THE SLAVE QUESTION 
 
 / 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 \ 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. GRAHAM N. FITCH, OF INDIANA, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 14, 1850, 
 
 In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union , on the Resolution referring the 
 President's Message to the various Standing Committees. 
 
 Mr. FITCH said: 
 
 It is not my intention to attempt an elaborate 
 answer to any of the various arguments which 
 have been adduced, either to the House or this 
 committee, upon the subjects connected with the 
 message before you. Nor do I design discussing 
 at length the slavery question, which has become 
 interwoven with all our legislation. I shall leave 
 such discussion to the legal gentlemen occupying 
 seats here. 1 believe, however, that an unbiased 
 judgment of either the merit or constitutionality 
 of that question can scarcely be formed here. Sec¬ 
 tional feeling, under the influence of the inflam¬ 
 matory appeals and injudicious threats which have 
 been made in connection with this subject, will 
 deprive it of that cool consideration to which its 
 importance entitles it. Any opinion relative to its 
 merit must, in an especial manner, have been 
 very liable to be formed under the influence of such 
 feeling; and any in relation to its constitutional¬ 
 ity,even from those whoseopinionsunder ordinary 
 circumstances are entitled to the utmost deference, 
 (and there are many such on this floor,) will now 
 be very sure to be warped by residence upon one 
 or the other side of a certain line; or influences, in¬ 
 dependent of considerations of the country’s good, 
 of right or wrong, brought to bear from the op¬ 
 posite side, and therefore deprived of any con¬ 
 trolling effect. Any reasons for my own opinion 
 can have no weight—be of no influence beyond 
 the circle of my immediate constituents. Those 
 reasons can be—aye, have been better gktn else¬ 
 where than here. The opinion itself, so far as 
 my action on this question as a representative is 
 concerned, 1 came here to carry out. It will be a 
 matter of record—it already is so; and I am pre¬ 
 pared to make it so again at any moment. Al¬ 
 though a discussion of the rationale.of a precon¬ 
 ceived opinion will be useless, that of certain 
 sentiments proclaimed, acts done, and threats made 
 here and elsewhere, in connection with this sub¬ 
 ject, may not be equally so. To these, therefore, 
 will my remarks be mostly confined. 
 
 It appears to my limited observation, that a 
 new-born zeal is recently evinced in opposition to 
 a principle long since established in this Govern¬ 
 ment, and established with the consent of the 
 very locality now so frenzied in its opposition. 
 The “ ordinance of 1787” was but the appli¬ 
 cation of this principle to the Northwestern 
 Territory, and under circumstances which would 
 have far better justified the intemperate opposition 
 now manifested. As that territory belonged to ! 
 
 Virginia, slavery existed in it by her laws, not 
 only theoretically but practically. Slaves were 
 held in that portion of it out of which my own 
 State has since been created. Consequently, that 
 ordinance abolished slavery without the consent of 
 the inhabit-ants, where it already existed. It is now 
 only proposed to prevent its introduction where 
 it does not exist. To the former proposition 
 there was no opposition; to this it has become 
 almost monomaniac. That territory was a gift in 
 common to all the States—it became common 
 property; and very justly, for Virginia had only 
 been enabled to hold it by an expenditure of the 
 common blood and treasure. The same expend- 
 ituie has obtained that in dispute; not in dispute 
 as to title, but as to the extension or non-exten¬ 
 sion of certain laws over it. Virginia could no 
 more claim a want of consideration for her gift 
 than could Texas now were she to relinquish to 
 the United States all her ri«:ht, real or fancied, 
 to that portion of New Mexico which she 
 claims. I repeat, the principle under discus¬ 
 sion, the principle of “intervention” with th'e 
 slavery question in the territories, was established 
 by the “ ordinance of 1787,” and in a form much 
 more obnoxious to objections on the part of the 
 South than any now presented. But then it met 
 their approbation. No master-spirithad yet arisen 
 to create from this question a whirlwind, astride 
 of which himself and friends were to ride into 
 histh places. There is, then, in that ordinance a 
 precedent for this intervention which cannot be 
 gainsayed. But we are told that we, the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, have adopted a party creed, erected 
 a party platform upon which is written “Non¬ 
 intervention;” and honorable gentlemen from the 
 South have threatened with excommunication 
 from the party all who do not abide the spirit of 
 that non-intervention. Yes, they will “ read such 
 from the party.” Who then would be orthodox 
 Democrats? I fancy this question would not be 
 as difficult of solution ns a similar .one arising 
 from Church schisms. If numbers constitute or¬ 
 thodoxy, gentlemen fulminating such threats 
 might find* themselves outside the temple. The 
 non-intervention doctrine of the Democratic Na¬ 
 tional Convention of 1S48, was applied to States, 
 not Territories. The convention expressly re¬ 
 fused the adoption of a similar resolution relative 
 to the latter, and that refusal was the alleged cause 
 of secession from the convention by the ultra mover 
 of the resolution. But if the same resolution W] 
 been applied to the latter, I submit to you, Mr. 
 
2 
 
 Chairman, would not denunciation by the South of 
 its abandonment be but condemnation of their own 
 course? For, sir, in anticipation of the anp!ica- 
 tion of a portion of the new territory (California) 
 for admission, with constitution in hand, into the 
 Union, these same people, who would create an 
 ideal non-intervention rule and make it binding 
 upon the North, have themselves declared, from 
 the swamps of Florida to the mountains of Vir¬ 
 ginia, their intention to resist the asked-for ad¬ 
 mission. And why? Because, forsooth, the con¬ 
 stitution of the new State prohibits slavery! It 
 is true the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. 
 Brown] told us a few days since that the pres¬ 
 ence of this prohibition formed not the ground of 
 his opposition to the admission of California; 
 but if its constitution had permitted slavery, is it 
 to be supposed for one moment the South would 
 have opposed its admission into the Union ? The 
 supposition is preposterous. 
 
 Well, Mr. Chairman, will not this resistance to 
 the admission of California bean attempted inter¬ 
 vention? Yet for the same intervention, for a 
 different, and, as we claim, a better purpose, the 
 North is to be anathematized. “ Whom the gods 
 will to destroy, they first make made.” If mad¬ 
 ness is evidence of impending destruction, we may 
 well fear that many seats in this House must 
 soon bid farewell to their present occupants, to 
 “ know them no more forever;’’ for a greater num¬ 
 ber of candidates for Bedlam than presented them¬ 
 selves upon this floor, a few days before we filled the 
 Chair you now occupy, never congregated outside 
 the walls of an asylum for the insane. And there 
 was very little method in their madness. Their 
 ravings were incoherent,—or if they could be in¬ 
 terpreted to mean anything, they meant that at 
 which the remarks made by a gentleman from 
 North Carolina [Mr. Clingman] so strongly 
 pointed—namely, disunion. And some of them 
 appear to have been at large a length of time, un¬ 
 restrained by the application of any coercive meas¬ 
 ure, although evidencing well-grounded suspicions 
 of the necessity of such restraint,—aye, and com¬ 
 mitting that evidence to print, to be brought up in 
 judgment against them. Here is a portion of this 
 evidence, (holding up Mr. Meade’s speech,) in 
 which the author, speaking of anticipated legisla¬ 
 tion on this subject, says: 
 
 C£ [f the North generally, whose high prosperity is the result 
 of unrestricted intercourse with the South, refuse the terms 
 we prescribe, let us talk no more about the blessings of 
 Union. ” 
 
 If we do not accept the terms they prescribe, 
 swallow their prescription, however nauseous, 
 disunion follows! Shall 1 be pardoned for humbly 
 dissenting from this opinion ? And again: 
 
 “ Instinct tells us slaveholders, that we must have our 
 portion of this continent,—that institutions hostile to ours 
 shall exist neither west nor south of us.” 
 
 What is this but an admission of insanity? 
 Instinct, which governs man only after reason 
 has deserted her throne; instinct is to Be the sole 
 
 f uide of their threatened action in the premises ! 
 
 allude to this speech, [Mr. Meade’s,] because the 
 same sentiments, not the tenth of which can I take 
 time to quote, were repeated with still stronger 
 emphasis upon this floor. And I am sorry to say 
 they were echoed by others upon this side of the 
 House; while from that (Whig) side we had, by 
 way of interlude in this comedy of “Reason run 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 | 
 
 
 t 
 
 | { 
 1 
 
 mad,” or the “Devil to pay among the Negroes,” 
 an improvement upon the old “Hark, from the 
 Toombs a doleful sound.” And the whole per¬ 
 formance was cheered and encored by Representa¬ 
 tives whose duty it was to have indignantly 
 frowned it down as threatening the best interests 
 and integrity of the Union they were sent here to 
 cherish and protect. If such conduct is not mad¬ 
 ness, what is it? Treason? It can scarcely be, 
 for treason stalks abroad and whispers it designs 
 only under cover of the night; and these declara¬ 
 tions were made at noonday. They were pro¬ 
 claimed to the Nation here, in the Nation’s 
 Capiiol. If not madness then, what is it ? It was 
 said (as was alluded to by my honorable friend 
 from Tennessee, upon my left, Mr. Stanton) by 
 a former chief, I think, of French police, that a 
 certain transaction was worse than a crime—it was 
 a blunder; clearly intending to convey the infer¬ 
 ence that the act evinced such narrowed views, 
 such imbecile judgment upon the part of the 
 actors, as subjected them to pity, not punishment. 
 And thus of the conduct under consideration. If 
 not madness, it is not treason— a crime—it is a 
 blunder, it is folly. And what more foolish than 
 the threatened application of a remedy for any 
 evil, real or imaginary, which remedy must from 
 its very nature be productive of infinitely more 
 mischief than the evil itself? What more foolish 
 than a threat of disunion under any contingency 
 which can possibly arise from the renewed appli¬ 
 cation of a principle which has hitherto operated so 
 beneficially? If the threat has been made with 
 the view of intimidating the North, whatever its 
 temporary effect may be here, its folly will be 
 apparent in its utter failure to swerve the northern 
 constituency one iota from the course they esteem 
 right. If it was made with the view of strength¬ 
 ening the South, its effect has been the reverse, by 
 lessening that respect for southern gentlemen 
 making it to which otherwise they would have 
 been entitled; and, furthermore, by destroying all 
 confidence in their patriotism, a confidence to 
 which much could have been yielded. 
 
 It was said early in the session by a gentleman 
 from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] —though 1 am 
 happy to say thegentleman uttered sentiments of a 
 differentcharactei a few dayssince, whilediscussing 
 the joint resolution for the purchase of the manu- 
 script'fqf Washington’s Farewell Address—but it 
 was said by him early in the session, and much 
 the same thing was repeated recently by a gentle¬ 
 man from North Carolina, [Vlr. Clingman,] that 
 we of the North “ sin" pseans” to the Union for 
 its preservation. Gra. .d ! But they sing them tc 
 the South to justify disunion. Who are the most 
 national? Or, to make the question one of music, 
 not men, w* ich is the most patriotic, “ Hail Co¬ 
 lumbia,” or “ Clar de kitchen, oleVirginny is a 
 cornin’? ” We are told by a gentleman from the 
 South, [Mr. Wallace,] that we of the North 
 shall be taught—the South “ will teach us the 
 sincerity of their threats, and their ability to ac¬ 
 complish them.” Hah! the Congressional “ schol- 
 master is aboad!” We will receive their teach¬ 
 ings with all becoming humility; but as the 
 necessity for a few lessons may be reciprocal per¬ 
 haps, we shall be permitted to mount the rostrum, 
 ferule in hand, and for a brief period enact the 
 pedagogue. One of the first lessons ^ve would 
 inculcate, is their inability to successfully accom- 
 
3 
 
 plish their disunion threat. In essaying it, they 
 will injure the North, I grant you, but they will 
 ruin themselves. It is true, we were amused a 
 few days since by a gentleman from North Caro¬ 
 lina, [Mr. Cling.man,] with an estimate of the re¬ 
 ceipts and expenditm es r f the prospective kingdom 
 of Buncombe, to the throne of which that gentle¬ 
 man may very probably be heir apparent. But 
 in that estimate did he include the expense of the 
 large standing army which would be necessary 
 to insure the citizens of his kingdom that is to 
 be against servile insurrection? The gentleman 
 has but to attempt the disunion threatened by 
 him, to learn the utter futility of the attempt. 
 He would find himself surrounded mostly by ter 
 ritory not recognizing slavery. With the free 
 States of the North, once his brethren, but then 
 have become his enemies, hating his “ peculiar 
 institution” as the cause of the attempted dis¬ 
 memberment of our glorious Republic; with a 
 neighboring republic on the southwest, by which 
 bhxks are recognized as citizens; with a vast negro 
 population in his own midst, ignorant and debased, 
 therefore cruel and bloodthirsty, whenever insti¬ 
 gated to strike by an opportunity for a successful 
 blow; with the public opinion of the entire civil¬ 
 ized world so strongly against him, that no nation 
 would dare attempt to aid him in defending and 
 propagating his institution,—how long would it be 
 ere he would be knocking at the door of the north¬ 
 ern republic for readmission? And has he no fear 
 that the principles of the same ordinance would 
 then be brought to bear upon him, the application 
 of which to new territories he now so strenuously 
 resists? 
 
 The North is charged with an intention of vio¬ 
 lating the Constitution in legislating upon this 
 subject of slavery. The Constitution guaranties 
 rights in common to all the States, and certain 
 special rights to the slaveholding States. Yet, 
 though special, they are constitutional rights, and 
 as such, should be recognized and protected in the 
 States where they exist. And the great mass of 
 the northern constituency have as little idea of in¬ 
 terfering with those rights, as of permitting inter¬ 
 ference with their own. There are exceptions to 
 this—there are, I am sorry to say, northern dis- 
 unionists. But they are few in number and of 
 limited influence. Can the same be said of the 
 southern? The latter arrive at the same conclu¬ 
 sion with the former from adverse premises— 
 reach the same goal by a different road. In aid¬ 
 ing the accomplishment of the ultimate design 
 of'the northern disunionists—the men they were 
 wont the most contemptuously to denounce— 
 the South add nothing to their own strength. 
 They do but divide the responsibility of an odious 
 cause. The pseudo-philanthropy of a few of 
 these disunionists of the North—the Garrisons i 
 and Abby Folsoms—a philanthropy manifesting 
 itself by an officious intermeddling with the prop¬ 
 erty rights of the South, instigating the escape of 
 the slave, while it turns its back upon the free 
 negro, leaving him to steal or starve—a philan¬ 
 thropy which, instead of expending its pecuniary 
 means as it legally might in ministering to the 
 wants of the black already five, or sending him 
 to the country of his origin, where he could attain 1 
 the dignity of a citizen,—invests such means in I 
 printing incendiary publications or hiring emis- '! 
 varies to create discontent in the slave, or increase !! 
 
 that already existing; this kind of mistaken phi¬ 
 lanthropy, with its attendant indirect efforts at 
 disunion, is unjustly charged to the entire North, 
 while the South apparently seek to precipitate its 
 consequences. The latter thus bravely aid the 
 efforts of the very people whose sentiments they 
 most loudly condemn, instead of uniting with the 
 conservative portion of the North to grant that 
 which the entire civilized world and their own 
 consciences tell them is right—the preservation of 
 freedom where freedom now exists. 
 
 It is manifest that if a difference of opinion 
 arises with regard to any measure not provided for 
 by the letter of the Constitution, the will of the 
 majority must govern legislation had with refer¬ 
 ence to that measure. If the minority esteem such 
 legislation unconstitutional, the Constitution fur¬ 
 nishes the remedy. But that remedy contemplates 
 neither force nor disunion. It is incompatible 
 with either. Why, then, will the South create use¬ 
 less prejudices against their own cause—a cause 
 which they say is just —by a threatened resort to 
 either? 1 repeat it, sir, there is nothing in this 
 question as presented justifying such threats. It 
 is not the intention of the North they shall be just¬ 
 ified, for the North intends asking only for that 
 which is constitutionally right and cun be consti¬ 
 tutionally granted. And asking that, if the ma¬ 
 jority is with them, they have firmly resolved 
 their wishes shall be conceded. In presuming 
 sucli intention of violating the Constitution, and 
 basing their threats upon the presumption, the 
 South is burnishing its armor and piepnring for 
 battle when there is no foe in the field. The war- 
 horse “ saith among the trumpets, ha! ha! and he 
 smelleth the battle afar off, the thunder of the cap¬ 
 tains and the shouting.” But the olfactories of 
 Job’s battle steed were obtuse compared wihtthose 
 ofsome of our southern friends. The latter “smell¬ 
 eth the battle” from so far that the eye of man 
 Iooketh not beyond, yet the battle-array is not vis¬ 
 ible. “ They have optics keen who see things not 
 to he seen.” 
 
 My quotations are from memory. If they are 
 rrot verbatim, some of the teachers whose services 
 were volunteered early in the session can correct 
 them ! For much of the feeling evinced by the 
 North upon this subject, the South is chargeable. 
 The latter complain of the spread of abolition sen¬ 
 timent. Sir, it can never cease to spread while 
 supplied with such nourishing pabulum as that af¬ 
 forded by the speech of the gentleman from North 
 Carolina, [M r. Clingman,] and others of the same 
 caste. And if the few northern disunionists in¬ 
 crease and multiply, the paternity of the increase is 
 chargeable to that gentleman and his associates. 
 
 An importance is attributed to the discussion or 
 this question here, of a character altogether dispi of 
 portioned to any which it has yet attained. The 
 gentleman from North Carolina was understood 
 to say, and the same thing was repeated by a gen¬ 
 tleman from Virginia, [Mr. Seddon,] that the dis¬ 
 cussion- of this question here had prevented slave 
 emigration to California, and thereby deprived the 
 South of any portion of that territory Are they 
 not mistaken? Was it not rather the Mexican 
 law under which the citizens of that territory lived 
 — the government tie facto which the gentleman 
 from Virginia insists should vet be in force in the 
 absence of any territorial government framed by 
 Congress—wus it not that government de Jaclo , 
 
4 
 
 with its Mexican law prohibiting: slavery > which 
 deterred, as it ever must deter while in force, the 
 migration and residence in the territory of slaves 
 as such ? 
 
 The gentleman from North Carolina, and those 
 acting with him, appear determined to occupy no 
 middle ground in this matter. It is but a few years 
 since these gentlemen, or at all events the then 
 Representatives of the same constituency now rep¬ 
 resented by them, voted, in common, 1 grant you, 
 with many others upon this floor, to censure a 
 member from Ohio, [Mr. Giddings,] because of 
 nis introduction here in the form of certain resolu¬ 
 tions of sectional matter, alleged to be of an ex¬ 
 citing and inflammatory character. Yet these gen¬ 
 tlemen now daily and hourly utter from their desks 
 sentiments far more exciting, far more inflamma¬ 
 tory, and dangerous to the country. And the gen¬ 
 tleman from North Carolina tells us, if we see 
 proper to attempt in a peaceable manner to free 
 ourselves from the presence of any who, like him¬ 
 self, may declare their intention to delay, to pre¬ 
 vent legislation, that weapons shall be brought to 
 their aid, probably the knife and the pistol, to 
 sweep from this floor so many that no quorum will 
 be left for the transaction of business! Shame! 
 What is to be thought of theuttererof such a sen¬ 
 timent—a sentiment sadly, sadly out of place in a 
 legislative hall ? 
 
 The gentleman from North Carolina, and hisc.o 
 workers, appear determined not only to occupy no 
 middle ground themselves—they are equally de¬ 
 termined to permit none others to do so. If a man 
 is not for them, their uncalled-for denunciations 
 drive him to assume a stand against them. Their 
 sensitiveness upon this subject is truly ludicrous— 
 to others, though doubtless painful to themselves. 
 They see threatened destruction to their institu¬ 
 tion in every newspaper paragraph which does not 
 call it divine; a foe in every man who presumes to 
 question the right or justice of any of their assump¬ 
 tions. The threatened destruction they propose to 
 anticipate by destroying themselves, committing 
 national suicide. The ideal foe they charge lance 
 in hand a la mode Don Quixote, without waiting 
 to ascertain whether it be a knight or windmill— 
 without even pausing to know whether it be a man 
 or woman. If they would pause, if they would 
 but wait to examine the disunion petitions laid be¬ 
 fore certain northern Legislatures, they would find 
 many of the signers to be females. Do they de¬ 
 sign making war upon these? Such would appear 
 to be the intention of the gentleman from North 
 Carolina, for it wih be remembered he retailed cer¬ 
 tain opinions alleged to be entertained by north¬ 
 ern ladies of southern gentleman. Do those al¬ 
 leged opinions shadow forth the result of that 
 gentleman’s traveled experience in the North, of 
 which he told us? Has he bent the knee in some 
 northern court of Cupid? Has he unsuccessfully 
 wooed to winsome northern belle ? If so, the cause 
 of the outpourings of his wrath upon the North 
 can be well understood and duly appreciated. 
 
 I said, the sensitiveness of some southern gen¬ 
 tlemen was truly ludic. ous. Here, sir, is evidence 
 of the facility with which they can create imagi¬ 
 nary danger, and their promptitude in repelling it 
 written during our struggle to elect a Speaker: 
 
 City of Washing i on, December 14 . 1849 . 
 
 Sir: We, the represi nratives froi^ the 
 in tiie Congress of the United States, feet it to be our 
 
 to inform you that in our judgment the affairs of the Govern¬ 
 ment have reached a ci i.-is of no ordinary moment. 
 
 Tire House of Representatives lias up to this hour found 
 it impossible to effect an organization, and consequently the 
 whole action of the Government, so far as it depends upon 
 the legislation of Congress, is arrested. 
 
 ********** 
 
 We feel it to he our duty, however, iri view of the threat- 
 erdng aspect which political affairs now wear, to put you in 
 possession of thesofaets. 
 
 We think we are well acquainted with the spirit of the 
 people of Alabama, and we believe that it is their fixed pur¬ 
 pose never to submit to the threatened encroachment on 
 their rights; that they will never submit to any act of the 
 government of the United States which excludes slavery 
 from the territory acquired from Mexico, and which is the 
 property of the States of this Union; that they will never 
 submit to any act of the Government aboli-hing slavery in 
 the District of Columbia, and that they will demand that the 
 provisions of the Constitutiifn in regard to their property 
 shall be faithfully observed. We trust that no further ag¬ 
 gression will be made upon the rights of ihe slaveholding 
 States ; but we regard the existing state of affairs as so seri¬ 
 ous that we cannot forbear making this communication to 
 you. 
 
 As the Legislature of our State is now in session, you may 
 think it proper to communicate to them your views oNthe 
 duty of the State in the present crisis. 
 
 We have the honor to be, verv respectfully, your obedient 
 servants, HENRY W. HILLIARD, 
 
 JERE. CLEMENS, 
 
 DAVID HUBBARD, 
 
 S. W. INGE, 
 
 SAMPSON W. HARRIS, 
 
 W. J. ALSTON, 
 
 F. W. BOWDON. 
 
 To His Excellency H. W. Collier, 
 
 Governor of the State of Alabama. 
 
 Then follows a message elicited from the Gov¬ 
 ernor to the Legislature: 
 
 Executive Department, 
 Montgomery, December 22, 1849. 
 
 To the Senate and House of Rejn esentativet: 
 
 I take the earliest opportunity to transmit to the General 
 Assembly copies of a communication juA received from 
 six of the R> presentatives and the only Senator from Ala¬ 
 bama now at Washington. 
 
 My views upon the delicate subject to which it refers are 
 well known to you,and need not he here repeated. 
 
 The time for decided action has arrived, and I recom¬ 
 mend to the General Assembly to announce the ultimatum 
 of Alabama upon the great question which now convulses 
 the Union. It is due to ourselves, as well as to the mi mory 
 of our fathers, that we should take the ground which self- 
 respect, honor, and constitutional equality demand. Our 
 position once taken, there can be no footsteps backward. 
 
 H. W. COLLIER. 
 
 Ultimatum of Alabama! “Ye gods and little 
 fishes,” hear and tremble! And this preface to 
 disunion is followed, first by terrible resolves on 
 the part of the Legislature, and then by another 
 chapter, an epilogue, in the form of a written 
 stump speech from one of the Representatives to a 
 portion of the constituency of Alabama, [Mr. Hub- 
 bar d ’s letter]—a document of which 1 will say 
 naught else than that it contains sentiments which 
 can add nothing 1 to any character for political saga¬ 
 city hitherto acquired by its author. 
 
 What, Mr. Chairman, had the Governor or the 
 Legislature of Alabama to do with our delay in 
 the election of a Speaker? We ultimately suc¬ 
 ceeded without their aid ! Aye, even before their 
 roar reached here, although they “ roared you as 
 gently as a sucking dove,” or perhaps', as they 
 imagined, as terrific, as the desert king, yet before 
 that roar reached here to intimidate ns into action 
 in consonance with their views, we had succeeded 
 in at least a partial organization of tins House; and, 
 under similar circumstances, would very possibly 
 
 Siate of Alabama 
 duty 
 
 succeed again, alike without their assistance. 
 These letters are simply ridiculous; more especial- 
 
5 
 
 Iy when taken in connection with certain antece¬ 
 dents. 
 
 One of the signers [Mr. Inge] of this letter to 
 the Governor of Alabama was the very first man 
 within my knowledge, on this side of the House, 
 during this session, to agitate the exciting subject 
 to which the letter refers—the slavery question, ; 
 And another gentleman, [Mr. Hilliard,] whose 
 name figures here, was (unless <1 am greatly 
 mistaken, and if 1 am he can easily correct the 
 mistake) among the first upon that (Whig) side. 
 And this they did in no very gentle or persuasive 
 terms, during certain meetings preliminary to our 
 organization. They first fire the building, then 
 vociferously give the alarm, and charge the incen¬ 
 diarism to others ! Perhaps I shall be pardoned 
 for making a suggestion for their benefit. I trust 
 it will be received in a friendly spirit, for it is de- j 
 signed in none other. Would it not be advisable 
 for them to transcribe into their prayer books a 
 few lines from the “ Hieland Bard:’’ 
 
 “O! wad some power thegiftie gie us, 
 
 To see ourselves as ithers see us ! 
 
 ’Twad frae monie a blunder free us, 
 
 And foolish notion !” 
 
 Aye, foolish indeed ! 
 
 Why will not gentlemen from the sunny side of 
 Mason and Dixon’s line meet this question as 
 men confident of the justice of their cause, con¬ 
 scious of integrity of purpose, meet any question, 
 the meeting of which they find inevitable, coolly, 
 calmly ? They have the ability so to do. Of 
 this there can be no doubt. We have tangible 
 evidence of their own beluf at least in their owm i 
 ability; albeit in affording that evidence they seem 
 to have forgotten that 
 
 “ Tu peace there is nothing so becoming a man 
 As modest stillness and humility.” 
 
 But for the evidence. Here it is : 
 
 “Though we have been in a numerical minority in the 
 Union for fifty years, yet during the greater part of that 
 period we have managed to control the destinies of this 
 nation.”— Mr. Meade’s speech.page 3 d. 
 
 That’s a fact. But one cannot much admire the 
 modesty manifested in proclaiming it. But let us j 
 proceed with the quotation : 
 
 “ Whether on the battle-field or in council, the sons of 
 the South have ever taken the lead, and the records of the 
 nation afford ample testimony of their superior energy and 
 genius; for to w hat else can be attributed their superior in¬ 
 fluence in the nation, which to this day is unquestionably 1 
 felt, and, though reluctantly, must be acknowledged ?” 
 
 Well, I have heard of another quality some¬ 
 times obtaining “ influence”—namely, impudence. \ 
 But I would by no means intimate that our south¬ 
 ern friends have an undue share of that! 
 
 Here is evidence derived from another source, of 
 talent of a purely military order: 
 
 “It was a southern general and southern soldiers who 
 breasted the British bayonets at New Orleans, and added 
 one of it' brightest chapters to the history of the Republic. 
 Southern blood has watered every plain from the St. Law¬ 
 rence to the capital of the Aztecs. Tite memorable fields 
 of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma were won by a south¬ 
 ern general. It was before the genius of a southern leader 
 that the walls and towers of Monterey crumbled into dust, 
 and two southern regiments, struggling side by side in a 
 glorious rivalry, snatched from the cannon’s mouth the 
 palm of victory. In the narrow gorge of Angostura, south¬ 
 ern valor again stemmed the tide of war and rolled back 
 the murderous chaiges of the foe. On the sands of V< ra 
 Crtiz, another great name which the South lias given to 
 history and renown added to a fame already imperishable, 
 and wrung from the reluctant nations of the Old World 
 plaudits which they could not withhold. At Cerio Gordo 
 the story of southern achievements was rewritten in blood, 
 and among the rocks and volcanoes of Contreras the glo- !' 
 
 rious old Palmetto State vindicated her right to the title of 
 chivalrous, and silenced forever the tongues of her detract¬ 
 ors.”— Mr. Olcmens’s speech, in Senate, January 10, 1650. 
 
 And were I disposed to continue quotations, 
 equally modest and conciliatory, from the other end 
 of the Capitol, they would be multiplied ad infini¬ 
 tum. 
 
 They bear testimony to their own ability. We 
 shall not gainsay their testimony; we have no 
 wish to rebut it, more especially by imitating the 
 example of self-glorification they have placed be¬ 
 fore us! We will give them its full benefit. Hav¬ 
 ing, then, this transcendent ability, why will not 
 the South so meet this question as to do credit to 
 themselves and their cause: not pain their politi¬ 
 cal friends and rejoice only the hearts of the small 
 squad of northern disunionists, whose existence is 
 admitted, but who are known to be powerless for 
 mischief when unaided by the South? Why this 
 excitement—these threats? They do not aver that 
 aught has yet been done to justify the one or 
 create the other. But they are apprehensive of 
 something—an undefined something—the precise 
 what they know not; and, therefore, valiantly com¬ 
 mence fighting the “ shadow” of some “ coming 
 event.” It would be wiser to await what they 
 choose to call aggression, than to invite that aggres¬ 
 sion by threats of what they will do in the event 
 of its being consummated. Men do not usually 
 much desire to rest under the imputation of being 
 intimidated by a threat; and such may conse¬ 
 quently operate as an additional incentive to the 
 very act it was designed to prevent. If the 
 valor of southern gentlemen upon this side of the 
 House has reached the flood-mark and must ebb, 
 let its current set against our common enemy upon 
 that (Whig:) side. But do their charges head that 
 way? Their past acts must answer. Sir, the 
 confession is humiliating; but as the fact exists, its 
 acknowledgment cannot increase its capability for 
 mischief. There exist upon this side of the House 
 —and the same state of things holds good upon that, 
 (Whig;) but not being a member of their political 
 family, it becomes me not to interfere in their do¬ 
 mestic jars; I leave them to settle such among 
 themselves after their own manner,— there exist 
 upon this side of the House three classes profess¬ 
 ing the same general political faith—the Democrats 
 proper; a few from one section who, when they 
 cannot act with the Democratic party, evince an 
 unwillingness to go over to the camp of the ene¬ 
 my; and a few from another section who evince 
 no such unwillingness, but who, on the contrary, 
 manifest an inclination to serve the Whigs when¬ 
 ever such service is to inure to the exclusive ben¬ 
 efit of their section. And such service has been 
 rendered at a time when the united efforts of all 
 upon this side of the House were required to suc¬ 
 cessfully compete wi’h our common political ene¬ 
 my upon that side. For that enemy has occasion¬ 
 ally presented an unbroken front, held together by 
 the only cohesive power known to them—the 
 spoils. 
 
 Thi3 very slavery question they have made sub¬ 
 servient to the acquisition of those sooils; they 
 have used it as a scaling-ladder to mount into hig^ 
 places and seize those spoils. They converted their 
 Presidential candidate into a political Janus, with 
 a high-priest in Louisiana and one in Georgia, 
 pointing to and interpreting the expression of the 
 southern face; while the northern one had its 
 
6 
 
 priestly oracles in Connecticut and Ohio, with a 
 “lithping” echo in Indiana,—all of them proclaim 
 ing their candidate in favor of that parti:ular 
 view of this question most popular in their re¬ 
 spective latitudes; and in proof that he was so, 
 quoting letters never exhibited, and it is hoped 
 for the credit of the Executive never written. 
 Thus did political deception find a sufficiency of 
 honest but deceived dupes to acquire power. And 
 being upon that (Whig) side of the House all 
 particeps criminis, will it be matter of surprise if 
 all are found endeavoring to prevent an inquiry 
 into the extent to which the same weapons—fraud 
 and misrepresentation used by them to acquire 
 power—have been further used to perpetuate it, or 
 reward those most actively instrumental in its ac¬ 
 quisition ? Or can we wonder if, having committed 
 their candidate to all sides of this question, all shall 
 now strive to prevent us from placing him in such 
 situation as shall compel him by his own act to 
 proclaim to “ all the world’’ and “ the rest of man¬ 
 kind” what are his real sentiments in relation to 
 it? or if they shall seek to stifle inquiry into 
 their double interpretation of official dishonesty 
 and incompetency? If an official was found in 
 the free States with too little confidence in the 
 northern^face of their candidate to sustain him for 
 the Presidency, forthwith upon their installation 
 into power, such official was dismissed as incom¬ 
 petent or dishonest. If one was found in the South 
 the reverse, with too abiding confidence in the 
 truthful expression of that northern face, he too 
 was incompetent or dishonest, and his official head 
 was brought to the block. 
 
 Thus, Mr. Chairman, has this sectional ques¬ 
 tion been everywhere made subservient to their 
 party pu rposes—made to pander to their lust for 
 power and plunder. In one section they vied with 
 the Free-Soil party in condemning slavery and 
 slaveholders; while, in the opposite section, they 
 denounced those same Free Soilers as men holding 
 sentiments destructive to the South arid dangerous 
 to the country; and in both sections, for the same 
 purpose, the election of a man to the Presidency, 
 of whose prospective action upon this question 
 both were equally ignorant and certainly equally 
 regardless, provided they could but make him the 
 instrument for ministering to their sordid ambi¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Sir, I desire to see the denouement of this game 
 of deception, hitherto so successfully played by our 
 political opponents. The passage of a territorial 
 bill containing the principles of the “ ordinance of 
 1787,” or, if you choose so to call it, the Wilmot 
 proviso, and the return of such bill to this House 
 with either the signature or veto of the Executive, 
 will force the two sections of the party upon that 
 side of the House, in their anxiety to justify them¬ 
 selves before their respective constituency for their 
 support of a man whose act must then have falsi¬ 
 fied pledges made for him by one of them, will 
 force them into a war of mutual crimination and 
 recrimination—a war, the consummation of which 
 most devoutly to be wished, has had its parallel 
 only in the redoubtable Kilkenny feline combat. 
 The exposition consequent upon such war, of the 
 deception practised by our political opponents 
 pending the recent Presidential election, and the 
 juggling machinery they broughtto bear upon that 
 election to secure to themselves a successful issue, 
 will be well worth some sacrifice of interest and 
 
 feeling to any portion of the country. By it the 
 entire country, from the lakes to the gulf, from 
 ocean to ocean, will be enabled to perceive who 
 have been its real friends—which party entertains 
 a patriotism, in the language of him whose seat 
 you, jMr. Chairman, now occupy, as comprehen¬ 
 sive as our common country, and by which party 
 patriotism has been made to mean offices for them¬ 
 selves first, their country’s good last. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have takdb no note of time 
 during my remarks, but my further occupancy of 
 the floor must doubtless be brief. I cannot, how¬ 
 ever, in justice to my own feelings, take my seat 
 without noticing, if time permits, a remark made 
 by the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Seddon,] 
 when he addressed the House a few days since. 
 During his closing eulogy of General Taylor’s 
 military character, in speaking of the battle of 
 Buena Vista, he said that a brave or gallant north¬ 
 ern regiment had broken, and the Mississippians 
 came.to the rescue. I do not pretend to quote his 
 precise language, but the sentiment relative to the 
 northern regiment was as I have stated. Sir, that 
 northern regiment was from my own State. It 
 was a gallant regiment! And, for the justice con¬ 
 ceded it by the gentleman from Virginia, in that 
 one expressive word “gallant,” I thank him. 
 As an Indianian, from my heart, I thank him. 
 It is a justice not meted to the regiment by all, for 
 there are those who seek to tarnish its well-earned 
 laurels, by basely, slanderously charging it with 
 want of courage. Sir, the descendants of the brave 
 men who fought at Tippecanoe never can be cow¬ 
 ards. It was a gallant regiment. It bore the open¬ 
 ing brunt of that battle, though opposed to a foe 
 so overwhelmingly numerous that one well-di¬ 
 rected volley from that foe was liable to have 
 annihilated the entire regiment; yet firmly it main¬ 
 tained its ground, giving and receiving volley after 
 volley, with as little thought of yielding, as had 
 the mountain at the base of which it fought, 
 steadily closing its ranks over the dead and dying, 
 "until at the moment when, by the subsequent con¬ 
 fession of the commanding officer of the enemy, 
 victory was about to reward its gallantry, it 
 broke, not yielding to the force of the enemy, 
 but obedience to an incompetent or panic-stricken 
 officer. The brave Brigade General of the regi¬ 
 ment, who knew its members as citizens and 
 soldiers, and knew they had no thought but of 
 how most gallantly to acquit themselves, passed 
 the order for the regiment to advance against 
 the dense mass of foe in its front. This order, 
 a colonel, who for his own and the reputa¬ 
 tion of the State under whose commission he 
 acted had better have graced a scullion’s station 
 than the one he held, reversed, by an order to 
 cease firing and retreat. The regiment broke, but 
 subsequently it mostly rallied, and, in company 
 with another no less gallant regiment from the 
 same State, fought side by side with the Missis¬ 
 sippi regiment in repelling Santa Anna’s last 
 charge. I say not this to detract one iota from 
 the well-earned reputation of the Mississippi regi¬ 
 ment, for a more gallant body of men more gal¬ 
 lantly led than those Mississippians. never trod a 
 battle-field. I say it injustice to the dead of In¬ 
 diana’s brave volunteers and the slandered living. 
 Yes, sir, Indiana and Mississippi—the North and 
 the .South—tnere fought and fell in their common 
 country’s cause, under the same stars and stripes. 
 
7 
 
 The demon of discord, in the form of sectional 
 feeling, sectional interest, reared not its hideous 
 head there. They thought not of the North or of 
 the South, but of their country, their whole coun¬ 
 try, in whose cause they were nerved to “ do or 1 
 
 die.” Heaven grant it may ever be thus ! For¬ 
 ever palsied be the hand that would pluck a star 
 from that banner under which the brave of all the 
 States have met a common foe upon many well- 
 fought fields, and found a common grave. 
 
 Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 
 
 / 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 r' 
 
 
 
 %