SPEECH
OF
.APBUTLER,
CAROLINA,
ON TH
BILL TO ENABLE THE PEOPLE OF KANSAS TERRITORY
TO FORM A CONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERN       MENT, PREPARATORY TO THEIR ADMIS           SION INTO THE UNION, ETC.
DELVIED
IN'THE UNITED STATES SENATE, JUNE 12, 1856.
WASHINGTON:
PRINTED AT THE UNION OFFICE.
1856.
F -. -,
,'r
i'. / -
9
I. I
or
SOUT-H
#I
-. I
0 
I 
5   -. i ~ I >
6in -. - 
SPEECH.
MR. BROOKS AND MP- SUMNER.
Mr. BUTLER said:
Mr. PRESIDENT:'The occasion and the subject upon which I am about to address the Senate
of the U,tited States, at this time, have been brought about by events over which I have had
no contra, and could have had none-events which have grown out of the commencement of
a controversy for which the senator from Massachusetts (not now in his seat) [Mr. SUMNER]
should be held exclusively responsible to his country and his God. lie has delivered a speech
the most extraordinary that has ever had utterance in any deliberative body recognising the
sanctions of law and decency. When it was delivered I was not here; and if I had been present, what I should have done it would be perfectly idle for me now to say, because no one
can substitute the deliberations of a subsequent period for such as might have influenced him
at another time and under different circumstances. My impression now is that, if I had been
present, I should have asked the senator, before he finished some of the paragraphs personally
applicable to myself, to pause; and if he had gone on, I would have demanded of him the next
morning that he should review that speech, and retract or modify it, so as to bring it within
the sphere of parliamentary propriety. If he had refused this, what I would have done I cannot say; yet I can s.ay that I wo,ild not have submitted to it.  But what  mode of redress I
should have resorted to I cannot tell.
I wish I had been here. I would have at least assumed, as I ought to have done on my
responsibility as a senator, and on my responsibility as a representative of South Carolina, all
the consequences, let them lead where they might; but instead ofthat, the speech has involved
his own friends and his own colleague. It has involved my friends.  It has involved one of them
to such an extent that, at this time, he has been obliged to put his fortune and his life at stake.
And, sir, if the consequences which are likely to flow from that speech shall end in blood and
violence, that senator should be prepared to repent in sackcloth and ashes.
Now, I pronounce a judgment on that speech which will be adopted by the public. I am as
certain as I am speaking that it is now condemned by thepublic mind, and by posterity it will
be consigned to infamy, for the michievous consequences which have flowed from it already,
and such as are likely yet to disturb the peace and repose of the country.
I said nothing, Mr. President, at any period of my life-much less did I say anything in the
oourse of the debate to which he purports to have made a reply-that could have called for,
much less have justified, the gross personal abuse, traduction, and calumny, to which he has
resorted.
When i1 was at my little farm, enjoying myself quietly, and, as I thought, had taken refuge
from the strifes and contentions of the Senate and of politics, a message was brought to me
that my kinsman had been involved in a difficulty on my account. It was so vague that I did
not know how to account for it. I was far from any telegraphic communication. I did not
wait five minutes before I left home to put myself within the reach of such informationand
garbled even that was-as was accessible. I travelled four days continuously to Washington;
and when I arrived I found the very subject under discussion which had given me so much
concern; and it has been a source oqf the deepest concern to my feelings ever since I heard of
it, on many accounts-on account of my country, and on account of the honor and the safety of
rny kinsman.  When I arrived here I found the subject ander discussion. I went to the Senate
worn down by travel; and I then gave notice that, when the resolutions from Massachusetts
should be presented, I would speak to them, as coming from a Commonwealth whose history,
and whose lessons of history, had inspired me with the very highest admiration-I would
speak to them from a respect to a Commonwealth, whilst, perhaps, the senator who had been
the cause of their introduction ought not to deserve my notice, and would not have received it.
Well, air, days passed, and those resolutions were not presented. Now they have been 
4
presented, and presented in a different way from any that I have ever known to be submitted
from any Commonwealth before. They were not presented by one of its senators, but were
sent directly to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
I waited for some time, with the expectation that when these resolutions should come I would
acquit myself of the painful task which circumstances had devolved upon me. They did not
come until yesterday-more than two weeks after their adoption.
In the mean time —on Monday last —I gave notice that I would address the Senate to-day,
under the confident belief, not that the present senator LMr. WILSON] would be here-because I
have nothing to do with him —but that the senator who has been the aggressor, the criminal aggressor, in this matter, would be present; and if I give credence to the testimony of Dr. Boyle,
I see no reason why he should not be present. For anything that appears in that testimony,
if he had been an officer of the army, and had not appeared the next day on the battie-field, he
would have deserved to be cashiered.
Fair, I am at a loss to know why he has aimed his assaults at me individually, and at my
State on more occasions than one; but I am willing to adopt the clew afforded by the Rev.
Mr. Beecher; and, as it it a clew upon the subject, I rely on it. I wish nothing of mine to go
out that I do not intend to be entirely consistent With the covictions of my mind. I ask to have
Mr. Beecher's remarks read. I adopt them, and they will acquit the senator-or they will go
very far to acquit him.
The Secretary read as follows:
" The only complaint which I have ever heard of Senator Sumner has been this: that he, by his
shrinking and sensitive nature, Was not fit for the' rough -and tumble' of politics in our day.
He would have held himself back. and avoided giving the slightest offence, had it not been
that he was reproved and goaded into it by, as I think, the injudicious criticism of friends-"
Mr. BUTLER. Sir, I believe it, and it will acquit his motives to some extent. Instead of
making his speech here his own, as a senator, under the obligations of the constitution, and
the highest sanctions which can influence the conduct of an honorable man-instead of making
it the vehicle of high thoughts and noble emotions that would become a man and a senatorit is obvious now that he has made that speech but the conduit-I will use a stronger express
sion-the fang through which to express upon the public the compound poison of malignity
and injustice.
This is confirmed by his remarkable exordium; for, in many respects, this is the most ex.
traordinary speech that has ever found its way in any book, or upon any occasion, ancient or
modern.   I have never before heard of proem or exordium by proclamation; and yet, before
the delivery of his speech, by a telegraphic proclamation to Theodore Parker, he uttered this
remarkable sentence:  "Whilst you are deliberating in your meeting I am about to pronounce
the most thorough philippic that was ever heard in the Senate of the United States." This is
in conformity with Mr. Parker's opinion. He was a flexible conformist invoking the spirit of
Theodore Parker as his muse to sustain him in the strife for which, by his nature and hie
talents, he was not fit. Sir, it was the tribute and deference of a flexible conformist, willing to
be a rhetorical fabricator to carry out the views and subserve the purposes of a man who, as I
understand, is of an iron will and robust intellect; who loves controversy, and has abilities
which more fit him, perhaps, for that than for worshipping the lamb as the emblem of inno cence, and as the prototype of that Christ whose doctrines he has professed. To conciliate
Parker the senator must make war upon South Carolina and upon myself.  If he supposed
that he would gain laurels by any attack on me because I was a" foeman worthy of his steel,"
I might feel complimented; but there was no such purpose. It was to pander to the prejudices
of Massachusetts, or.a portion of Massachusetts-for God forbid that I should say anything
which s not proper of Massachusetts-to pander to a portion of Massachusetts by assailing
South Carolina.  Before I finish I shall say-what I think, and if he were here in his place!I
would make him hang his head in shame; for I will demonstrate, before I conclude, that, in
what he has said of South Carolina, he has aspersed the nearest and dearest comrade of his
mother.  Yes, sir, a degenlerate son, incapable of appreciating the relations which subsisted
between Massachusetts and South Carolina at a time when there was something more of peril
to be encountered than exhibitions of rhetoric in the Senate of the United States; when men
placed their lives and their fortunes on the issue which had been made. I will prove him a
calumniator. While he has charged me with misstating history, law, and the constitution, let
me say that "he who lives in glass houses should not throw stones."  I here say, and I
pledge myself to it, that I will convict him, and shall demand of the Senate a verdict of
guilty.
but, Mt President, there is one result of this speech which I think may be regarded as
good. li.e I,s shown, as Mr. Beecher says, that he is unfit for the war of debate. He has
no business to gather the glories of the Senate chamber and fight with orators, unless he i/
prepared to maintain the position of an honorable combatant. Though his friends have in vested himn with the dress of Achilles and offered him his armor, he has shown that he is only
able to fight with the weapons of Thersites, and deserved what that brawler received from the
hands of the gallant Ulysses.
I muIst say, Mr. President, that I was utterly disappointed in the body of the speech.  In  dependent of the personalities which have distorted and disgraced it, there is nothing in the 
5
speech to distingush it from pretty nearly all the speeches which he has made upon this subject
-and I believe he has scarcely made any speeches on any other.   He is one of those one idea mnen who always go one way.   Whilst this speech has much of the identity of former
efforts, it has none of the freshness of their origirality.  If there is anything that varies it at
all, and distinguishes it from the others, it is the calico pictures impressed upon the "warp and
woof" of his former speeches in the form of quotations; some of which-f say it as a moralist
and as a senator-stain the cloth upon which they are impressed, more by their obscenity
than he can adorn it with the glare of their coloring.
I have made these remarks upon the character of the speech. He may regard them as criti cism. Whether my criticism be one that will be adopted by the public, or such as will
address itself to the good taste and good sense of this audience, I know not. I have given the
convictions of my mind. After these remarks upon the character of the speech, I come to
make my points; and I will maintain them, not by general charges without specifications; not
by that proclivityto error and falsehood which he so decently imputed to me; not by general
declamation from which he can take refuge in his own authority; but I will prove them by
documents beyond all question.
In the first place, I say, that what the senator said of me and of the State of South Carolina
was dragged into the debate by no law of legitimate association or connexion; but it was
injected into his speech positively in disregard of the tone and spirit of mine-neither in reply
to, nor in recognition of, the kindness and forbearance which pervaded my speech. Sir, I am
now passing through the last chapter of my public life. When 1 came here this year, I said to
friends, "The last thing I would wish is to have my name or reputation, if I have any, associated with party strife, much less with party contentions." My speech upon the Kansas
uestion was the most guarded and remarkable for its forbearance of any that I have ever
delivered. I commenced it by this declaration:
"It may be said that I have passed through the ordeal of experience, and perhaps of time,
and that they have had their influence on my temper; but, sir, I look on anything like a rupture
in civil government, and especially such a one as would throw us into the horrors of anarchy,
with not the same view as others who may be more intrepid, and who may think they can
come out of it without hazard to themselves. There is nothirng so mischievous to society as
any movement affecting its stability, uncontrolled by responsibility and unregulated by intelligence.'
Upon another occasion I remarked that 1 wauld be the last man to do or to say anything
that would commit the issue in Kansas to the arbitrament of the sword in the hands of youth.
Mine was a warring and a kind voice.
Before I proceed with the argument of my main points further, I will make  a suggestion
which may, perhaps, appear parenthetical. When the senator from Massachusetts took his
seat near me, I knew that he was a free-soiler, or abolitionist, as it svas termed; but notwithstanding that, I had read some of his productions, and he was introduced to me, or perhaps I
to him. I had known many who came into the Senate of the United States reeking with prejudices from home, who afterwards had the courage to lift themselves above the temporary influences which had controlled them.   I supposed that a man who had read history could not be
a bigot. I believed that one who was imbued with the literature which that senator's mind
had imbibed, could not sin in the face of light and truth, and the lessons of history. With
these views I did not hesitate to keep up what my friends complained of, an intercourse with
him, which was calculated to give him a currency far beyond what he might have had if I had
not indulged in that species of intercourse. My friendts here and everywhere know it. When
I made my reply to him on the Nebraska and Kansas bill, I complimented him,   I did not
hesitate to compliment him, and he was gratified at it, for he said so. His opinion of me as
a lawyer was very different then, (if I may be allowed to speak of what he then said,) not
only on this floor, but to other persons. I did not hesitate to forbear a proscriptive judgment
on any man because he happened to differ with me to-day or to-morrow; for life, sir, is but a
span anyhow. I thought the time might come when the tide of events would bring to him the
awful certainty of the doctrines which he held, and which, in the first instance, when he came
here, he was not disposed to propagate.
Things stood in this way until one day when it was proposed here to repeal the fugitive
slave law. I said that I had no great.confidence in that law, and turned to him with an honest
purpose, with no design whatever to provoke anything like a personal or sectional issue
and asked of the senator from Massachusetts whether, if there were no fugitive-slave law,
Massachusetts would be willing to carry out the provision of the constitution. Then it was,
in excitement, or, as he said, "impulse"-an im nulse, as I characterized it then, of the drawerhe rose and asked me if "he was a dog to do t i s thing?"   I treated this answer with ridicule;
it absolutely did not touch my heart; and aftel that I spoke to him.
Three days afterwards he came in with a labored philippic touching me more deeply than he
had before; but he then made, for the first time, a charge affecting the revolutionary history of South Carolina, by saying that John Rutledge, who was honored by Washington and
all his countrymen, and who is a historical character, had offered, in 1779, in a negotiation
with Prevost, at the gates of Charleston, that South Carolina should be neutral during the war
of the Revolution. I did not wait until the next morning to reply to him. I responded at 
6
once; and I have nn doubt I replied with indignation.  1 have no doubt that my heart threw
the words upon him.  MVortified vanity has no conscience   It may be that he did not think he
came out of that controversy with as much credit as he should-at least his friends may have
thought so   I gave him notice, however, that after that I should have no communication with
him whatever-the bridge bad been cut down-and I never have had.
Two years elapsed,and during that time I am bound in justice here to say,I have scarcely spoken
to, of, or about him; and perhaps, when  I did speak about him, I said something which he
wo,uld have been gratified to hear.  My friends think that so,,etimes I did.  Whatever the
temptation of my resentment may be, I have passed, and shall pass, through life with one
determination: If I can, ot do justice, I will not do injustice to any man. I have exhibited
here in debate, on more occasions than one, impatience and excitability.  These are peculiarities which have followed me from the cradle. Perhaps sometimes anger in its ebullitions may
have found an expression from me; but, thank God, I can say it was but a transient feeling
which at the time gushed from the heart; it was a feeling which subsequently was suppressed
by reason and repentance. That, however, is a failing which cannot inhabit the same mind
with treachery and malignity.
Now, sir, I proceed to make my points; and I shall show that what the senator said of
myself and South Carolina was not in response to anything which I said; that  he has
gone outside the record to bring into the debate matters which did not legitimately belong to it
by association or connexion.
I will maintain these three propositions so certainly that, in my opinion, there will not be
one mind here, unless it be disposed to morally perjure itself, which will not acquiesce in them.
I will show that his remarks upon me and South Carolina were untrue and unjust; the language
usec..,,as licentious; the spirit which prompted it was aggressive; and the whole tenor and
tone of the speech was malignant and iusulting.
In rut speech which I have madie during this session did I name Massachusetts or South
Carolina.  This is a most remarkable thing, considering the nature of the debate   I have
culled what I said, and I have not introduced South Carolina by name into the debate, nor have I
brought in Massachusetts. Yet, sir, this senator alludes to me in two paragraphs. I should
like to know why he did not finish my picture in one sketch on the first day, when he spoke of
rne as being " Don Quixote in love with slavery as a mistress because she was a harlot."  I
dislike to repeat the obscenity of his illustration. When he had me under review then, why
did he not finish me in t-,at general sketch?  le took another night; and during that night
the chaotic conceptions either emanated from his own  mind, or were suggested to it by
those busy people who seem to have control over him; and then it was that he made this
celebrated attack on me, assailing my reputation as a gentleman of veracity:
"With regret I come again upon the senator fromt South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] who,
omnipresent in this debate, overflowed with rage at the simple suggestion  that Kansas had
applied for admission as a State; and, with incoherent phrases  discharged( the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, asid then upon her people. There was no
extrvaeance of the ancient parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any
possible deviation from the truth which he did not make-with so much of passion, I am glad
to add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.  But the senator touches
nothing which he does not disfigure-with error, sotrietimes ot principle, sometimes of fact. He
shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in statinrg the constitution or in stating the law,
whether in the details of statistics or the diversions of scholarship.  He cannot rope his mouth
but out there flies a blunder.  Surely, he ought to be familiar with the life of Franklin; and
yet he referred to this household character, while acting as agent of our fathers in England, as
above suspicion; andI this was done that he might give paint to a false contrast with the agent
of Kansas-not knowing that, hov?ever they may differ in gerius atid fame, in this experience
they are alike; that Fratklin, when intrusted with the petition of Massachusett. bay, was assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker, where he could not be heard in defence, acid denotiticed as
a' thief,' even as the agent of Kansas has been assaulted on this floor and denounced as a
'foiger.'  And let not the vanity of the senator be inspired by the parallel with the British
stat:esmien of that day, for it is onrly in hostility to freedom that any parallel can be tecognised.
" But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibilities of the senator are particularly
aroused.  Coming, as he announces,' from a State'-ay, sir, from South Carolina-he turns
with lordly disgust from this newly-formed community, which he will not recognise even as
a bcdy politic.'  Pray, sir, by what title does he indulge oin this egotismn?  Has he read the
history of' the State' which he represents?  He cannot surely have forgotten its shameful imbecllity from slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, followed  by its more shameful
assumptions for slavery since.  He cannot have forgotten its wretched persistence in the slave
trade as the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in the Union He cao
not have forgotten its constitution, which is republictan only in name, corfit'mitg power in the
hands of the few, and founding the qualifications of its legiselators on'a s(ettled fi-eehold e..tate
and ten negroes.'  And yet the senator, to whom that'State' has in part committed  the
guiar,ianship of its good name, instead of moving, witti bi,ckwar(i treading steps, to cover its
nake,triess, rushes forward, in the very ecstasy of madness, to expose it by provoking a cormpawison with Kansas!' 
7
Now, Mr. President, I am going to state a proposition which will startle the Senate: what
he here undertakes to quote as the constitution of Sourth Carolina, in reference to the eligibility
of meml)bers of th- legislature, is not to be found in it at all.  How did he bring it in in response
to any speech of mine?  He has sworn in his affidavit that what he said was fairly in response
to the speeches which I had made. I put the question to senators, and I shall pause for their,
sentence: How dare he, from anything in my speeches, put his finger-his profane finge,upon the constitution of South Carolina?  Is that a response to anything which  I said?  My
speeches heretof Pro delivered are upon record, and can be referred to   I neither alluded to the
constitution of south Caroiina nor tid I mention South Carolina in the whole debate; and
yet in t is affi,davit he says that all these are fairly referable as a response to the remarks of the
senator from South Caro,lina! What he has quoted here is not in the constitution of South
Carolina; and when he unrcertakes to subject me to the severity of his criticisms, as a blunt
deter in the s atements of law and constitution, let him stand convicted of one of two things
either that he did not read the constitution of South Carolina himself, and adopted it from
others, or that, if he read it, he could not understand it.  I intend ti dwell upon this point
with a view to convict him-rot that I am going to vindicate the constitution of South Carolina. but I will convict this rhetorical jurist-this mran who undertakes to sit on the tripod,
and pu' lish the oracles of Delphi, to sit upon me as a lawyer!  My  Ged! what have I come
to?  A man who never managed a case (as far as I know) in court, to sit on myself vho havo
been thirty-five years engaged in law, either in appearing at the bar or expounding it on the
bench!
I have never delivered a judgment on a question of law here, as a member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, whether I have made th, majority or the minority report, when that senator
has not concurred with me; or, if he differed, it has been on sectional questions on which he
has been overruled by the overwhelming authority of the Senate.  Yet, a man who has agreed
with me always-and that is the only bad sign about it [laughter]-undertakes to sit in judgmerit on my legal attainments!  If his authority is worth anything, it is with me, for he has
concurred with mne. On all the contested election cases we have agreed-except,perhaps, in
the Pi,elps case. There he may have differed from me; but if he did, the Seniate overruled
him
That, however, is not the question which I was approaching. I said that what he stated in
reference to the constitution of South Carolina was not in response to anything which had
fallen frorn me, and that there was no such thing to be found in the constitution of South
Carolina as he has quoted   I will read the clause:
"No person shall be eligible to a seat in the house of representatives unless he is a free
white man, of the age of twenty-one years, and hath been a citizen and resident of tlis State
three years previous to his election. If a resident in the election district, he shall not be eligible to
a seat in the house of representatives unless he be legally seized and possessed, in his tawn
right, of a settled freehold estate of five hundred acres of larid anid ten negroes; or of a real estate
of the value of one hundred arid fifty pounds sterling, clear of debt. If a non-resident, he shall
be legally seized and possessed of a settled freehold estate therein of the value of five hundred
pounds sterling, clear of debt."
I venture to say that nearly half of the members of the legislature of qouth Carolina, par.
ticularly those who come firom the towns and cities, do not own a negro at all; and very few
of them, as my colleague knows, own five hundred acres of land. Merchahts do not want it;
lawyers do not want it.  The tenure by which they hold their offices is mainly by the latter
clause, which the senator left out, that a man to be eligible to a seat in the house of represeritatives must own property to the amount of ~ t50 sterling. clear of debt.  That is a little over
$7(0:. Now I have got him; I call on senators to convict him.  There Is but one verdict which
can be rendered.  He has gone out of the way to assail the constitution of South Carolina, and,
in assailing it he is guilty of the worst of all faults. I cannot conceive of a worse predicament
than his, who, professing pedattic accuracy, and sitting in judgment on the quotations of
others, is reduced to the alternative of admitting that he never read what he quoted, or, if he
had read it, could not understand it, or garbled it.
Again, sir, he says the constitution of South Carolina is republican only in form.  I say
there is no State in the Union whose constitution gives a morel enlarged right of suffrage.   I
hlave not the provision now bef re me, but I can state what my colleague knows to be the fact,
that every free white man of South Carolina, of the age of twenty-one, has a right ot suffrage,
provided he pavs seventeen shillings of tax.  I may be mistaken, perhaps,:n the amount.
Mr. EVANS   There is no tax at all required, if he is a resider,t, and has resided  six
months in the election district  Then lihe is entitled to vote without property qualification.
Mr BUTL.ER. If he has resided there for six months no property qual fica ion is required; but, if he has not resided so long, he must have a very small amount of land.  Our
people do not even pay a poll-tax. Here is the provision of the South Carolina constitution:
"Ev,;ry free white man of the age of twenty-one years, paupers and non-commissioned offieers and private solilirs of the army of the United States except,ed, being a citizen of thb is State,
and having resided therein two years previous to the day, f election, and who hath a freehold of
fifty acres of sand, or a town lot of which he hath been legally seized and possessed at least 
8
six months before such election, or, not having such freehold or town lot, hath been a resident
in the election district in which he offers to give his vote six months before the said election,
shall have a right to vote for a member or members to serve in either branch of the legislature
for the election district in which he holds such property, or is so resident."
The senator has presumed to characterize her constitution as republican only in form, when
it has the freest and most enlarged right of suffrage of any State in the Union. I grant you
that, when the legislatnre comes into operation undert the constitution, there are conservative
elements which, I thank God, have withstood the wild feeling of what is called the progress of
the times; but it does not become me to allude to them now.
I come next to an allegation which, if the senator were here, I think he would not look me
in the face when I repeat; and that is, his insolent and untrue charge of the "shameful imbecility" of South Carolina during the war of the Revolution in consequence of slavery. Sir, ingratitude is the monster of vices, and when it is associated with injustice, it ought to be condemned by the consuming indignation of even those who may to-morrow be our adversaries.
What are the facts? The news of the battle of Lexington was carried to Charleston by express; and the very day they received the intelligence the Liberty men, as they were called,
broke opon the arsenals and distributed the arms It was but a few days afterwards before
Boston sent a vessel to South Carolina for bread and wine.  We  seat them, I think, $3,500
worth of provisions, and seventy barrels of wine; the Maine liquor law did not prevail in
Boston at that time.  [Laughter.]  We gave them bread; and, I answer for it, South Carolina has never asked pay for her hospitality.  She would never brook the thought of asking pay
for the bread she poured out upon her countrymen-countrymen they were, sir. Massachusetts was without powder then, and we furnished her with it.
Here I will say, lest I forget it, that the battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill in the Revolution I regard as the battles of Marathon and Salamis. They gave the Commonwealth of Massachusetts an immortality for commencing the glorious contest which has resulted in the independence of these United States; and I shall be the last man to touch the laurel crown which
grows from the blood that enriched the soil upon which those battles were fought. The very
powder that was used after the battle of Bunker Hill was furnished by South tCarolina. Here
is the entry, not only in the history of South Carolina, but in the history of Massachusetts.
In Ramsay's History of the Revolution in South Carolina, volume 1, page 43, you will find:
At the time all these military preparations were making, the whole quantity of powder in
the province did not exceed three thousand pounds. The people not originally designing a
military opposition, no care was taken to provide stores; but now, reduced to the alternative
of fighting or submitting, extraordinary methods were taken to obtain a supply.  The inhabitants of East Florida having never joined in measures of opposition to Great Britain, the
ports of that province were open for the purposes of trade.
"Twelve persons, in which number were included Captains Tempirere, Cochran, Statter,
Tufts, Joyner, Messrs. Tebant, Williamson, and Jenkins, authorized by the Council of Safety,
sailed from Charleston for that coast, and, by surprise, boarded a vessel near the bar of St.
Augustine, though twelve British grenadiers of the 14th regiment were on board.  They took
out fifteen thousand pounds of powder, for which they gave a bill of exchange to the captain;
and, having secured a safe retreat to themselves by spiking the guns of the powder vessel, they
set sail for Carolina. Apprehending that they should be pursued, they steered for Beaufort.
From that place they came by the inland navigation, and delivered their prize to the Council
of Safety, whilst their pursuers were looking for them at the bar of Charleston. This seasonable supply enabled the people of South Carolina to oblige their suffering brethren inr Massachusetts, who, though immediately exposed to the British army, were in a great measure
destitute of that necessary article of defence."
In a book published in Boston, entitled "Dealings with the Dead," I find these entries:
"Our southern confederates are entitled to civility, because they are men and brethren; and
they are entitled to kindness and courtesy,fromn us of Boston, because we owe them a debt
of gratitude, which it would  be shamneful to forget.  Since we',f the North have  presumred to be undtrtakers upon this occasion, let us do the thing'decenter et ornate.'  Besides,
our friends of the South are notoriously testy and hot-headed; they are, geographically, children of the sun.  John Smith's description of the Mas,achbnsetts Indians, in 1614, Richmond
edition, 2, 194, is truly applicable to the southern people:'very kind, blt, in theirftfury, no less
valiant.'
"I am no more inclined to uphold the South in the continued practice of a moral wrong, because they gave us bread when we were hungry, as they certainly did, than was Sir Matthew
Hale to decide favorably for the suitor who sent him the fat buck "  -            * *    *    *
.Tune 24, 1774. —Twenty-four days after the port bill went into operation, a public meeting
was held at Charleston, South Carolina.  The moving spirits were the Trapiers and the Elliots, the Horries and the Clarksons, the Gadsdens and the Pinckneys, of that day; and reso lutions were passed full of brotherly love and sympathy for the inhabitants of Boston." * * *
"New York, August 15, 1774. —Saturday last Captain Dickerson arrived here, and brought
three hundred and seventy-six barre s of rye from South Carolina, to be sold, and proceeds
remitted to Boston, a present to the sufferers; and a still larger cargo is ip be shipped for the
like benevolent purpose."      *      *       *       *       *      *'   *    *           *
"Let the work of abolition go forward in a dignified and decent spirit.  Let us argue Sand, 
so far as we rightfully may, let us legislate. Let us bring the whole world's sympathy up to
the work of emancipation. But let us not revile and vituperate those who are, to all intents
and purposes, our brethren, as certainly as if they lived just over the Roxbury line, instead of
Mason and Dixon's.  Such harsh and unmitigated scofing and abuse, as we'too often witness, are equally ungracious, ungeritlernanly, and ungrateful."
The senator says that the Southern States, in consequence of slavery, betrayed during the
revolutionary war a " shameful imbecility."  I challenge him to the truth of history.  There
was not a battle fought south of the Potomac which was not fought by southern troops and
sIlaveholders, even if you choose to exclude Pennsylvania, which was at that time a slaveholding State. Muhlenberg's continental regiment was always with them, and I love to allude to
it; but not a New England squad, company, or regiment, ever passed the Potomac; and yet
the senator says that but for northern aid the Southern States could not have sustained themselves.
Sir, who fought the battle of King's Mountain?  It was not fought by anybody in pay.
Patriots fought it, but they never received a dollar.  That battle made an impression, perhaps
the most remarkable of any during the war. It turned the tide cfevents. Who fought the
battle of Cowpens? There was none in that battle from the north of Maryland. Her commander, Howard, is perhaps, in some respects, the hero of that action. Colonel Washington,
commander of the cavalry, and Pickens, a citizen of South Carolina, and one of the heroes of
the revolutio,zary war, commna)nded the nmilitia, and they never shrank from their post.  It has
been said of the South Carolina mrilitia, during the, revolution,ary war, that they were the only
raw troops who stood to their guns and position whenever they were mustered into the service
and called upon to perform duty
Who fought the battle of Hobkirk's Hill?  Gen. Green was the commander; and he afterwards became a slaveholder, andl, of his own choice, lived and died in a Southern State, among
friends and comrades in arms. Who fought the battle of Eutaw? Was there any New England regimnent, or company, or squad there?  Not one. T'hat battle,-the most distinguished
which has ever been fought in the southern portion of the confederacy, was f, ught by southern
slaveholdrfrs from Maryland, Virginia, South Caro'ina, North Carolina, and Georgiall. They
were exclusively southern troops.  In the face of these facts the senator said the imbecility of
the South, arisinrg front slavery, was such that they could not fight their battles without aid.
Shame! I call upon the shade of Hancock and Adams to look down and reprove a degenerate son who can thus invade the very sanctuary of the history which has given them immortality.
Do you think that, sir, by this remark I reproach the troops of New England?  No, sir.
When Yorktown surrendered there was not a New England regiment there; 1 have a list o
the troops who were present   But because I say that southern troops and those from Pennsylvania alone engaged in these distinguished battles, do I reproach the troops of Mlassachiusettsa?  God  forbid! They were under the command of Washington at the time when he
went to Yorktown, and, as was his duty, he sent them to defend the vulnerable points of New
York and Boston.
Now, 1 will make a remark which I hope the Senate will remember: Notwithstanding their
relative numbers, compared with the pay-list of NSew England, you may take the fighting daysif you have a mind to comprute it as you would labor —you may take the fightingg days during
which the troops of South Carolina were engaged, and in the computation the balance will be
found greatly against Massachusetts.  If you have a mind to diaw somie other test —if you
wisth to test the question of sacrifice, and measure it by blood-South Carolina has poured out
hogsheads of blood where gallons have been poured out by Massachusetts.
In proof of this I give a list of battles fought in South Carolina, and each was a bloody
battle:
Battle of Fort Moultrie; battle of Stono; siege of Charleston; battle of Camden; battle of
1Hao-,in" Rock; battle of Musgrove's Mill; battle of Blackstocks; battle of Georgetown, and
the battle at Black Wings, by Marion; battle of King's Mountain; battle of Cowpens; battle of Fish Dam Ford, by Sumrnpter, battle at Ninety8six; battle at Forit Galphini; battle at
Fort Watson;  battle at Fort Mott; battle at Elobkirk'.t Hill; battle rf Granby; battle of
Cedar Spring; b,,ttle of Hamtamo-nid's Store; battle f,f GLinby battle of Eutaw; battle of
Ro(.ky M1,unrt; battle of Port "(-,ya!; battle cf Tii afiti'y; ba tie of Coosahatehie; battle of
Waxhamr Settlemerit, b tweet) Beatufort and Tarlotont battle of Cloud's C;eck; battle at
Hays'- Station; bloody battle of Kettle Cr-,ek, fought by General Pickens; battle of HIouck's
defeat.
These were all fouaght in South Carolina, and in which South Carolinians were engaged, and
were bloody battles.' In addition, there were almost daily skirmishes fought by Marion and
Sumpter.
But I do not blame Massachusetts, for I have said she had glory enough, and she was covered
with glory enough by taking the bold starid which she did in putting the ball of revolution in
motion; but, when the senator undertakes to cast reproaches on the history of South CaroO
lina, he wil, h.'ave to take hard comparisonis.  Shile got bread from her comrade.  The  maan
who now reproaches South Carolena, as I said a little w tile ago, is a degenerate son reproaching the dearest and nearest comrade of his mother.  You cannot get over the errors he has committed in history; you cannot obviate the malignity with which the arrow has been shot.
9 
10
Whether he shot it with thereckless aim of one who bad his hand upon the bow, and directed
tt e shaft conscious that it had been dipped in the poison of others, I know not; but I have
unma-ked him —I have detected and exposed the man who charges me with error, and such a
pron]ivitl to error that 1 cannot observe the line of tru h witho,ut such deviations as to bring
on me the censure, not of one intentionally guilty,:f false hood, hut one who, under the gust
and whirlwind of passion, cannot observe the line of truth. I have detected him; I have exposed him; and now I demand of the Senate a verdict of guilty. I pause, sir.
But now, since he has given his testimony, I will ask that the testimony of another man may
be re d —the opinion of Daniel Webster with regard to the revolutionary history of South
Caro)lina and Massachusetts.
The Secretary read the following extract from Mr. Webster's reply to Mr. Hayne, delivered
January 21, 18,30:
" Then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently-promulgated South Carolina opinions.  Ann,-certainly, he need have none; for his own sentiments, as now advanced,
ar,d advanced on reflection-as far as I have been able to c,mprehend themn-go the full length
of all these opinions.  I propose, sir, to say something on these, and to consider how far they
are just and constitutional.  Before doing that, however,  let me observe, that the eulogium
pronounced on the character of the State of South Carolina by the honorable gentleman, for
her revolutionary and other merits, meets my hearty concurrence.  1 shall not acknowledge
that the honorable member goes before me  in regard for whatever of distinguished talent, or
distinguished character, South Carolina has produced.  I claim part of the hotot-I partake in
the pri:ce-of her great names.  I claim them for countrymen-one and all-the Laurensts,'
the Rutledges, the Pirickneys, the Sumpters, the Marions-Americans all —whose fame is no
m,ire to be hemrnme( in by State lines than their talents and patriotism were capable of being
circumseribed within the same narrow limits.  In  their day a-id generation they served and
honored the country, and the whole country; and their renown is of the trtasures of the whole
couintry. Him whose hontiored name the gentleman himself bears —doais he esteem me less
capable of gratitude for his patriotism, or sympathy for his si,fferings, than if his eyes had first
opened upon the lght of Massachusetts, itistead of South  Carolina?  Sir, does he suppose it
ili his power to exhibita Carolina name so bright its to produce envy in my bosom?  No, sir;
increased gratification and delight, rather.  1 thank God that if I am gifted with little of the
spirit which is able to raise mrortals to the skies, I have yet none, as I trust, of that other spirit
whiich would drag angels down.  Whet)   I shall be found, sir, in my place here, in the Senate,
or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring up beyond the ittle limits
of my own State or neighborhood; when I refuse, for any su. h cause, or for any cause, the
homage due to American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liberty and
the counitry; or, if I see an uncommt(,n endowment of Heavenr —if I see extraordinary capaity
and virtue in any son of the South —an-d if, nroved by local prejudice or ganglenre  by  State
jealouay, I get up here to abate the tithe of a hair from his just character and just fame. may
liy tongue cleave to the roo-f of my mouth!
Sir, let me recur to pleasirng recollections —let me indulge in refreshing remembrances of
the past —let me remind you that, in early times, no States cherished greater hlarmoty, both of
pritciplearnd feeling, than Massachusetts and Se,uth Catoli,a.  Would to God that harmony
might again return! Shouldler to shloulder they went through the Revolotion —haiad in hand
they stood around the administration of Washitigton, and felt his owti ereat artn lean on them
for support.  Unkind fieling, if it exist, alienatio,n and distrust, are the growth, unnatural to
s.u-h sots, of false principles since sown.  They  are weeds, the seeds  of which that  same
great arm never scatteteid."
Mr. LBUTLER.  Sir, Daniel Webster is a Doric statue. upon a co'os7al pedestal raised  by
the hands of pairiots —raised by the hands of statesmen; a pedestal.which is imperishable as
long as the   c'n.Ivements of heroes, patriots, and statesmen can be transmitted to posterity by
hlistory.  His tribute to Solitbh Caroiiia is worth sornething.  It is the tribute of a statessman
and r;.n   rlatot —of a man who could, lift himself above the  bigotry  aid even prepare to be
crushed utider the wheel, of wild thanaticism.  It is such a tribute as was paid by an orator like
Pericles, who had guidt  d the helm of State, who had an Athenian sp:rit of patriotism, who
wvs an orattor aid a statetrroan.  Who is he that now gives a dfferenit t.pifiton of South Caroitna?  Is it not a Cleon —otie whose warfare is to essai has antawonist by crimination, calumny, arnd private slauder —a man  who draws his similes from obscerne sources, and always
thinks iie has conquered wi~en he has mortifed and hurt the feelings of his adversary?
Sir, when I look at the eviderice to which I have adverted, wheit I allude to the opi,rcions pronounced between tie two gentlemen —between  Mr. Webster and the senatot from Massachusetts who i5 absent-I can well say,
"Look upon that picture, and then upon thlis" —
I will not finish the quotation; I shall say nothing in this debate but what I believe tol be true.
If I were to unrdertal e to compare the senator from MNasaclhusetts With the coarseness of Cleo*
in some of his siniles, end hYis grossness in some of his attacks on his adversary —I reaen in
poirnt  c,f ttste — miht do ij,istice to nay own crticLin, because I beleve the senator is a man 
11
who understands the use of lan,iiaee —a gentleman who  has gone back to classic fountains,
and in that respect I separate him from Cleon, but otherwise net at all.  Let the young  mnen
and boys who hear me, go and read the life of Cleon, and, when they do, let them read the
notice which even Grote attaches to it, the author who has taken the most favorable view of
that demagogue —who could never lift himself above'the local prejudice that surrounded him,
and always pandered to it in order to obtain a conquest over his rival who was in power, and
was maintaning the honor and dignity of his country.
* Now, I come to another branch of the sutbject, and it is, I confess, the sorest one of all. The
senator has made a very grave charge upon John Ritied(ge; not upon South Carolina in that point
of view.  The facts in relation to that transaction are these: when General Lincoln was calle&
to.the command of the southern armt, Prevost was in possession of Savannah, and Georgia
in fact was under British authority.  When Lincoln took command of the southern troops, he
conceived the bold exenriment of crossing the Savannah river and reclaiming Georgia.  His
wily alversary, who was in Savannah, took advantage of his being at Augusta, about one
hundred and fifty miles above, crossed the river at Savannah, and made his way t,, the gates
of Charleston.  When he reached Charleston, there, were but about six hundred troops under
the command of Moultrie, and as many under Pulaski.  He had about four thousand.  The
militia, and, I believe, even the women, kept watch the whole night for fear the town would be
stormed. In order to gan time, a parley was proposed the next day. Rutledge sent three
different commissions.  He knew that Lincoln would be upon the British if he could only d(etain them for a day   That parley was regarded by his friends as a stratagem..Some of his
enemies were disposed to assail'him for it.  Whilst they were on that very parley  Moult.ie
said that Rutledge had no right to touch the garrison; he himself was commander-in-chief, ard
Rutledge could do nothink as governor to com,ply with the terms which, for appearance sake,
he had proposed. Here is the notice of it by the historian:
"It was presumed by the garrison that General Lincoln, with the army under his commat.d,
was in c(lose pursuit of General Prevost, but his precise situation was unknown to every person
within the lines.  To gain time in such circumstances was a matter of great co(nsequence.   A
whole day was therefore spent in sending and receiving flags.  Commissioners Dr(,m the gareison at Char'eston were instructed to propose' a neutrality durinm  the war!etween- Great Britain and America; and that the qiestion, whether the State shall  aelong to Great Britain or remain onre of the United States, be determined by the treaty of peace between these powers.' " —
Ramrnsay's History, vol 2, p. 27.
Whilst they were upon that parley, it happened that Lincoln came up and drove off Prevost.
That very proposition of Rutledge resu'ted in the Sfty of Charleston.   Some of his enemies
lhave said that the terror of his situation was so great, the women and children being in the
town, with only twelve hundred troops to defend it, that he'was willing to capitulate on such
terms as would save innocen, e from the dangeis of a storm.   His friends have given it a different complexioin.  Be that as it may, everybody knows that the gover nor of South Carolina
at that time had no power to make such an engagement. Prevost knitew it just as well as anybody else.  If he had agreed to it, 1 presume Rutledge could have drawn out,.f it the next day,
on the giound that there was no authority to make the stipulation. It was du,irg the itne
when this matter was under consultation that Lincoln came up and dro)ve off Prevost, and
fought the celebrated battle of Stono, so much spoken of in the southern country.
But suppose that John Rutledge could have subjected them to the terms which the gentleman has censured-for' he is not only a superior lawyer to sit in judgment on everybody els's
law knowledge, but it appears he is a military man, though I never heard of it bef,re-suppose that John Rutledge had stipulated, as far as he could stipulate, that the people of Chaileston should be remitted to British protection as long as they observed their parole; was it anything more than his own countryman, General Lincoln, did, on the 22d of May of the foll-wing year?  General Lincoli  was severely censured for his act; bhut it was done from feelings
of humanity.  He could have evacuated the city of Ch -rleston and saved his army. as Washington did at Philadelphia; but, instead of that, he agri ed to stand by the houses of the women
and children in Charleston at al htazards, and run the risk of the censur,- pronounced on hir
by military men.  He capitulated; and what were the terms of the capi,utation? That the
militia should be under British protection, and should not be disturbed, in person or property,
as long as they observed their parole.
That was the act of Lincoln.  He could do no more.  The military men who were under
his command were subject to be exchanged as prisoners of war.  The se  ator has gone out of
his way to pronounce a judgment against Rutledge to which  his own  countryrman; has been
actually liable.  I will give you an incident to show the difference between the taunting irnj:,stice
and malignity which prevail now and the chivalry whi h prevai ed then.  Whe, they came to
the terms of capitulation, Lincoln, with the proud spirit of a military man, i:,sisted that he
should leave Charleston beating the Americain march, with his colors unf,,lded, his fl.ag firled.
Clinton told him, " No, sir; we have reduced you to our own terms, and we intend to degrcde
you; you are rebels. and deserve none of~these honors at our h nds"
When Yorktown was taken, who was delegated  to pre,cribe the terms of capitulation?
John Laureas, of whom it has been said that a dariing courage was the least of his a complish menats,nd an   tee  s e;f Ad i;; g,-tcr.t tattt.  tilde., L.-~u:'c   was called l:p an by'General 
12
Washington, who behaved on that occasion with a delicacy and propriety which history and
poetry ought to commemorate, hewtold Laurens, "Sir, as your city surrendered to Clinton
I delegate to you the authority to prescribe the terms on which this surrender shall be made."
Cornwallis said to him,',' These are hard terms to require us to go out with folded colors, and
to beat the Turk's march-a neutral march."  Laurens said, "There shall not be a dot of an i
or a cross of a t in the terms of capitulation at Yorktown which was not observed at Charleston."  To make it more delicate to Lincoln, on whom  the shade  of censure had  somewhat
passed for his conduct at the siege of Charleston, Laurens said that it was proper to select
incoln to receive the sword from Cornwallis, as he had surrendered the sword to Clititon.
You will see him in the foreground of the picture in the rotundo. There was chivalry, sir-a
chivalry peculiar to the days in which it was exhibited. Is such conduct as that to be under
the censure of a rhetorical fabricator at this day? It is hard to bear-it is unjust in itself.
Now, sir, I have done with these topics   I have not vindicated the history of South Carolina. I ask the Senate to bear me testimony that I have not gone into this matter with a view
to vindicate her. She does not need it. Adopting the language of Daniel Webster, I may say:
" There is South Carolirna; there she stands; she speaks for herself; she needs no eulogy.'"
She cannot be injured by the detraction of one who is under an influence not of justice, truth,
or honor.
Having finished with these thrusts at the constitution of South Carolina, and at her history
and character, I come now to another matter in relation to myself. He says that I have such
a proclivity to error in my statistics that 1 have as many words of error as I utter. What a
wholesale assertion is that!  Strange to say, I resorted to no statistics at all on the occasion to
which he alluded.  When  I interrupted the senator fiom New Itampshire, [Mr.  HALE,] I
had on my table returns from the Charleston custom-house. I alluded to them in general terms,
to prove what he cannot dispute: that the slave trade was carried on in northern, and English,
and Scotch vessels; that the profits of it redounded to them; and that, when the slave trade
was opened, it gave them the regulation of commerce. The venerable grandfather of nmy friend
from Virginia, [Mr. MASON,] in the convention, had inserted into the constitution provision
that a two-thirds vote of Congress should be necessary for the passage of any measure to regulate commerce.
1 say here, that for South Carolina and Georgia it was a short-sighted policy when they
gave up the regulation of commerce to the navigation interest, in consideration of their having
the slave trade remain open ujntil 1808, with the certainty before them that New  Er,gland
mainly gained the profits' of!hat trade.  If the sin of the slave trade is to be imputed to anybody, let it be imputed to the hand that took the child from under the tree, separated it from
its mother in Africa, and brought it to this country under circumstances that, I confess now,
are shockinrg.  If I were to dwell on some of the circumstances of that slave trade, as I have
heard them from Africans, and believe them to be true, they would shock the Senate. The
slave trade threw its profits into New England. As a friend of mine from South Catolina
[Mr. KEITT] said in the other House, if New England will to-day come beck and return all
the money she has got out of the slave trade, we will strike a balance with her ad(i let her buy
them; but she would not take them. This time, when the condition of the slave is better than
it ever was at any other, is the very occasion when they are making war upon the institution.
It is the common practice in my district-I cannot answer beyond my neighbors-to give the
laboring hands three and a half pounds of good bacon every week, and as much bread as they
can eat. It is the interest ot their owners to clothe them. They are a happy, contented, intelligent, and reformed people.
But, sir, the senator undertakes to say that, because I have advocated here the constitutional
rights of the South and the equaity of these States, I subjected myself to an imputation which
I shall not read myself.  It bears his own  handiwork.  Mr.  Secretery, i beg your pardon for
asking you to read such a thing as this; but it is your duty, not mine.
The Secretary read the following extract from Mr. SUMNER'S speech of May  19:
"' But, before entering upotn the argument, I must say something of a general character,
particularly inr response to what has fallen from senators who have raised themselves to emi nence on this floor in chamnpiorship of human wrongs; I mean the senator from South Caro lina, [Mr  BUTLER.] and the senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] who, though unlike as Don
Quixote and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the,amane adventure.
I regret much to miss the elder senator fromtn his seat; but the cause against wlhich he has run
a tilt with such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing  himn should
not be lost; and it is for the cause that I speak.  The senator from South Carolina has read
many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of honor
and courage.  Of course he hlis chosen a mistress to whom he has rniade his vows; and who,
though ugly to others, is aliways lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is
chaste in his sight —I mean the harlot slavery.  For her his tongue is always  piofuse in
words. Let her be impeached in'character, or any proposition ma(te to shut her out from the
extension of her wantonntess, and no extravagance  of manner or hardihood of assertion is
then too great for this senator.  The phrinsy of Don Ctuixote in behalf of his wench, Dulci nea del Toboso, is all surpassed.  The asserted rights of slavery, which thock equality of all
kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of equality.  If the slave States cannot enjoy what, in 
13
mockery of the great fathers of the republic, he misnames equality under the constitution —ip
other words, the full power in the national 1'erritories to compel fellow-men to unpaid  tnil,t o
separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the auction block —then, sir, the chivalric senator will conduct the State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight! exalted senator! a second Moses come for a second exodus!
"But not content with this poor menace, which we have been twice told was' measured,'
the senator, in the unrestrained chivalry of his nature, has  tnlertaken to apply opprobrious
words to those who differ from him on this floor.   He calls them' sectional and fanatical;'
and opposition to the usurpation in Kansas he denounces as' an uncalculating fanaticism.'  To
be sure, these charges lack all grace of originality, and all sentiment of tiuth; but the adventurous senator does not hesitate.  He is the uncompromising, unblushing representative on
this floor of a flagrant sectionalism, which now  domineers over the republic; and yet, with a
ludicrous ignorance of his own position-unable to see himself as others see him-or with an
effrontery which even his white head ought not to protect from  rebuke, he applies to those
here who resist his sectionalism the very epithet which  designates himself.  TIhe men who
strive to bring back the government to its original policy, when freedom, and not slavery, was
national, while slavery, and not freedom, was sectional, he arraigns as sectional.  This will
not do.  It involves too great a perversion of terms.  I tell that senator that it is to himself,
and to the' organization' of which he is the'commnitted advocate,' that this epithet belohgs   I
now fasten it upon them   For myself, I care little for names; but since the question has been
raised here, I r.ffirm that the republican party of the Union is in no just sense sectional, but,
more than any other party, national; and that it now goes forth to dislodge from the  high
places of the government the tyrannical sectionalism of which the senator from South Carolina is one of the maddest zealots."
Mr. BUTLER. Now, Mr. President, how any man Who has not been excluded from society
could use such an illustration on this floor, I know rot   I do not see how aiy man  could
obtain the consent of his own conscience to rise in the presence of a gallery of ladies, and
give to slavery the personification of a "mistress," and say that I loved her because she was
a "harlot."  I beg pardon for repeating it.  What) in the name of justice and decency, could
have ever led that man to use such language?  That is the language of Cleon.  It is a somewhat remarkable thing that, in the speech which I delivered  here in reply to the senator
from New Hampshire, t used the word "slavery "' but in one paragraph, and that was in
response to a remark of his speaking of the Supreme Court as the citadel of slavery.  1
rebuked him.  I said I wuld rather regard that court as the defender or as the promontory of
the constitution; and that he was at too great a distance ever to reach it by any arrow which
he could discharge from his bow. Sectionalism was not in the speech itself. Whten I spoke, of
individuals in a particular section, I did not speak in terms which would imply or convey
the idea that I meant the public of the slaveholding and non-slaveholdlng States.  I confined
it to that section who are  uffeting at this time, 1 hope to a limited extent, an-d who are burning their fires until they will be reduced to the caustic ashes of disappoinitment and disgrace.
I did not speak of sectionalism in any other point of view.  Sir, there are men en this flo)or
who I believe honestly di'ter from me.  I would not make any personal allusion to them.
Far from widening this controversy, thle object of my speech was to) appease pubitc sentiment.
In the course of it I ventured to say, what 1 had never said before, th:at the man  does not
live who  could look without concern at the consequences of a separation of tiese States
effected in blood.  I remarked that I would not say there was not intelligence en(,ugh  ultimately to form new governments and make them a union of confederacies.   S'r, in that
speech I attempted to throw oil upon the troubled waters.   My  friends in some measure
blamed me for the tone of my  remarks.  The  so-called reply was already in the sap, the
poisonous sap behinid, and the senator had to use his speech as a conduit  to pour it out on
,le and on the country, when he had less occasion than was presented by any sp, ech which
I ever before made. Anybody who says we are rincapable of preserving free institutions I
should be inclined to consider a slanderer on free institutions: but I wilt never agree to live
in any goverrment that has not some operative and enforcible provisions of a constitution to
preserve my rights.  If the government were as it formerly was, south Carolina and Massachusetts having a common interest, do you think the senator could arise as an adversary to be
applauded by his people?  There was a time, sir, when his people would have disgraced him
for that very speech.  At this day, I do not say they will acquit my kinsman; I dare say they
will not; but the time is coming when there will be but one opinion-that that is the mrost
mischievous speech which has ever been delivered in this country, and has involved more
innocent persons.  If the contest goes on upon such issues as it makes, blood must fillow.
I do not look on any such scenes with pleasure.  I have not temper for therm; thoug.h when
a young man 1 might, perhaps, not have  been indisposed to embark in the hazards of
contests.
Whilst upon this point, I may remark that Josiah Quincy, for whom I h>ave heretofore had
a great respect, says the senator has not gone a hair's breadth  beyond the line of duty and
truth.  After my explaitations here I hardly think h,e will say so.  He is the only man of high
respectability whom  I have yet seen or heard make such a declaration.  He made it, too,
with a reproach that I was sorry to see escape from such a man.  He said, alluding to the 
14
fracas In the Senate-house, not in the Senate, that it is only a part of that tribe who carry
bowie-knives and revolvers Sir, f never wore a secret weapon in my life. 1 am not going to
discuss the fact that I have used open weapons; and that is the only way I choose to deal,
but that is not the way we can get them to deal with us.
Unfortunately, I have had scenes of that kind which I have regretted all my life to some
extent.  I am mortified to hear such a man as Quincy making a ch..rge upon a whole section,
when I question if there is a southern man in this house with a pistol or bowie-knife in his
pocket.  He has gone out of the way gratuitously to say that we are of a "breed" who wear
them as a part of our dress. I am sorry to see such things creeping into the public mind.
They mortify me; they annoy me. But now I come to the resolutions of Massachusetts. I
ask that they be read.
The Secretary read them as follows:
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS-IN THE YEAR 1856.
RESOLVES concerning the recent assault upon the Hlon. Charles Sumner, at Washington.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Jllassachusetts, That
we have received with deep concern information of the recent violent assault, committed in the
Senate chamber at Washington, upon the person of the Hon. Charles Sumner, oi,e of our senators in Congress, by Preston S. Brooks, a member of the House of Represenritativ, s from
South Carolina-an assault which no rrovocation could justify-brutal arid cow,ardly in itself
-a gross breach of parliamentary privilege-a ruthless attack upon,he liberty of speech-aan
outrage of the decencies of civilized life, and an indignity to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Resolved, That the legislature of Massachusetts, in the name of her free and enlightened
people, demands for her representatives in the national legislature entire freedom of speech, and
will uphold them in the proper exercise of that essential right of American ci,izens.
Resolved, That we approve of Mr. Sumner's manliness and courage in his earnest and fearless declaration of free pi inciples, and his defence of human rights and free Territory.
Resolved, That the legislature of Massachusetts is imperatively called up,on by the plainest
dictates of duty, from a decent regard to the rights of her citizens, and r spect for her character
as a sovereign State, to demand, and the legislature of Massachusetts  hereby does demand, of
the national Congress, a prompt and strict investigation into the recent assault up,,n S(nator
Sumner, and the expulsion by the House of Representatives of M. Brooks. of South Carolina,
and any other member concerned with him in said assault.
Resolved, That his excellency the governor be requested to transmit a copy of the f:regoing
resolves to the President of the S 7nate. and Speaker of the House of Representatives. and to
each of the senators and members of the House of Representatives from this Commonwealth,
in the Cor;gress of the United States.
HousE OF REPRESENTATIVES, May 29, 1856.-Passed.
CHARLES A. PHELPS, Speaker.
IN SEN.ATE, May 3a, 1856.-Passed.
ELIHU C. BAKER, President.
Approved, May 31, 1856.
HENRY J GARDINER.
SEcRETARY's OFFICE, Boston, May 31, 1856.
1 certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original resolves.
Atttest:                                                   FRANCIS  OEWITT,
Secretary of the Commnonwealth.
Mr. BUTLER. These resolutions give rise to' more serious reflection than a,,ythir,g which
has occurred to me in my time.  I have been in the Senate for ten y ars, and thi, is ihe first
occasion that I have ever seen one of the sovereign States of the UtIi,,n takirg cognizance of
matters which occorred in Congress with a view to influence the judgment'of Congr(-s In relation to one of their members.  This is the first occasion of the kind in the history of the country  It has been done from an ex parte view of the subject; for it is now very apparenrt that
the resolutions of Massachusetts were introduce d and passed without regard to the evidence.
These resolutions anticipated aid asserted what may not be true-what the public may not
think true-what the Senate may not thinik true-what the Ho-use of Representatives may not
think,true; and yet the sovereign State of Massachusetts, before there was any evidence, indicted ray relative upon rumor-a measutre which would have tak'n Stafford to the gallows.
What! sir; indict a man in the langusAte of these resolutions upon the rumor of newspapers?
These resolutions-I say it more in sorrow than in anger —tietray a temper ani precipitancy of
judgment that do sot lo0ok like havirsn a reg,rd to that d,gnity which is associated with justice.
I shall speak respectfully. So far as I have sp,,keln of Massachu:,etts hitherto. no exception can
Le taken; but when I speak of Massachzseits now, it muist be of Massachusetts as she has
sent forth these resolutions —under th,  ifii, e ot'a fee ling which pervades her-unider the influence of a sentime,t wi ich denied Daniel VWeister the right to s!,ee;.k in Faneuil  Hall, and
threw off the coffin of Lincoln because.hc had fallen in performing his profe.ional dtuties in the 
16
cause of his country.  Boston now is not the Boston that she was when Hancock wrote, and
Adam.s spoke, and Otis thought, and Warren fell.  They would not recognise her.  She is no
more the samne.  Yet, from that very hot-bed of bitter feeling to the South, and especially to
South Cafolina, have I to look for the feelings which dictated these resolutions. 1 have to meet
an indictment-for what? It is said that the liberty of speech has been violated. Upon that
point I intend to deliver some remarks which, whether they be correct or not, I shall throw out.
Our ancestors were a people of hardy morality.  Generally, when they spoke, they spoke
directly from the heart   Such a thing as printing speeches beforehand, or having them printed
without being uttered in the Senate, was unheard of in their day.  They were men who stood
on their legs and spoke out.  Ihey had hearts and mouths.  They did not resort to the appliances of paper and printing before they brought their speeches here. If the senator from Massatchusetts were present, ard would answer me, 1 would put the question to him, "-Was not
that speech of  -,ours printed and published  before you spoke it in the Senate of the United
States?"  What is the meaning of that provision of the constitution which says that a senator,
or a member of the Ho use, for any speech or debate in either house, shall not be questioned in
any other place?  Does it mean to give the Congress of the United States the power of deciding
vwhat is privilege without the courts questioning it?  If so, it goes far beyond the settled doctrine in Great Britain at this day, which was maintained by Chief Justice Denman, in the case
of Stockdale vs. Hansard;  and that case has much to do with the matter now under consideration.  Hansard had undertaken, under the authority of Parliament, to publish a book  which
contained a lib)el. Without stuch license or privilege, all agreed that he was responsible. The
English House of Commons said that, having granted him the license, it was their privilege.
Chief Justice Denman took cognizance of the case, on the broad ground that the courts could
determine A hat was privilege under the constitution of England.  He said: "As a commonlaw judge, I will show the Parliament whether 1 am not capable o'tdeeiding on my responsibility
as one of the great dernartments of this government.   Can it be maintained"-and it is one of
the most eloquent decisions I ever read-" that the House of Commons, by claiming a privilege,
shall thereby appropriate it to themselves, and screen a villain from the consequence of his
libh:l?"  The judge sai(l th.t although by the law of Parliament newspapers were passed through
the country under the frank of members without paying postage, that privilege did not give them
the right to) make use of a newspaper as a libel. He uses the strong expression: "God for bid that Parliament should afford such a pretext for doing wrong."   I say the same thing now.
Will you  tell me that a member rising here and handing a spdech to the reporter, and telling
him to print it, comes within the purview of the constitution? Has he uttered words in debate.
Will yo; tell me that a member who has made a speech of five sentences may append to it a
newspaper like the Tribune, which has libelled me, anid has the right to send through the post
cfficeFs oi this government, and have folded by the persons employed in the folding-room
at the rpublic expense, into my daughter's parlor, that which would cost him his life if he told
it to me?  Has it c,,me to this, that a senator upon this floor can claim such an extensive,
privilege, under the hlaw of Parliament, that he can send off, by the twenty thousand, speeches
to Era land anrd to the four cornriers of the globe, where I amr not known, a:,d then claim pro tection upon the grountd that he has a privilege which  precludes him fromr  beirng questioned
elsewhere for words spoken in debate?
Sir, the differertece is an obvious one? Perhaps not more than five hundred or a thousand
peo,pte heard the senator on the occasion when he assailed me; and I venture to say that, of
the inumber who were present and kniew me, not one believed a word of what hlie said   It is a
differe t thing when L. has printed a packae of twentv thousand of the documents, franked
them, atid sent them to England, where, I suppose, he w-ill be highly praised.  Hie will be tedl
with tie oil which kindles English fires, to encoeurage him to walk in the light of his path.
If I were to go t;' Erngiaid, ttey might point at me and ask, "Is that the man so monoma  ni at in regard to slavery that he cannot tell the truth? "1 I am not accustomed to make com  pariscon. t tI wil say that there is not a parent or a husband on this floor who can approve the
language of that senator. Though I may have bitter enemies here-no doubt I have some, but
I do no;t ee why I have incurred their enmity-i venture to say that I (lo  not think a single
man on this floor would, if he were put on his oath, say that he believed what the senator said
of re.  Whion spread abr-iad in the form of a tibet it becomes of a very differert character.
I say that this,privilege under the constituti,-n is the subject of judiciel inqiry.  The courts
may say where privilege ends and where libel begins'.  He has been guilty of a libel  I know,
sir, how sacred  s the liberty of speech.  1 know what has been said by Mr. Erekino on this
subjec':httis language has often been praised for its beauty-in the celebrated trial against
Tomn Paine.  MA4r. trskine quoted language which he supposed had been used b,y Lord Chest  erfie!td Lord Kenyon said to him:
"Lord Kenyon.  That very speech which did Lord Chesterfield so much hloner is suppoe
to have been written by Dr. Johnson
"Mr. Erskiue.  G. ntlemen, I believe it was so, and I am much obliged to his lordkihip f
givitj f    a tar higher authority for my doctriyte; for, though Lorei Ch$ sierfield was a rman
great Wir, he was undou tedly far inferior in learning, and what is tmore to the purpose,
monarchical opinion, to the celebrited writer to whom  my lord hais now delivered the wo
by his authority.  Dr Johnson the, says " — 
16
gentlemen may avail themselves of this, if they choose, when I come to another part of this
matter. Dr. Johnson says, in the language put in the mouth of Lord Chesterfield:
One of the greatest blessings we enjoy-one of the greatest blessings a people, my lords,
can enjoy —is liberty; licentiousness is the alloy of liberty; it is an ebullition —an excrescence 
it is a speck upon the eye of the political body, but which I can never touch but with a gentle,
with a trembling hand, lest I destroy the body-lest I injure the eye upon which it is apt to
appear.
" There is such a connexion between licentiousness and liberty that it is not easy to corret
the one without dangerously wounding the other; it is extremely hard to distinguish the true
limit between them; like a changeable silk, we can easily see there are two different colors, but
we cannot easily discover where the one ends, or where the other begins."
In a subsequent part of this celebrated forensic speech, delivered by Lord Erskine, he goes on
to show what is the liberty of speech, and what is its limit. He says, by way of illustration,
what is exactly opposite to this case:
"I expect to hear, in answer to what I am  now saying, much that will offend  me.  My
learned friend'
I do not call the senator "my learned friend;" I make this periphrasis on that point
My learned friend, from the difficulties of his situation, which i know from experience
how to feel for very sincerely, may be driven to advance propositions which it may be my
duty, with much freedom, to reply to; and the law will sanction that freedom; but will not
the ends of justice be completely answered by my exercise of that right in terms that are
decent, and calculated to expose its defects? or will my argument sufftr, or will public justice
be impeded, because neither private honor and justice, nor public decorum, would endure my
telling my very learned friend, because I differ fr'om him in opinion, that he is a fool, a liar, and
a scoundrel, in the face of the court? "
If the senator had said, in respectful language, "We have been adversaries on this sub        ject; I differ from you;  I think you have been guilty of great errors which deserve the
censure of a parliamentary speaker; and I intend to pronounce a censure, believing that I
am right and  you are wrong;  I will detect you in the fallacies of your history; I will
detect you in the errors of your law; I will expose those errors" —he would have  had a
right to do this, and in as strong language as he chose; but when he said, almost in so many
words, that my proclivity to error was such that 1 deviated from the truth in all these par        ticulars, it is a libel in the very language of Mr. Erskine.   If he were indicted for a libel to        morrow, could he claim his privilege under the constitution, and would the courts be pre        cluded from oeciding the question whether it was a libel or not? There is no one, perhaps,
who has a higher ideal admiration for the liberty of speech and the liberty of the press than
I have.
The liberty of speech and of the press is the great conservative element of a republic; it is
to the political what fire is to the material world-a subservient and effluent minister, when
under the control of prudence and intelligence; but when unchecked and unregulated, a con        suming, foe, withering and blasting everything along its pathway of ruin. Render freedom
of speech tributary to the proprieties, decencies, anid restraints of social life, and you may
crown it with all the ministries anld supremacies of intellect and liberty; but release it from
them, and it becomrnes a blind and maddened giant of evil, tearing down the bulwarks of social
order, and desecrating the very sanctuary of republican liberty.  What would  yoa think of a
reckless man who should set fire to his own house, or should go about claiming the privilege
of throwing his fire wherever he could among the most combustible materials, and say he
had the right to do so on the ground that he was a fleeman, and could do as he pleased.
Away with such liberty! Liberty that is worth anything must be ip. the harness of the law.
Li,erty of speech and liberty ofthe press must have two restraints.   The first is the highest
which will always govern a class of men who cannot violate it —the obligations of honor, de        cency, and justice. Another restraint upon licentiousness is, that a man may publish and
speck what he pleases with a knowiedg6 that he is amenrable to the tribunals of the law for
what lie has done. Congress cannot pass a y statute to say that men shall not write against
religion, or against the government, or against individuals.  Neither can  Congress pass a law,
nor cean any State pass a law, depriving the tribunals or the country of the right of saying
whether you have gone beyond the limits of liberty, and have used your power, under that
name, with criminal recklessness, with a licentious indifference to the feelings of individuals,
and the consequences upon society.  I do not wish to live in any community where it is other       wise.
''he press is losing its power, and it ought to lose it; for it is now beginning to be an engine
of private revenge arid individual expression, instead of being a responsible organ of public
piniopn.  Suppose I were to go to New York and indict one of the editors there whom  I could
name for the most atrocious libel that has ever been uttered upon the South.  I will not name
the editor; but he has uttered a sentiment akin to one which has been expressed by the senator
,. ~.. 
17
from Massachusetts. I saw in a New York paper-I have alluded to it heretofore-a statement that the southern States are too feeble and weak to tale any part in a v'ar-that all they
can do is to take charge of their negroes!  It said that if a war should take place between England and the United States, the English fleet would only have to go to the capes of the Chesapeake, and the effeminate masters would be kept at home.  Fifty thousand slaves, inured to
toil, could be mustered into service, and they would have the:ower to put their maetets to the
sword; and when the declaration of ceace should come, the result would be the freedom of the
slaves and the proscription of the masters!  Suppose I should go into the community where
this libel was uttered, and indict a man for such a sentiment as this; what would be the consequence in the present state of public opinion?  It is idle-worse than idle-to talk about that as
a reiedy.
Liberty of the press!  Sir, that man has franked twenty thousand of his speeches; and
some of them, if 1 am not misinformed, were printed long before it was delivered.  To bring
him within the privileges of Parliament is a mockery-a perfect mockery.
Now, Mr. Presidert, I approach another most painful part of this case, and I come to it in
no bad temper; for, God knows, if my heart could be read, there is no one who would sooner
than myself have averted the state of things which now exists, if I could, consistently with
my honor, and the honor of the gentleman to) whom I shall allude. The resolutions of Massachusetts undertook, before any evidence was heard, to pronounce sentence on Mr. BROOKS.
Sir, I will tell you who Mr. BROOKS is, and why he felt so deeply in reference to these abo.mi.nablelibels.  I do not allude to him now as my hereditary kinsman; I think that is the small
est view to take of the matter; but I am his constituent.  I live in N inety-six"-a district
through which, if you pass, you will read upon the tombstones epitaphs which would reproach
him for tame and ignominious submission to wrong and to insult.
He has as proud arid intelligent a constituency as are to be found in any part of the globe.
I am his constituent. But more than that, he has worn the epaulet and the sword; he has
marched under the Palmetto banner, and his countrymen have awarded to him a sword for his
good conduct in the war with Mexico. That sword was in some measure committed to him
that he might use it when occasion required, to maintain the honor and the dignity of his State.
When he heard of this speech first, and read it afterwards, this young man, in passing down
the street, heard but one sentiment, and it was that his State and his blood had been insulted.  He could not go into the drawing-room, or parlor, or into a reading-room. without the
street commentary reproaching him.  Wherever he went the question was asked, "Has the
chivalry of South Carolina escaped, and is this to be a tame submission?" What advice I
would have given him I do not now undertake to say.
But, sir, when this was said to this gentleman wherever he went, he felt that if something
was not done he could not face his constituents without losing his usefulness, and without
there being a taint on his honor and on his courage. He may have been mistaken in somrie
respects.  His coming into the Senate-house was no option of his.  When he formed his determination, as I am  informed-and I have kept aloof from  conversation with him-I judge
from the evidence he had no purpose to profane the Senate-house. I say the Senate-house had
been profaned before, I had rather to-morrow take ten blows inflicted on my body than have
the gas of the rhetorician poured out upon my character and State.
The senator from Massachusetts chose to make his place here one from which to assail the
history and reputation of South Carolina, and to assail an absent constituent of the gentleman
who has taken redress into his own hands.  In such a condition of things who could be placed
in a situation more difi?-ult? Surely, Mr. President, something is to be pardoned to the feelings of a man acting under se, sibility, and under the dictates of high honor.  If any one was
here, placed in a situation to feel the touching appeal made by the ghcst to Hamlet, " If thou
hast nature in thee, bear it not," he was the m',-n.  Now, I ask the Secretary to read the extract which I have marked in the book which I send to him, and I do not intend to say where
it comes from till it is read,
The Secretary read as follows:
" Do not believe that I am inculcating opinions tending to disturb the peace of society. On
the contrary, they are the principles that can preserve it. It is more dangerous for the laws to
give security to a man disposed to commit outreges on the persons of his fellow-citizens, than
to authorize those who must otherwise meet irreparable injury to defend themselves at every
hazard.  Men of eminent talents and virtue, on whose exertions in perilous times the honor
and happiness of thei; country must depend, will alwvays be liable to be degraded by every
daring ni.creant, if they cannot defend themselves from personal insult and outrage.  Men of
this description must always feel that to submit to degradation  and dishonor is impossible.
Nor is this feeling confined to mee  of that eminent grade.  We have thousands in our country
-%ho possess this spirit; and without them we should soon deservedly cease to exist as an independent nation.  I respect the laws of my country, and revere the precepts of our holy religion;  should shudder at shedding human blood; I would practise moderation and forbearere  to avoid so terrible a calamity; yet, should I ever be driven to that impassable point,
where degradation and disgrace begin, may this arm shrink palsied from its socket if I fail to
defend my own honor." 
18
Mr. BUTLER.  Who uttered that sentiment?  It is the sentiment of a gentleman whose
speeches have always commended him to me.  It is a sentiment worthy of the ancient days
of Boston when Dexter spoke.  This is a northern man speaking; and I adopt his language.
1 say with him, that when things "tend to that impassable point where degradation and disgrece begin, may my a m shrink palsied from its socket if I fail to defend my own honor!''
Sir, that sentiment was uttered at a time when clergymen confined themselves to the pulpit,
a-id preached against crime and vice; when they did not use the pulpit as a recruiting station
to issue Sharpe's rifles, and to mingle in all thle bitter strife of the forum and the Agora.  It
was uttered wlhen Boston knew how to respect the feelings of others.   I conrcur in all that is
said by Mr. Dexter.  I deprecate blood and violence.   I will not utter all that my heart
prompts me to say, for fear of encouraging young men; but this I will say, that no son of
mine should ever submit to insult without satisfaction
[Trhe honorable senator, at this point, yielded the floor at the suggestion of MNr. CLAY, on
whose motion the Senate aojourned.]
FRatDY, June 13, 1856.
Mr. BUTLER.  Mr. Presidlent, whilst I am indebted to my friend from Alabama, [Mr.
CLAY,] for asking that this debate should be adjourned over until to-day, I regret very much
that I did not finish my  remarks yesterday; for 1 do not wish to detain the Senate on this
subject longer than justice and propriety, and a regard to the questions involved, require.
Of course, Mr. President, it is obvious that I have become involved in this controversy in
such a way as to make me, I ho(pe, justly sensible to all the consequences which may grow
out of thie issue —not that I hold myself at all, directly or indirectly, responsible for toe consequences which have followed the extraordinary speech which was delivered by the senator
from  Massachusetts; but there are questions which have grown  out of the assault that followed the speech, of a graver import than at one time I had thought the subject could assume.
I think the resolutions from Massachusetts will present questions here for the consideration of
the Senate, and, I may say, for the consideration of Congress, of a character never presented
before.
I had yesterday spoken of those resolutions only in one point of view-so far as they
denounced the assault of nmy friend and relative, Mr. BROOKS, as a violation of the freedom of
debate.  I had not ventured to speak of the resolutions as I intend to do before I have closed
my remarks.  From conversation with others, as well as from my own reflections, I am satisfied that they are resolutions of dangerous import and precedence, utterly unknown in the
history of this country before.  I think they show that one State of the confederacy may
tmake a fiarful issue in the Congress of the United States, under the mmnurunities and privileges
which by courtesy are sometimes extended to States, but would not otherwise grow up.  It it
is in the power of Massachtusetts or South Carolirta, or in the proviince of any one State in the
U,.lion —Wiscorsin or Texas-to quake such a quarrel as must necessariiy result in an angry
controversy that may array the diflerent sections of the Ution against each other, it is one of
the mo(st dtangerous views in which the power of a State legislature can exercise the privilege
or Courttstie' which have been awarded to it.
Sir, 1 iavie iutimated this much with a view to show that I intend to denounce those resolutions-t() denounce th in strongly; not that I denounce the individuals who passed themn.  I
ho)e that 1 can go higher than the resentment to the mere individual who may assault the
history of my State, or who may impugn  ay character. This is a question  that goes deeper
and higher- verv far bevot)d anything which is involveti in a mere personal controversy.  I
will reserve thi,se rernaris on tie resoliutions until after I s.hal1 have finishedd what I intended to
say yesterday in relation to the actual state of things growing out of the speech delivered by
the seatot from Massachusetts.
1 said yesterday that t-ry friend, my representative, my relative-one who is associated with
me by rine tees than either of these-hbad taken redress in his own hands —had resorted to his
own rnmode of redress   I said that there were considerations connected with the occasion
which, though they could not jutity him before a legal tribunal, would excuse any man of
his character and position, representing such con)stituents as he represented, ard bountid in some
measure tt st3ympathise with the opinions of the section with which he is a-sociated.  It was
impossi)le that he could separate himself from those coiclusions which others might lrot appreciate, and s me could not unlderstarid.  But I say that gentleman dare not —I do not say I
would have afivised him —but, in his estimation, the could not go home and fae such a cosstituency without incurring what is the worst of all judgmients —the judg,ment of the country
agairsti a man who is placed as a santinel to represent it.
If, in the course of these proceedings, and the evenrts which have grown out of the speech
which has been aade by the senatotr it shall be said that Massachusetts can be justified by
fallint back on an opinion w-e}ic-h ivttl justify her seenat:,rs and represeorttives, it is, I must be
permitted to say, one of th,e un. riutate syrmptoras of the times,  ini regard to  which we 
19
have no common tribunal to decide between us. Sir, it seems to indicate a crisis when the
opinion of the constituency of one portion of the confederacy applauds one whilst it is ready
to consume and put to the stake another. We have always supposed that public opinion
would be right; and. sir, I distinguish public opinion very much from popular prejudice.
Popular prejudice is that which would consume in ignorance to-day what it would repeat of
to-morrow.  Public opinion is the judgment of an intelligent community, not formed under
the excitement of the moment. It is not the sentiment of an irresponsible multitude; it is not
the st ntiment of an ex parts decision; it is not the judgment which can find its way into the
history of the country, or which posterity will adopt as that which ought to be pronounced
on tho occasion. Public opinion is the highest, the gravest, the most solemn judgment to
which any of us can defer. I would not give one cent for what is called public opinion, if it
depended upon ex parte views of artiy subject. And I say that the resolutions which have
been senit here from the legislature of Massachusetts are not only ex parte, but, I am sorry to
say, that I fear their counsellors were prejudice and malignity, even giving their counsels
through the darkness of ignorance. I do not mean ignorance so far as regards the body individually, for I have no doubt it is intelligent enough; but I mean ignorance so far as regards
pronouncing a judgment without understanding the facts on which  that judgment ought to
turn. 1 say that my friend has been condemned without a hearing. He has been condemned
by a iudgment which, if suffered to go into history uncontradicted, unexamined, and unrefuted, w,ould consign him to a fate which his character does not deserve, and shall not receive
as long as I can stand here as his friend avnl advocate.
But, sir, before I approach the constitutional and legal view of these resolutions, I must
acquit myself of the duty which I in some measure assu,med yesterday evening, of presenting
to the public the circumstances under which the fiacas, as it is termed, or the assault, on the
senator from Massachusetts occurred.
I said that my friend and rela ive was not in the Senate when the speech was being delivered, but he was sumtmoned here, as I have learned from others.  I-He  was excited  and
stung by the street rumors and the street commentaries, and by the conversations in the parlors, where even ladies pronounced a judgment; and, sir, woman  never fails to pronounce a
judgrment where honor is concerned, arid it is always in favor of the redress of a wrong.  I
would trust to the instinct of woman upon subjects of this kind. He could not go into a
parlor, or drawing-room, or to a dinner party, where he did not find an implied reproach that
there was an unmanly submission to an insult to his State and his countrymen.  Sir, it was
hard for any man, much less for a man of his temperament, to bear this.
I intended to reserve a commentary which was at once made on the speech of the senator
from Massachusetts as the most important part of my conclusion; but I find that I can ap-ply
it at no better time than this.  1 allude to the commentary which was pronounced at the time;
not when a controversy had arisen; not when it was supposed that the temptations of an
adversary, or even the public mind, had so far made an issue that he was obliged to take one
side or the other; but it was pronounced by a gentleman of distinguished position, a sage, a
patriot, a man who had won laurels in the field, and justly deserved to be considered the
Nestor of the Senate.  Sir, the remarks made by the member from Michigan [vMr. CASs]
struck me as the most consuming piece of criticism; and I think, taking it all into consideration,
it would be more terrible to me than all the arguments of an advocate, and all the array that
could be brought on one side or the other. It was the testimony of voluntary justice.
" I have listened"-said that distinguished gentleman, [Mr. CASs,] who had worn the sword
and the robes of the Sernate with distinction and dignity-" withequal regret and surprise to
the speech of the honorable senator from Massachusetts. Such a speech-the most un- American and unpatriotic that ever grated on ears of the members of this h;gh body-as I hope
never to hear again, here or elsewhere.  But, sir, 1 did not rise to make any comments on the
speech of the hoinorable senator, open as it is to the highest censure and disapprobation "
I am not as young a man as Mr. SUMERa, nor do I pretend to be in a condition to defy or
place myself against the testimony which would put into operation a current of public opinion,
such as was pronounced by the honorable senator from Michigan in his place; but, sir, I can
say that, with my nature I could not have slept that night on my pillow with such a censure and
such a criticism pronounced in the Senate of the United States.  1 should have been ready to
send a message to make atonement in some way.   I should have wiped out, as far as I could
by repentance and atonement, the unmanly aggression and insult which had been offered, and was
condemned by the highest authority.  I do not undertake to say what was the opinion of that
senator, but I can quote from his State the most consuming judgment I ever heard pronoanced.
The sentiments expressed in the paragraph to which I allude, and in others, show that wihen
the effervescence of popular prejudice shall have subsided, this case might be trind even ia
Massachusetts itself.  I should not be afraid to try it there.  They are not slaves to be gov erned by fanatical madness.  One of the journals there, in a remarkably well-written article,
which I adopt, says:
"Charles Sumner's recent speeches in the United States Senate have not in any respect
enhanced his reputation as a man, as a debater, or as a statesman. It is impossible, it seems
to us, for any fair-minded man, who loves truth and regards honor and decency, to read them
effusions, all reeking with falsehoodt, bitterness and wrath:  and indecency, without feeling 
20
that Massachusetts has been disgraced by an unworthy son in the Senate chamber, before the
country and in the face of the world.  We  venture the assertion that no parallel to these
vituperative outbursts of Sumner can be found in the annals of Congress, nor in the records of
any legislative assembly in the world. Overpowering passion, madness itself, seems to have
bereft him of his senses, and left him oblivious of truth and honor, of the courtesies of intelligent and dignified debate, and of the proprieties of civilized life.
"We do not, we cannot, use terms too strong in relation to this matter. It is not the character of Charles Sumner alone that is involved.   Thie fair fame of Massachusetts suffers.
Whatever may have been the political errors of Massachusetts, she has ever, heretofore, been
represented in the Senate of the United States, and we might also say in the House of Reproesentatives, by men, statesmen-Webster, Winihrop, Everett, Choate, Davis, and Bates-who
knew their rights, and knowing dared to mainritain, and maintained them with courtesy,
dignity, and abi.ity, in such a manner as to command the respect of their opponents, the applause of their friends, and the adnration of all their countrymen."
1 knew some of the gentlemen hera named, and I should never be afraid to meet them in
debate anywhere, because with them I should never apprehend the assaults of calumny and
slander. I cannot be reduced to such an issue that 1 must discount calumny and slander by
the language of a blackguard. If it be the theory of gentlemen that when one uses language in
debate transcending the sphere prescribed by propriety and justice, we are to resort to the
same mode for redress and satisfaction, I am a non-combatant; I cannot enter into a controversy with gentlemen in which they are to bandy words.
These remarks are not without their direction. 1 have used them to show what was the
impression on the public mind at the time when the assault was committed. Mr. BINGHAM, a
friend of Mr. SUMNER I presume, says in his testimony that on hearing the speech he articipatedl something.  It was the general impression of the whole community that he deserved to
receive a chastisement; or, at least, that he was bound to'make atonement in some way for
the insults and the wantonness of his insults to a gentleman  (as 1 hope  I am) then absent.
This was the common sentiment pervading the public mind at Washington.
What was my friend to do? Sue him? Indict him? If that was the mode in which he
intended to take redress, he had better never go to South Carolina again.  Was he to challenge
him? That would have been an exhibition of chivalry having no meaning. Although he
has been upon the field, both in open war and in a private affair, I should be very sorry to see
any crisis requiring it again.  A challenge would  hlave been an advertisement to the  world
of his courage, when there was not a probability of its being tried.  He  would  have  made
himself contemptible, and perhaps might have been committed to the penitentiary for sendiig a
challenge.
Then, what course was left to him to pursue? Mr. SUMNER had opportunities enough to
mnake an apology.  God knows I could not have resisted the admonitory criticism of the diatingoished senator from,"Aichigan, perhaps the most imposing authority in the Senate.   He
paid no regard to him, and for a very good reason: his speech was written, and had gone out,
and he could not contradict what he had sent forth to the public with malice aforethought.
Well, sir, what did Mr. BROOKs do?  It is said he sought Mr. SUMNER in the Senrate chamber   It is the last place in which he wished to seek him.   He would have met him in an
open combat, on a fair field, and under a free sky, at any time.  And when the legislature of
Ma.ssachbisetts chooses to say that his conduct is cowardly, let her try him in any way she
chooses. [Applause.]
Mr. STUART. I hope the Chair will enforce the rules. I think, sir, what we have just
witnessed has been repeated this session quite too often. If the amenities and proprieties of
the Senate cannot be kept by gentlemen, they should not enter its chamber.
The PRESIDENT pro tm.  Does the senator desire the galleries to be cleared?
Mr. STUART.   I shall not make any motion now; but I hope it will be understood by.
everybody who visits this chamber that the proprieties of the place shall be observed.
The PRESIDENT pro teiipore.  Persons in the galleries will distinctly understand that if
there be any further demonstiation the galleries will be cleared of all except ladies.
MIr. FE,SENDEN.   I,. justice to the galleries, I will suggest that the impression on this
side of the house is, that the disturbance came from the floor of the Senate chamber, and not
from the galleries. I hope the galleries will not be punished for the act of persons on the
floor.
Mr. BUTL ER. Well, sir, I will go on in such a way that nobody shall be disturbed-not
that I intend to suppress any single sentiment of mine, but I shall express it in the severity of
truth. I can tell the senator from Maine, with whom I have always been on good terms, that I
shall say nothing out of the way.
Sir, a man who occupies a place in the Senate, representing a great Commonwealth like
Massachusetts, or representing any State, as one of her senators, occupies a very high position, from which he can send forth to the public -what may affect the character of almost any
man, except General Washington, or some one upon whose character the verdict of history
has been rendered.'There is scarcely any man who can withstand the slander which may be
pronounced from the Senate chamber of the United States.  For this reason I would never
look, and I never have looked, beyond the public position of a member here, to go into hig 
21
private or personal character. I would not do it, because by so doing I should do a wrong
which I could not redress. Even a word escaping my tongue in this chamber, as a senator,
might go far to injure a man where he could not correct it.  We are in a position which reiires high considerations for the regulation of our conduct.  I agree, thoroughly, with Gen.
ackson, that the slanderer who involves third persons in difficulty and danger is an intendiary, against whom we should guard more than any one else, in a parliamentar point of view.
I will quote General Jackson's language.  He said: "Over the doors of each house of Condress, ia letters of gold, should be inscribed the words' the slanderer is worse than the murderer.'" A single murder is horrible. It may take a single individual from society. But
when I look at the mischievous influence of slander, I find that it pervades a whole community; makes war in society; sets family against family; individual against individual; section against section. It is the most cowardly mode in which a war can be conducted.
With the state of opinion to which I have alluded prevailing, what did Mr. BROOKS do? Of
course, he did not undertake to challenge Mr. SUMNER to a fist fight, or a stick fight, or any
other kind of fight.  He thought Mr. SUMNER deserved a castigation, and he undertook to
give it to him according to the old-fashioned notion, by caning him.  I have not heard Mr.
BROOKS detail the circumstances.  I have not conversed with him in regard to the matter; I
take my information from the published testimony.  Mr. BROOKS, not finding him anywhere
else, came to him while he was sitting in his seat here, after the Senate had adjourned. He
came to him in front-different from the statement made to the Massachusetts legislature.  He
was half a minute in his proem or explanation.  He said: "Mr. SUMNER,  I have read your
speech. I have read it carefully, with as much consideration, and forbearance, and fairness
as I could; but, sir, I have come to punish you now  for the contents of that speech, which
is a libel on my State,and on a gray-haired relative."
Instinct would have prompted most men to rise immediately.  Mr. SUMNER did rise.  In the
act of rising, Mr. BROOKs struck him across the face-not, as has been represented, over his
head, for that-is not the truth, nor is it borne out by the testimony. On the second stroke the
cane broke.  It is the misfortune of Mr. BROOKS to have incurred all the epithets which have
been used in regard to an assassin-likte and bludgeon i,ttack, by the mere accident of having a
foolish stick, which broke.  It broke again; and it was not, as I understand, until it came
very near the handle, that he inflicted blows which he would not have inflicted if he had an
ordinary weapon of a kind which would have been  a security against breaking.  His design was to whip him; but the stick broke, and that has brought upop him these imputations.
It has gone through the country that Mr. BROOKs struck him after he was prostrate (:n the
floor. None who know this young mar could entertain such an idea. I have known him
from childhood. I used to have some control over him; but the scholar has become the
master, and I suppose he w,ould not care much about my advice now. By an hereditary tie
our families are more closely united than any two with whom I have been acquainted.   But
that is far apart from the question. Independent of his filial feelings for me, and his -regard
for me as his constituent and senator, I have no doubt that a personal feeling of regard for mny.elf, individually, influenced] him.
He approached that man with no other purpose than to disgrace him as far as he could; but
the stick broke.  After it broke, he was reduced to a kind of necessity —a contingency not
apprehended at all in the original inception of the purpose of m-naking the assault. Notwithstanding all that has been said of his brutality, he is one of the best-temp,ered fellows I ever
knew —inmpetuous, no doubt, and quick in resentment, but he did not intend what has been
assigned to him.
After all that has been said and done, on apest bellum examination, what is it?  A fight in
the Senate chamber, resulting in two flesh wounds, which ought not to have detained him
from the Senate.  Being rather a handsome man, perhaps he would not like to expose himself
by making his appearance for some time; but if he had been in the army, there was no reason
why he should not go to the field the next day; and he would deserve to be cashiered if he did
not go.  What does his physician say?  He says that there were but two flesh wounds; that
he never had a fever while under his care and attendance, and that he was ready to come into
the Senate the next day but for his advice; and his advice was, that he should not come into
the Senate, because it would aggravate the excitement already too high.  He did not recom mend him not to go into the c,)mmittee-roorn to be examined on the ground that his wounds
had enfeebled him, but for other considerations, because it might aggravate the excitement
already prevailing to an extent which might lead to mischievous consequences.
This, then, is the mode of redress to which Mr. BKOOKS resorted.  I do not say what I
should have advised him to do, but perhaps it was fortunate that I was absent in one respect,
for I certainly should not have submitted to that insult. Possibly it might not have been
offered if I were present, though I do not know the fact, because I cannot say exactly'what
would be the course of one of those persons who have a way of fabricating speeches. Per haps, being in his speech, he would have had to read it; but I think it possible that on the
appeal which I would have made on my discretion, his friends might have induced him to re form it in some way so as to conform at least to the requirements of common decency in
public opinion. If he had not done so, I do not know what would have been my course.
For this transaction, as I have detailed it, and without the intelligence which I have detailed
being before them, the legislature of Massachusetts have sent their resolutions here. These 
22
resolutions are without a precedent in the history of this country. I hope other senators will
speak to them, for they are not onay an insult to South Carolina and her representatives in
Coi,gress, but 1 think they assail thie constitution of the country.   Before comment ng on
them, 1 may be permitted to allude to the first precedent of a congressional fight, which was
between two members from New England.
This affair is said to be an evidenc,e of southern violence and southern ruffianism.  Some
papers speak of the bowie-knife and the revolver of southern blackguards. Why, sir, the
first fight which took place in Congress was between Matthew Lyon and Roger Griswold,
from Connecicut.  Our ancestors in those days lioked upon a fight with very little of the importance which is now attached to it. They said it was so unimportant that they were vexed
that so much of the time of the House wis occupied in considering it.
It seems that Matthew Lyon, originally an officer in the army, had been cashiered, and
awarded a wooden sword.  He then lived in Connecticut.  At that time-and at this, tooin Connecticut, there was a pretty pressing opinion against a low man, and he could not stand
it.  He had to move over into Vermont, a new State, then the frontier of the country.  He
was elected a member of Congress from Vermont.  He was one of the democrats.  I suppose
he was one of the red republicans of that day against John Adams's administration. Was
he a democra.?
Mr. FOOT.  Yes, sir; he was a democrat.
Mr. BUTLER.   It was before the geritleran from Vermont tauzht school there, and Lyon
assumed to be a kind of apostle of liberty and democracy.  Not satisfied with instructing the
people of Ver-nont, he went to Mr. Griswold, of Conilecticut, stood behind his seat, and told
him: "Sir, yu do not represent Connecticut correctly; I know these people; they are mean
people; they will take $l,00( as so5)0 as $9,lOO for a salary."  Griswold stood it for a great
while.  Finally, Lyon said: "I will go over to Conniecticut; I will talk to these people, and
I will have an influence upon thern; i will show whether you ought to occupy your seat or
not."  Gris iold saii(, " I holpe you will not g,o with your wooden sword "
He repeated this twice; and after sorie,ody suggested to Lyon that the third time was too
mu,h, be spit in GriswoliJ's face.  A great hubbub  was raised, and Lyon was brought up, I
suppose, to his perfect delight, to be tried as to whether he should be expelled fronI the House
of Rep-resentatives or not.- Oti the following day Griswold involved himself in a difficulty
without anry consideration. He took a good hicko-y stick anrid went to Lyon. He did not
give him any notice at all.  "hey fought with hickory sticks, and spit-boxes, and tongs, all
over the House of Representatives, while the House was in session.
Our hardy ancestors at that timne d d rnot think' a fight'f s,o much importance that they
should take it into serious consideration. Ti-ey said, let them both go. They refused to expel
either of them When Mir. Randolph struck Mr. Atl,tine, the matter was brought before the
Housc.  But none of these things were c,-nsi,Iered of a sufficient magnitude to invoke the high
function of a legislature sendi g its missive to Conrgress to tell them what to do.   Massachitsetts is the first to set the example She has not only admtinistered a reprimand to Mr. BanooTs
without any evidence; she has nest only assumed to pronounce judgment before hearing the
evidence, like ajtjudge passing sentence on a criminal be ore hearing his defence; but she ha
undertaken indiscriminately to say that she demands of the Congress of the United States to
carry out her behests in regard to what she considers to be an outrage upon the privileges of
the Senate.
Can anything be more inisulting to the Congress of the United States than the spectacle of a
State sending down a message to its " fat thf'.l Cornm,nrs "-a message that they are to pronounce this or that judgment?  Are we to ubmit to this?  I did not wish to make the contest; but, in my opinion, these resolutions, in the terms they import, ought not to have been
received by the Senate.
Takin4 all these things into consideration, indicted as Mr. BROOKs has been by an ex
pc? e accusation. without evtdertce, without even the finding of a granid jury, what is his positiot?  If his case co;ild go before any imnpartial tribunal, aid I could employ counsel such as I
would select, probably I would choO,se my friet,d frori Californyia., [Mr. WELLER,] who lives
in a free State, who is an impartial man, an advocate, a gentleman, a man of honor and
courage.
If a civil action were brought by Nlr. SUMNER atainst Mr  BROOKs for assault and battery,
I pledge myself that, with all the resources he cotuld bring to his command, he would be able
to r, duce the ver;lict to a penny darnagWs.  What would be the state of the pleadings?  Mr.
BaooKs struck Mr SUMNER would be the allegation.  It would be admitted that he struck him
and i.fiicted tvo flesh w,un,Is.  Mr  SUMNER would reply, "I am  a senat,or of the United
States i and although the Se ate was not in sessi,on, I was in that sacred temple, and my
character is so,satred under the privileges of the Senate that I am not to be assailed."   What
would Mr BRoo(Ks's counsel rejoin?  The rejoinder would be, "Sir, you had profaned and
disgraced the seat you occupied before y iu were struck."
Theti the qtewstion would be. what is this privilege so much spoken of —feedom of debate?
The court w uld examine the question whether what was said was privileged within the rules
of the'e'iate, or whether it was a libel. If it should be pronounced to be alibel, and I were
the fudge bef,ore whum an action were brought-if a man brought before me could show that
another  itt-u!.ed his,'.uther or his father, or his sister, or hlLroself) or shis country, I would 
23
say to the man who inflicted the blow. "My duty is to fine you; you are not justified by the
law; hut it is aly privilege to say that, whilst I will enforce the law anid maintain its dignity,
I shall fine you as small'a sum as I p)ossibly can within my discretion."'
Now let me state the testi(noiy in such an action.  It would be that, in the absence of the
senanor from Souh  Carolina, Mr  SUMNER rose in his seat, and pro,nounced what northern
papers themselves say is an urnp,arallei:,d insult, not only to the State of South Carolina, but
to her absent senator.  It is one for which I cannot accouit.  I oueht to than,k one of the
Bosta,n editors-I think the editor of the Courier —for a beautiful, aerhaps an undeserved compliment, which he has paid to my speech   I ought to thank him here publicly, as one  who
has iiide,endence enough to express his opinions in opposition to the tide prevailing in his
part of the country.  In my abseni.ce, language was used of me, which, I venture to say, no
one who  knew me believed.  1 might put that question to the senator's colleague.  I know
ri0othii,g against either of the senators from  Massachusetts  personally or privately.  I dare
say, as rneihbors arid individuals, I should not have the least right to complain of theirjudgment outside of -he infiuences which operate upon teltei publicly and politically.  They have
no right here to attack any man's private character.  I never transgressed the limits of propriety to reach over ano look at any man's private character. I do not know that I have
anything against Mr. SUO,5NER'S private character; but that has nothing to do with the matter.
Here, in his place, in colors officii, as a senator from Masssc,iusetts, he undertook to traduce
and calumnriate the revolutionary history of South Carolna, arid to make remarks in regard
to one of her senators on this fl)or, a coequal with him, to which no one could have submitted.
It happens that that senator was the constituent of a member of the House of Representatives,
who was his friend.  That friend, finding that his own blood was insultedl by an insult to his
absent relative, was goaded onil by the necessity of circumstances to take some measure of
revenge.  As I said yesterday, surely, under such circumstances, much is to be pardoned to
the f elitgs of a man acting under such motives.
With ttese remarks I dismiss the resolutions of Massachusetts, hoping that somebody else
besides a senator from  South Carolina wIll say sot.-,ething of them, for I do not wish to identify myself too much with them as a per-oiaia matter.  I have attempted to keep aloof from
that.
The senator from Massachusetts, in his speech, made one or two allusions which I must inctideitally rotice to show how errorieous he is w,vhenever he touches any subject. He says I
incu'ge(t i        licentious abuse of the p. ople of Kansas.  When he speaks of the people of Kansas,          I sup pose he means those who were sent there by the aid societies.   I presume he considers   nobon  y as the people of Kansa,s excep  those who  have the impression upon them of
the peopl e  whom he designates to choose and comprehetd within the term, "peu,ple of KanRas., He h,~s no regard fo,r the people of K~:i)tucky, of Missouri, of Iowra, of Virginia, of
Sou h            Caroilita, who may have gone into that Perritocy, but he says I have abused its people.
I never  d      di abuse them.  1 did say that the man A, h,s camne h.,re with the so-called petition of
Kansas           im his hands vithout signatures, was atte:iptirig to comne into the fold of this federal
goveritiyent  by a fiaud.  I did not use as str()ng aEti expres ion as my friend fr(om Louisiana,
[Mr. 6E NsJMiN,] try friend fiom Virgiota, [Mr. MAsON,] and otheis.  I did not say that the
petitik n        v;'as    a f rgery.  I denounced it as a vio!atIon  f the' r ules of the Senate to print a paper       of C hat kited, or to give it tlhe dig,iity of a paper coming  from a State.   l'his is all that I
said(.       I did nut auuse the people.  But what dtues Mr. SCUMNER  say of the portioni, my  por tion, i    f  Ii-   cho,ws a to call them s1o, though 1 (i0o not wish s,l to characterize the,), of the people
o f               Ia isasi s He speaks of them as" hlrelizigs, picked from the drunken spew and vomit of
a          n  uiuias y civi1izatiot. —in the form of men —
"' Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men;
As hounds and grey ho,unds, mongrels, spaniets, curs,
Sihoughs, water-rugs, antid deit-woives, are called
Ah by the namnie of dogs.'"
Sir. he could not have provoked me in the spirit of controversy to say that. I have no doubt
many worthy individuals have go)rie there under the iitfluetiee of aid societies; I have nrot compared them, as the senator has those who have gone t' ere f o n A ikans.,ts, Missouri, and Virginria, to the genus of wolves, dongs, anil hirelings from the spew of an uneasy civilization.
All aie dog,s, in his estimation, that do not come under the itti)ression of his endorsement.
This is latiguage which 1 could not use of anty set of mren with whom I was not acquainted.
If I were to settle in Kansas to-morrow amotg those very people. I think it probable that I
should be on good terms with them;for I have i.ever had a dispute with a neighbor.   I do not
think these people would disturb me.  B,it what thinrik you of this denairiciation-this rhetorical bombardmnent from the Senate of the United States of a class of individuals as honorable
and brave a set of men, I d,oubt not, as  fly other, though, perhaps, reckless to some extent?
I regr-et the issue pending in Kansas.  I sai before, and now repeat, that the very last fate to
which this country should be renuced, would be to commit the arbitiamfent of great questions
to the iss, e of the s-word in the hands of y uth willing to contetid anti pleased with the pride
of erngagiog in arms, and having bestowed on them all the facination which can be imparted
by danger atid trial. 
24
There is another part of his speech to which I must allude, which evinces —I do not like to
use the word, but I cannot help it —the charlatan more than any production of his that I have
ever seen. I was surprised when I saw it, and I venture to say there is not a person who hears
me read it but will share my surprise.  On a former occasion, 1 spoke of serving the commonlaw process upon Sharpe's rifles. The senator from Massachusetts undertook to say that I
maintained the opinion that it was the duty of the government to take the rifles out of the
hands of those who had them.  Who ever understood anything of that kind from my remarks?  I used "Sharpe's rifles" as I would use the name of a corporation to serve process
upon, but 1 had no idea of going and taking the rifles out of the hands of individuals. Let me
read that part of his speech in which he treats of it:
"Next comes the Remedy of Folly, which, indeed, is also a Remedy of Tyranny; but its
Folly is so surpassing as to eclipse even its Tyranny.  It does not proceed from the President.
With this proposition he is not in any way chargeable.  It comes from the senator from South
Carolina, who, at the close of a long speech, offered it as his single contribution to the adjustment of this question, and who thus far stands alone in its support. It might, therefore, fitly
bear his name; but that which I now give to it is a more suggestive synonym.
"This proposition, nakedly expressed, is that the people of Kansas should be deprived of
their arms.  That I may not do the least injustice to the senator, I quote his precise words:
"'The President of the United States is under the highest and most solemn obligation to
interpose; and if I were to indicate the manner in which he should interpose in Kansas, I
would point out the old common-law process. I would serve a warrant on Sharpe's rifles,
and if Sharpe's rifles did not answer the summons, and come into court on a day certain, or,
if they resisted the sheriff, I would summon the posse comitatus, and would have Colonel
Sumner's regiment to be a part of that posse comitatus.'
"Really, sir, has it come to this? The rifle has ever been the companion of the pioneer,
and, under God, his tutelary protector against the red man and the beast of the forest. Never
was this efficient weapon more needed in just self-defence than now in Kansas, and at least
one article in our national constitution must be blotted out before thile complete right to it can
in any way be imnpeached. And yet, such is the madness of the hour, that, in defiance of the
solemn guarantee, embodied in the amendments to the constitution, that' the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,' the people of Kansas have been arraigned
for keeping amd bearintig them, and the senator from S,)uth Carolina has had the face to say
openly, on this floor, that they should be disarmed-of course, that the fanatics of slavery,
his allies and constituents, may meet no impediment.  Sir, the senator is venerable with years;
he is reputed also to have worn at home, in the State which he represents, judicial honors;
and he is placed here at the head of an important committee occupied particularly with
questions of law; but neither his years tnor his position, past or present, can give respectability to the demand he has made, or save him from indignant condemnation, when, to cornpass the wretched purposes of a wretched cause, he thus proposes to trample on one of the
plainest provisions of constitutional liberty."
His conclusion is that I intended to send a posse there to take away the rifles from those
who owned them. I simply said that there was an organized body whose pronomen was
Sharpe's rifles, and that I would serve such process as to bring them before the court.  This
was the plain meaning of my language. I would not take them unless they resisted. If they
were disposed to answer in court, I would let them answer; I would indict themn for resistance
to the law, and have a fair and open trial before a jury., This was rmy meaning.  He has
gone off with a beautiful conception which m-nay suit tie meridian —no, sir, I will not say it,
for I believe it suits no meridian where intelligence, and good sense, and honor, and justice
prevail.
There is one point upon which I have no doubt the senator will be more sore under my
criticism than in regard to almost anything else, though it does not affect his honor, nor do I
know that it affects his pop,Jlar reputation.  He has chosen to go out of his way to make  a
fling at me, by saying that I never can be right in my statements of law or constitution, or
even in the diversions of scholarship. Now, what did I see the other day? I do not believe
that the senator is guilty of meanness, but his papers are full of the idea-and they have almost
made a caricature of it-that when I wanted a Latin quotation I had to hand it over to him,
and then bring it back and put it before the public. When Mr. SUMNERi and myself sat near
each other, I did not hesitate to talk to him about Latin. I believe the only time I ever asked
him for a quotation was for one which I intended to insert in my  obituary notice of Mr.
Webster  and I recollect that on one occasion I made a quotation from Juvenal, and he gave
me the Latin, for which I was very much obliged to h m.  I do rct pretend to compete with
Mr. SUMNER in the attainments of scholarship; but I must say of him, whatever may be his
attainments as a scholar, I very muck fear he is like one of those who has a full supply of
water in his mill-pond, but does not know how to turn it on a wheel so as to move the machinery; or, rather, it is such an even current that it runs upon a gentle declivity, and has no
fall to turn any wheel at all.  He has enou,gh of it, and it is always running. but what good it
has done I do not know. I said on one occasion that he had not made it subservient to the 
25
judgment of a statesman; nor do I believe he has used it as an orator would do' on a high
theme.
The best part of his late speech is a periphrasis of Demosthenes-almost a servile imitation
of the apostrophe of Demosthenes. I never saw such a remarkable resemblance. When I
said yesterday that this speech had an indentity with his former ones, I should have excepted
this passage, which adopted the language and the sentiments of Demosthenes. I do not say
it is a plagiarism; but it is a remarkable imitation, as far as one man incapable of comprehending the true spirit of Demosthenes could imitate him. Let me give you the two passages.
Here is Demosthenes upon the crown speaking to the Athenians upon the responsibility of a
man who was contending for his reputation and his administration:
"It cannot be that you have acted wrong in encountering danger for the liberty and safety
of all Greece.  No! By the generous souls who were exposed at Marathon!  By those who
stood arrayed at Plattea! By those who encountered the Persian fleet at Salamis-who fought
at Artemisium! By all those illustrious sons of Athens whose remains lie deposited in the
public monuments!"          *                   *                   *         *         *
"What belongs to gallant men they all performed; their success was such as Providence
dispensed to each."
Here is Mr. SUMNER, speaking of Massachusetts:
"But it cannot be that she acts wrong for herself and children'when in this cause she thus
encounters reproach. No! By the generous souls who were exposed at Lexington-by
those who stood arrayed at Bunker Hill-by the many from her bosom who, on all the fields
of the first great struggle, lent their vigorous arms to the great cause of all-by the children
she has borne, whose names alone are national trophies-is Massachusetts now vowed irrevocably to this work. What belongs to the faithful servant she will do in all things, and Providence shall determine the result."
Here you have Lexington substituted for Marathon, and Bunker Hill for Platea; and he
has named Lexington and Bunker Hill, for they, 1 believe, are the onlybattles of the Revolution fought in Massachusetts, and they are glorious fields.  This, as [ have said, is a remarkable imitation. It is the best part of the speech. It is the only thing, except those polluting
personalities to which I have alluded-but I will not use that term, because they hurt nobodywhich distinguishes it from his former efforts.
Mr. President, I have convicted the senator of making a speech which was not in response
to anything I said. I have convicted him of such historical errors as no man can mistake.
I Wave convicted him of making allegations against me of being ignorant of 1' w and of constitutions, and yet when he undertook to quote and expound the constitution of South Carolina,
I have shown that he either never read that constitution, or he could not understand it, or, if
he did understand it, he wilfully misrepresented it.  He has been guilty of the suppressio veri
and the suggestio falsi. He cannot escape from these propositions,
I have a copy of the senator's speech before me, and now I am going to turn his gun upon
him. I ask the Senate to see if I do not turn it upon him to such an extent as to allow me to
apply the apposite quotation of which I have often made use:
"Fabula narratur,
Mutato nominee, de te."
Here is what he says of me:
"With regret I come again upon the senator from South Carolina, [Mr. BUTLER,] who,
omnipresent in this debate" —
Why, sir, I have counted the Congressional Globe, and my remarks make but twelve
pages, while his are thirty-two. I have not gone into the subject at as great length as my
friends from Alabama, [Mr. CLAY,] Georgia, [Mr. TOOMBS,] and others.  My  speeches all
put together on this subject are but twelve pages, and his are thirty-two; while those of his
coadjutors amount, I suppose, to a hundred more. Yet he said I was omnipresent in this
debate! I will not say that he is omnipresent in this debate, but he is omnipresent everywhere
ot of the debate.  He says that I "overflowed with rage at the simple  suggestion that
Kansas had applied for admission as a State, and, with incoherent phrases, discharged the
loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representatives, and then upon her people."
I said it was a fraud, and the Senate said so.  Why did he single me out?  Again, alluding to
me, he said-:
~ There was no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary debate which he did not repeat;
nor was there any possible deviation from truth which he did not make, with so much of
passion, I am glad to add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration."
Ido not know that [ have ever been an imitator in my life.  Those who know me best say
thatI am ra, her sui generis. I never borrow from Demosthenes, and palm it off as my own.
As for my deviation from the truth, let me ask, did he tell the truth when he quoted the constitution of South Carolina, and there was no such clause in it as he stated? Did he tell the 
26
truth when he undertook to say that her imbecility was shameful during the Revolution?  1
have shown that she absolute y sent bread to Massachuisetts   Did he tell the truth when he
meant to impute to me what he has charged here? 1 retort up.in him everything that fol  lows.
I retort on him the very language which he applies to me.   Ht. accused me of such a pro  clivity to error that I could not conform to the line of truth, or was continually deviati,g from
it.  I have convicted him before the Senate, by the evidence which I have adduced, of calum.
niating th, history and character of South Carolina, and of misrepresenting her constttution.
He has done this, not in response to anything 1 had said, or anything which  was l1git mately
connected with the debate.  He has  utadetaken to charge me with ignoranct of the law and
the constitution, which is perfectly ind, pendent of his arbitrary dicttum —thi dietum, allow me
to say, of a man who has never conducted agretat law case in ihis country.  1 bblieve no one
would buy anrestate worth.$1O.OOO upon his opinion of the tvtle.  I would  not encage him to
conduct a cause; not that he is not a clear man, hut I would not trust him as a lawyer.   And
yet he undertakes to be my judge   What right h's he to pronounce judgment or, mc as a law yer?  I am reduced to a pretty predicament at this time of life, if I am to) be suibje,ctd to such
ajudgment! It is a judgment about which I care little; aAd I do not suppose any man would
gIe ilfty dollars for it even in Massachusetts
" He cannot ope his mouth but out there flies a blunder."
I sincerely hope that what he has said is a blunder. I do not know but that he may have
thought he would escape scrutiny and exposure   I hope that when he opened l-is motuth an'd
said what he *id in reference to these matters it was a blunder.   He said of me,"  the senator
touches nothing which he does not disfigure"  1 can say of him he has touched  nothing
which he has not misrepresented, except it be in his general declaotationrt, and therp is no de tecting a man in that; it is a matter of taste. I appreciate highly the comfilimerit I received
this morning in the Boston Couiier as to the merit of mv speech.   fhe senator says of me,
that "the senator touches nothing which he does not di.figure-with error, sometimes of prin ciple, sometimes offact. "' I apply this to him with this exception: I say error nearly aiways
of principle, sometiimne of fact. 1 leave the Senate to decide between us in that respect   Agam
he said of me:
Ad He shows an incapacity of accuracy, whether in stating the constitution or in stating the
law-whether in the details of statistics, or the diversions of icholarship."
I shall sot compete with him in scholarship, for I should be vulnerable there; but men who
live in giass houses should never throw stones.  Of all the things which that senator ventured
to do, 1 think he exposed his house most when he made that assertion, with the detection which
I have fixed upon hitti of error, injustice, and malignity.  It is n.iled upon him, and he cannot
get rid of it  I care not how far fanaticism may undertake to influence the judgment of public
opinion; it cannot alter the truth. Truth is sometimes slow in making its impres.siot on the
blic mind, but, when made, it is evidence which produces a belief that cannot be resisted.
at belief will grow out of my statements, my remarks, and my refeieitces, and is joist as
certain as the truth of the evidence, and he cardnot escape from it.
Mr. President, I have detained the Senate much longer than I wished.  Whe,n I gave notice
that I should speak to,the resolutions of Massachusetts, it was with perfect confidence that the
senator would be in his seat.  Finding that these resolutions were not here, on M-onr,ay last I
gave notice that I should speak on Thursday, still co,fident that he would be hero. Yesterday,
having heard that perhaps he would not be present, I inq.ired, in as delicate a manner as I
could, when he would be here   Although our relations are not friendly, I (did not wish to assum, a position which wouldl be even apparettly inconsistent with  fair chivalry and bearing.
I inquired whether he would be in the Senate within a fortnight, and, if aso, I sad I would
postpone my remarks.   Finding that it was his purpose to go in a few days to Massachusetts,
and that he would not be likely to return for three or four weeks, I could not ali,)w the opportunity to pass. I have stated these facts to show that I do not startd here taking advantage of
his atbsence. I was willing to wait any reasorable time, but I c,uld not allow error to prevail
longer in relation to my State, my friend, or myself.  This is my position.
Sir, if there is any one individual who more than another regrets the occasion on which I
have spoken, it is myself.  I have no temper for strife  I am passing through the iasm chapter
of my public life, and I have no wish to identify my name with anything like a personal contrhversy.  I have never sought it.  When  the question comes to be examined and solved,
Who was the aggressor? it will be found that it was not I on any occasion.  I admit that I
have three peculiarities of manner: impatience, excitability, and, perhaps, absent-mindedness.
They are p,culiarities which have followed me from the cradle   But, sir, I hope I have never
known the time when reason and repentance would not suppress even a temporary injtlstice.
If inju4tice is d.ne to me, or a wrong or insult offered, I never stop to  arley in words.  I ask
justice, and if it is not given, 1 never would he in the wrong if I could help my elf; but whn I
am in the right I do not think any man can blame me for v ntlicating my principles.
Now, sir, I appeal to the good sense of this country.   I appeal to the lessons which its grave
history inculcates. I appeal to the position which it occupies in relation to the history
of the world, and to the high responsibilities which now rest on this confederacy, ~1o 
27
to allow it to be dissolved in olood. If we are to separate, let us have common sense enough
to do it in a way becoming intelligent men who have learned their lessons from the highest
sources of intelligence and wisdom. If we are to live together, let it not be upon the terms
presc'ibed or intimated by the tore and temper of the licentious and aggressive language of the
speech delivered by the senator from Massachusetts.  It is impossible for self-respect to allow
me to sit here and listen quietly to such a speech. If there were separate confederacies to-morrow, he dare not utter it without subjecting himself to a peril which he will not encounter
now.  He would then put his section in a position to make war, and he would be responsi.
ble to a higher tribunal than that of those who have erected themselves into it under an
Influence which I think must perish; and 1 hope the day is fast coming when the fires of
that limited sectionaliam will burn out, or will be reduced to the ashes of disappointment and
disgrace.
I1 
'-9
C
U
'i
I
i,k
"I -
.1 il