U%p SPEECH OP ' HON. ROGER A. PRYOR OF VIRGINIA, ON THE PRINCIPLES AND POLICY OF THE BLACK REPUBLICAN PARTY; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 29, 1859. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1859. *■ J 3 I? f A V •r b speech: Mr. PRYORsaid: Mr. Clerk: The member from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] charges the Democracy with the re- sponsibility of the non-organization of Congress. In so far as the charge imputes blame, it is unwar- rantable; in so far as it implies praise, it is per- fectly true. If the gentleman means to assert that the Democracy are responsible for the non-organ- ization of the House on constitutional principles, and in the interest of the constitutional party, he affirms what the record distinctly contradicts; for to that end we have exerted our best abilities — unsuccessfully, however, for want of sufficient strength. If the gentleman intends to assert that the Democracy are responsible for the non-organ- ization of the House, by the election of a sec- tional Speaker, and the ascendency of a sectional party, we readily and cordially admit the truth of the declaration. Nay, we boast the fact, and claim a monopoly in the glory of the achieve- ment. Let it go to the country, then, on the deliberate asseveration of a Black Republican Rep- resentative, that the Democracy have so far pre- vented the success of the anti-slavery party, in a capital object of their nefarious enterprise. Let it go to the country, that, sooner than expose the Republic to the shame and calamity of installing a Black Republican Representative in a chief office of the Government, we, the Democracy, albeit of small consecptence on the score of numbers, did yet oppose an immovable barrier in the path of his promotion; and that, at last, when, despite our most obstinate resistance, the wrong was consum- mated, if it shall be consummated, we emerged from the struggle with honor untarnished and courage unsubdued. This be our praise; and the intended reproach of the member from Pennsyl- vania the country will distinguish as our highest title to applause. So believing, I beg to assure the honorable member that we are resolved to per- sist in our course; and that when his nominee assumes that chair, he will take it against the unan- imous protest of the Democracy of this House. No clamor of destitute contractors, in peril of pro- test, will avail to shake us in the strength of our purpose; for, greater than any individual wrong, greater than any private calamity, do we regard tin' wrong and the calamity of aiding Black Re- publicanism a single step in the consummation of its mischievous schemes. In support of the general imputation of blame on the Democracy for the non-organization of Congress, the member from Pennsylvania brings forward the particular statement that we are re- sponsible for the introduction of the slavery issue in this controversy. The untruth of the allega- tion is manifest through the vail of sophistical reasoning employed to conceal it. In the sense that he raises a wanton and indecent clamor who cries fire when he detects the torch of the incen- diary; in the sense that he is guilty of a breach of the peace who repels the assault of a robber — iir that sense, and in that sense only, are we respons- ible for the agitation of the slavery issue in this, debate. The nomination of Sherman for tin Speakership was, in itself, a proclamation of war, and gave the signal of hostilities. In presenting a man, who, besides his general concurrence in the schemes of the anti-slavery party, is obnox- ious to the special objection of complicity in a most mischievous and treasonable publication; a man who has indorsed a proposition to treat the Note. In arraigning the Norlh, the speaker intends only the dominant, anti-slavery party of the North. slaveholders as Pariahs, and to deny them the courtesies of social intercourse, and the amenities of human fellowship — the nomination of such a man, I say, to preside over the deliberations of this House, and to determine its Tegislation, was the provocative cause of the discussion which the member and his associates now pretend to de- plore. They apply the spark, and then aifect astonishment at the explosion. It is a way they have, not to recognize the relation between cause and effect, and, while busy in putting agencies into operation, to disclaim responsibility for the logical result. So after sowing the country broad- cast with their dragons '-teeth publications of vio- lence and sedition, they are amazed at the irrup- tion of armed men into Harper's Ferry. The country will as readily determine who are respons- ible for the introduction of the slavery issue in this controversy as who are responsible for the obstruction to the organization of the House. If you do not desire the agitation of the slavery question, why did you nominate a man whose mere candidacy is an affront to southern feeling and a challenge to southern resistance? If you did not intend to oppose an impediment to the organization of Congress, why attempt to saddle us with a Speaker, whose election we are bound in honor to oppose by all expedients, and to the last extremity ? But the member from Pennsylvania is disgusted with the clamor over the Helper publication. Very likely. What " Thief e'er felt the halter draw, With good opinion of the law?" Detected in a clandestine scheme of attack on the sanctity of the Constitution and the peace o/ the Republic, the member very naturally seeks to shrink from the shame of exposure, and to hush the voice of popular indignation. It is a vain attempt. I can assure him he has not heard the last of his connection with the Helper conspiracy. , We intend to blazon it until the public are familiar with the infamy. We intend to repeat the story until the country resounds with denunciation of , the treason. Above all, the member from Pennsylvania is i indignant at the introduction of the slavery agi- tation into this Hall. And this profession comes • from a party whose only impulse is an instinct , of sectional animosity, whose only object is the abolition of slavery; whose only employment is I the exasperation of incendiary issues. This, from a Representative who owes his own importance ! less to superior intellect and energy of character than to a truculent hatred of the South, its peo- ple, and i ts institutions; this is the party and this the person who deprecate the renewal of the sla- very agitation. But, there is no blush on the brazen front of hypocrisy. Mr. Clerk, the declarations of the member from Pennsylvania are of a piece with the uniform policy of his party, and with the conduct of its repre- sentatives since the commencement of this strug- gle. Sir, it is not the policy of the anti-slavery party to provoke the South beyond endurance. Their strategy consists of tentative approaches and gradual exhaustion. They do not intend to flush the game too soon — to overrun the prey — to hazard the success of their enterprise through the indiscreetimpetuosity of its advocates. Consistent only in the inexorable pursuit of their object, they are unscrupulous in the employment of means, and pliable under the pressure of circumstances. At times, haughty in their port and direct in their at- tacks, they are again humble in their accents and oblique in their operations. It is an especially noteworthy circumstance, that wheneverthe South betrays symptoms of resentment under aggres- sion, and a perception of their purpose, this anti- slavery party have recourse to moderate counsels and protestations of innocent intention. Recent acts of encroachment and insult having enraged the South to the point of armed resistance, the Black Republican party are quick to renounce their violent policy, and to affect the most pacific pur- poses. Witness their call for a national conven- tion — an epitome of patriotism, a compendium of conservative principles ! So they assume " The livery of heaven to serve the devil in ! " I say, moreover, Mr. Clerk, that the horror of slavery agitation, affected by the honorable mem- ber from Pennsylvania, is in keeping with the conduct of his associates of the Black Republican party since the beginning of this controversy. To my mind, that conduct has not been sufficiently remarked upon and signalized to the country. Sir, we are all familiar with the principles of the Black Republican party. That it proposes the eventual extinction of slavery; that its immediate object is to usurp possession of the Federal Govern- ment, with the view of employing its power and patronage for the restriction and disparagement of slavery; that it disputes the validity of the fugitive slave law, nullifies its effect, and agitates fof its r0 p ea l — that these are the principles and purposes of the Black Republican party, we had thought was a fact of historical record and universal noto- riety. Nevertheless, what do we see here? Under the pressure of pertinent and persistent inquisition, and in pursuance of the policy I have already dis- tinguished, the Representatives of the Black Re- publican party on this floor, have not hesitated to affect an air of fidelity to the Constitution and conservative regard for the Union. They have an ties. We perfectly comprehend how it is and why it is they put forward the gentleman from Ohio to object to accomplish in the election of Speaker .with [j represent them as innocent in intention and inof- view to the eventual realization of their ultimate aim. But success is difficult and doubtful in the present temper of the popular mind. They have been pushing their encroachments with too great ardor of aggression. At last, the South feels the sting of attack and insult in her bosom; her in- dignation is aroused, and her energies collecting for immediate and effectual resistance. The fla- grancy of recent outrage, moreover, has shocked the sensibilities of no inconsiderable proportion of the northern people, and there is danger lest these gentlemen will be dragged from their places by the recoil of public sentiment among their own constituents. The exigencies of the occasion de- mand a new phase in the Protean policy of the Black Republican party; and a signal change we witness. The Representatives of that party here, renounce all their principles, repudiate all their pledges, disclaim all their objects, disavow all their connections, and appear on the stage of public affairs in a decent disguise of respectable patriot- ism. Nay , they even deny responsibility for their own sign-manual, and profess to repudiate prin- ciples in the propagation of which they were con- spicuously active and energetic. If their recanta- I tions were sincere we would congratulate them on their conversion. But who gives them credit for candor? Their motive is as transparent as their conduct is detestable. The mailed hand is gloved for the moment, and we feel the pressure of a fra- ternal salutation. The beast sheathes his claws, and we are fondled with an affectionate and in- nocuous caress. So when Satan contrived the depravation and destruction of mankind, he put off the panoply of his infernal state, and assumed the mean and lowly shape of the meanest and lowest reptile. So when John Brown was plotting murder and treason at Harper's Ferry, he appeared in the innocent guise of scientific research: * When the devil was sick, the devil a saint would be ; When the devil got well, the devil a saint was he." The victory won, and these Black Republican Representatives — they have given us assurance of the fact through the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stanton] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Grow] — will reassume their haughty airs, reaffirm their discarded pledges, and renew the work of encroachment and agitation. I tell the gentlemen we on this side of the House, and our constituents at home, understand the game in which they are engaged. I tell them we appre- ciate, for what they are worth, all their Pecksnif- fensive in action; how it is and why it is that — as he imputes to them conservative sentiments, de- nying even that they would invalidate the fugitive slave law, or molest the South in any of its rights —the Black Republican Representatives sit by in silent acquiescence; albeit, among them is the member from New Hampshire, [Mr. Tappan,] who justifies the assassination of officers engaged in the recovery of fugitives from labor; and the member from Indiana, [Mr. Kilgore,] who main- tains that a native negro is worthier the rights of citizenship than a white man of foreign birth; and the member from Massachusetts, [Mr. Burlin- game,] who is so radical, revolutionary , and rhap- sodical as to clamor for an " anti-slavery Consti- tution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God." Mr. KILGORE. Will the gentleman yield to me for a .moment ? Mr. PRYOR. I may as well define my posi- tion here, in respect of interruption. Mr. KILGORE. Does the gentleman refer to me as the gentleman from Indiana? Mr. PRYOR. I did, indeed. Mr. KILGORE. Then the gentleman is en- tirely mistaken. He is no doubt misled by a garbled extract from a speech of mine in the con- stitutional convention. I know the gentleman would not intentionally misrepresent me. Mr. PRYOR. Certainly not. Mr. KILGORE. By reference to the correct report of that speech the gentleman will see that lie does me great injustice in making that state- ment. Mr. PRYOR. I am glad to hear the recanta- tion, or rather the explanation of the honorable, member from Indiana. I, of course, must be mistaken. The gentleman knows what he said, although I discover that I do not always remember what I have written in my day and generation. But the fact is, that a well-informed gentleman, conversant with the honorable gentleman's past career, did bring me a book which showed that the gentleman from Indiana did propound the very doctrine which I have designated. However, the o-entleman now stands corrected. Then he does not think that the native negro is worthy of the rights of citizenship ? Mr. KILGORE. In that very speech to which the gentleman refers, I said that I wished it to be distinctly understood that I was not in favor of extending the ri-ht of suffrage to the negroes; fian proprieties and Joseph Surface sentimental!- I] but that I would extend it to every foreigner who 6 was here the required length of time. Permit me to say to the gentleman that a proposition was submitted to that convention, to extend, by con- stitutional provision, the right of suffrage to the negroes. That proposition was voted for by but a single man, and he a Democrat. Mr. PRYOR. 1 am glad to hear it. That, however, does not affect the line of my argu- ment at all; and I repeat, that I desire Represent- atives on the other side of the House to be per- suaded that we here, and our constituents at home, perfectly understand their policy and ultimate purposes. Mr. ENGLISH. I am unwilling that the re- mark made by my honorable colleague should go out without some correction. The gentleman to whom he refers as being a Democrat was not, according to my estimation, a Democrat, but has always been recognized in Indiana as an Aboli- tionist. Mr. KILGORE. I ask my colleague if that gentleman was not elected as a Democrat? Mr. ENGLISH. That is not my recollection. Mr. KILGORE. That is mine, distinctly. Mr. ENGLISH . He has always been an Abo- litionist, and he belongs to the Republican party. [Cries of " Name ! "] His name is May. Mr. KILGORE. I am informed by my col- league [Mr. Colfax] that that gentleman was the regular nominee of a Democratic convention. Mr. COLFAX. He told me so himself. Mr. NIBLACK. I ask whether that gentle- man has ever been heard of in politics since ? Mr. KILGORE. That makes no difference. Mr. NIBLACK. Never, sir. Mr. PRYOR. These interruptions on imma- terial points are rather embarrassing: so I will o-o on. Let me repeat, however, with emphasis, to the Representatives on the other side, that we of the South understand the developments here. We understand their policy. All this is obvious enough. It is the artifice of ambition, working with the resources of hypocrisy. 1 repeat to the representatives of the anti-slavery party on this floor, that the people of the South will not be de- ceived by this sham demonstration, nor be dis- armed at the suggestion of a treacherous friend- ship. They are resolved to be prepared henceforth and forever. But, Mr. Clerk, despite the studied silence and artful concealment of the Black Republican Rep- resentatives, we have an occasional revelation of their suppressed feeling and hidden purpose. After all their elaborate artifice of disguise, no wand then we get a distinct glimpse of the " cloven foot." It is impossible, by any stringency of party drill, to impose a padlock on the mouth of some among their numbers. And here, permit me to make my acknowledg- ments to the honorable member from Pennsylva- nia, [Mr. Hickman,] for the speech which he delivered several days ago. Its doctrines I abom- inate; but its candor I must applaud. By contrast with the truckling and shuffling, the timidity and time-serving, the prevarication and dissimulation which have characterized the conduct of the Black Republican Representatives, the outspoken candor of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is indeed an admirable exhibition. It is a refreshing spectacle; it restores one 's confidence in the virtue of mankind — I use the word in its original sense — to hear a man who has the pluck and the purpose to open his mouth and speak the thoughts of his mind. Further I cannot go in compliment of the honor- able member's speech — I waive all consideration of its conceded ability— for a speech of more vin- dictive spirit and untenable doctrine, was never delivered in the American Congress. Sir, the honorable member has accomplished the work from which the great abilities of Edmund Burke recoiled in impotent endeavor. He has drawn up an indictment against a " whole peo- ple;" an indictment, too, bristling at every point with counts and criminations. He has exhibited articles of impeachment against the entire South. He has arraigned the South upon the most hein- ous accusation. He charged us explicitly and sol- emnly, on his responsibility as a Representative, with the violation of all compacts, compromises, and covenants. He stigmatizes us as a perfidious race, as a people of Punic faith, as a community with- out the fidelity to engagements which constitutes the tie of all social confederacy. Nay, to impart sting and poignancy to the accusation, he coupled it with the aggravating imputation of ingratitude. Yes, sir, he asserted distinctly that all these cov- enants, which we are charged with breaking, were made for our benefit; not perceiving the limp in his logic, the contradiction in the statement, that we had violated engagements which operate to our : advantage. Perhaps, sir, he intended to imply ' that the people of the South are fools as well as knaves; otherwise, I cannot see how he expects ! credit for the assertion that they themselves have I loosened the bond of covenants which were all for their own benefit. Nor is that all. There is this t additional and incomprehensible absurdity in the I gentleman's argument: he represents the North I as complaining of the infraction of engagements | which operated to its disadvantage and disparage- i ment. It will puzzle the gentleman's ingenuity i to explain why the South should be faithless to favorable compacts, and why the North should urge as a grievance that they are relieved from onerous restrictions. This is one of the dilemmas into which malignity is so apt to betray its vic- tims. But, sir, I contest the gentleman's argument in both of its propositions. I deny that all the com- pacts and compromises of the Constitution are for the benefit of the South; and I deny that she is guilty of any, the least, violation of her cove- nants. In the first place, it is not true that the South realized any enlargement of right by the so-called compromises of the Constitution. It is not true generally, for the reason that when the States of the South assented to the Constitution and entered the Confederacy, they were independent nation- alities, and as such were invested with all the rights of sovereignty. Their power was com- plete, and any modification of that power oper- ated as a restriction and derogation. The only acquisition of right and power which they could have gained, arose out of the relations which they contracted with other members of the Confeder- acy. What that acquisition was will be exhib- ited in the sequel. Again, sir, it is equally untrue in fact as false in philosophy, that the States of the South are exclusively the beneficiaries of the compacts of the Constitution. Examine those compromises as they are enumerated by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. First, is the partial representation of our slave population. Evidently here is a concession of right and a deduction of power on the part of the South. The States of the South, before entering the Confederacy, had a right to insist that their weight in the popular branch of the Federal Con- gress should be proportioned to their entire negro population; instead of which, they agreed to sub- tract tu-o fifths from this basis of representation. Here was a clear and important concession from the South, at the instance and for the advantage of the North. If they had demanded the enumera- tion of all their slaves in the ratio of representa- tion, as they had a right to do, their strength on this floor to-day would be increased by the addi- tion of sixteen members, and we would not be embarrassed now by the possibility of a Black Republican Speaker. So, sir, with the slave trade, which the South had a right to perpetuate, but to the suppression of which, after a given period, she consented, in i the interest of the Confederacy. This, too, was a signal concession by the South. The gentleman adduces, and properly, too, the constitutional stipulation for the rendition of fugitive slaves as an advantage which the South gains in the Confederacy. It is true, sir, if the southern States maintained their original independ- ence, they would have no right to reclaim their slaves from the jurisdiction of foreign Powers. But, sir, apart from the "nullity of this provision, considerby whataconcession the South purchased the poor equivalent. By resigning the privili gi of levying tonnage and impost duties, and trans- ferring to the Federal Government all control over the foreign and inter-State commerce of the Con- federacy, they placed their trade at the mercy i I antagonist interests in the North; and most effect- ually have the North availed themselves of the power for the aggrandizement of their manufac- turing and commercial interests, at the expense cf the producing interests of the South/ They have plucked us with merciless and insatiable exac- tions. Thus, sir, it appears that in all the instance? enumerated by the honorable member from Penn- sylvania, the South, in effect, has lost rather than °-ained by the compromises of the Constitution. I come, now, to the other proposition of the o-entleman's argument; to the burden of his in- dictment; to the point of his invective against the South; to the declaration that the South has been faithless to "all compacts, compromises, and covenants." Among the compromises of the Constitution, which one has the South violated? The honorable gentleman did not allege that wc had broken any except the engagement for tin suppression of the slave trade. Is this a jus? accusation? I confidently affirm it is not. Ex- ceptional instances of lawlessness do not impugn the character of a community. As a body, the people of the South are in no way concerned in the violation of the law against the slave trade. They are not more guilty of the crime than the people of the North. In fact, and notoriously, it is in northern ships, by northern men, and for the ag- grandizement of northern capital, that the slave- trade is prosecuted in defiance of legal prohibition These assertions I defy the gentleman to contra- dict. Well, sir, how stands the South in respect vi that other class of compromises— I mean the com- promises of legislation ? Here let me protest that I have no reverence for this sort of compromise I cannot comprehend the meaning of a legisla- tive compact. It is an idea that eludes analysis No one enactment of the Federal Legislature hi>s more sanctity and stability than another. AH laws rest upon their approved policy; and they are liable to repeal the moment their dperatiori 8 becomes mischievous. It is ausurpation of power, and an act of folly, for one Congress to undertake to protect its legislation from amendment by a succeeding Congress. Still, I will follow the gentleman, step by step, m his indictment. I will take up specification after specification, and exhibit, beyond question, that the South is innocent of any infraction even of these legislative compromises. More than that; 1 will retaliate the charge. I will make the North plead to an indictment, and will prove that it is the anti-slavery party which has violated "all com- pacts, compromises, and covenants." The honorable member accuses the South of an infraction of the Missouri compromise. The facts show that the South adhered to it, but the North repudiated it. He declared, explicitly and emphatically, that the South had infracted and violated the Missouri compromise. Sir, I hurl back the accusation, and tell him that it was not the South, but the North, the North entirely and exclusively, with his aid and his approbation, that violated this legislative compromise of 1820. Mr. HICKMAN. I do not wish to interrupt the gentleman further than to correct a slight mis- take into which he has fallen. He supposes that the repeal of the Missouri compromise was passed with my sanction and consent. Mr. PRYOR. Not at all. I will come to that point. If the honorable gentleman will let me develop my idea, he will find that I am not far out after all. Mr. HICKMAN. I beg the gentleman's par- don. I will say this, in order to put that matter at rest: I was opposed to the repeal of the Mis- souri line, and to the legislation of 1854. I have stated upon this floor, on more than one occasion, that if I had been a member of this body at the time of the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act, i would have voted against it, as I foresaw that it would be pregnant of mischief. Mr. PRYOR. I say, sir, notwithstanding, that it was the gentleman's constituents, that it was the anti-slavery party of the North, the party outside of the Democracy, who violated this com- promise of 1820, which is now so sacred in the contemplation of the honorable member and his associates. Howdidtheyviolate.it? Why, sir, the South, with that funic faith which is char- acteristic of them, insisted, after the compromise of 1820 was enacted, that it should be extended .ynd perpetuated. We so insisted in the case of Oregon, in the case of the organization of govern- ments for the Territory acquired from Mexico, and in the case of the adjustment of the disputed boundary between Texas and New Mexico — three instances wherein the South, with the loyalty and chivalric regard for honor, which, if not peculiar to her, is certainly characteristic of her, did pro- pose to insist upon the prolongation and perpet- uation of the Missouri line of 36° 30'. What did the North, this very party now clamorous for the Missouri compromise ? They, upon those three several occasions, did infract it, did violate it, did refuse to perpetuate it. Afterward, the South, finding that these gentlemen of irreproachable and immaculate honor employed that compromise merely for their own aggrandizement and our oppression, finding that when it was to their advantage they adhered to it, and when to their disadvantage they nullified it; the South, I say, finding these things, and considering, meanwhile, that the compromise was unconstitutional — un- constitutional in that it proposed an arbitrary exclusion against the States of the South — then declared that inasmuch as the North will not keep their faith, as they will not observe the compact, the Government should revert to the principles of the Constitution. With a singular and unaccountable inaptitude, the honorable gentleman adduces the tariff com- promise of 1832 as another instance of bad faith on the part of the South. This statement, sir, is the exact reverse of historical truth. The com- promise of 1832, with a view to appeasing the dis- content of the South under an intolerable burden of iniquitous taxation — a discontent particularly developed in the gallant Palmetto State — stipu- lated that the duties should undergo a gradual re- duction until they reached a revenue level, where they should remain. Nevertheless, this process of amelioration was arrested, and, instead, a most grievous and outrageous weight of taxation im- posed upon the South at the very moment when she was promised relief from the oppression — im- posed in the enactment of the bill of abominations by the very North which now complains of bad faith — imposed for the advantage of the very Pennsylvania which the gentleman partially rep- resents. This is another instance of southern perfidy ! I am conscious of treading on delicate ground in reverting to the compromise of 1850; but here, too, I affirm, the gentleman urges an unjust accu- sation. The truth is, that, objectionable in many features as that measure was to the South, the South yet adhered to its principle, and proposed to in- corporate it in the Kansas-Nebraska bill of 1854. This suggestion the North resisted; but the South was firm, and, aided by a number of faithful north- ern Democrats, succeeded in securing an explicit recognition and reaffirmation of the principle and 9 policy of the compromise of 1850. This is another example of southern perfidy ! 1 come now to the Kansas compromise of 1854, as the honorable gentleman describes it, a reference which I feel to be delicate and embarrassing. In respect of this measure I give my opinion that neither the northern or southern Democracy are guilty of an intentional violation of engagement. The truth is, that the Kansas-Nebraska bill was susceptible of a various reading. Obvious enough on its face, like a palimpsest, it contained matter of grave import beneath the surface. We of the South said the principle of the bill was, that the people of a Territory might determine the ques- tion of slavery in the exercise of State sovereignty, and in the act of organizing a State government. Others maintain that the principle of the bill rec- ognized the right of the people, by an act