
 the soulliern States." 
 
 Mr. Goocii, If Mr. Gushing used such hmguago he stated what every other 
 man in Massachusetts knew to be false. 
 
 Mr. Crawford. In reply to that, I desire to say that when Mr. Gushing ex- 
 pressed tliat seiiliment, there was applause and cries of " Oood I" "(rood!" iu 
 Faneuil Hall. Now, what is our duty ? We understand you, ami we think tho 
 South understands you. You iiave got a majority in every northern State. 
 The free Slates have a majority of fifty-seven on this tloor, ancl a majority of six 
 in the other branch of the Capitol, a majority of sixty-three in the Electoral 
 college, and a majority in every branch of the Government. And what do you 
 propose? First, an instantaneous repeal of the fugitive slave law. That is the 
 doctrine of your leading men. Next, the abolition of slavery in the District of 
 Columbia. "^Next, the abolition of the slave-trade between the States. ]>ut tho 
 most important question of the party is the suppression of slavery in the Terri- 
 toiies, by a positive law, and to put this Government perminently on the side 
 of freedom, as you call it. I am reininded, too, that you propose to reorganize 
 the Supreme Court. That is what you propo.se to do. 
 
 I want the question tested between you and us. t want it settled. I want 
 to know whether we are to.be controlled, whether we are to be limited to where 
 slavery now exists, or whether we are to have liberty to go beyond. AYe have 
 now four millions of slaves. In some twenty-five years hence we will have 
 eight millions. We demand expansion. We tvill have expansion, in spite of 
 the Republican party, and all tiie Abolitionists of the Old and New World. 
 (Applause from the Democratic benches and the galleries.) Y'ou say that you 
 would not menace slavery in the States where it exists, but would put the Gov- 
 ernment permanently on'the side of freedom, denationalize slavery, and then let 
 us hug it to our bosoms until it destroys us ; and that if we but touch the hem 
 of the'mantle of freedom, you will trample us to the earth. That is the expres- 
 sion of a leading northern statesman. Beecher said that he would preach the 
 same doctrines in Yirginia as in Massachusetts. Brown says: "Beecher, why 
 don't you come and do it?" I ask you why you do not come on ? 
 
 Mr. KiLGORE. I will answer the gentleman if he permits me. I will tell the 
 gentleman why Mr. Beecher would not preach in Virginia: Becau.se liberty of 
 speech is denied in the South ; and if he were to go there he would get a coat 
 of tar and feathers. 
 
 Mr. Crawford. Yes, sir ; and not only would he be denied liberty of speech, 
 but he would be denied personal liberty also, and would be hung higher than 
 Uatnan, 
 
 Mr. KiLGORE. Certainly he would. 
 
 Mr. Crawford. That would be the end of him. All we want you to do is, 
 that you shall not back down from your flag unless you intend, in good faith, 
 to give us peace. Stand by it ; do not slink away from it. Stand by your true 
 
colors. Do not deceive your people by telliug Liiem that you intend to do justice 
 to the South when you have no idea of it. 
 
 Now, in reo^ard to the election of a Black Republican President I have this 
 to say, and I speak the sentiment of every Democrat on this fliwr from the State 
 of Georgia: we will never submit to the inauguration of a Black Republican 
 President. (Applause from the Democratic benches, and hisses from the Re- 
 publicans,) I repeat it, sir ; and I have authority to say so ; that no Democratic 
 Representative from Georgia on this floor will ever submit to the inauguratioa 
 of a Black Republican President. (Renewed applause and hisses.) 
 
 Mr. KiLGORE. Will the gentleman tell me bow he will prevent it? 
 
 Mr. Crawford. Sir, that will be for ourselves to determine ; and we do not 
 propose to give our enemies the benefit of the information. Now I speak for 
 myself, and not for the delegation. We have endeavored for forty years to set- 
 tle this question between the North and the South, and find it impossible. I, 
 therefore, am without hope in the Union, so are hundreds of thousands of my 
 countrymen at home. The most confiding of them all are, sir, for " equality in 
 the Union or independence out of it;" having lost all hope of the former, I am 
 
 for " INDEPENDENCE NOW, AND INDEPENDENCE FOREVER."