member's speech this morning, and who can halt unjust, nothing more untrue, as I view the mat- Why is this matter brought here at this late day? He does not question the identity of the speech I delivered here and the one in print. This he cannot do; but complains, among other things, of attacks made upon him in the public press. This is the secret of the whole matter. The country condemns his opinions on wages. The laborers are startled at the thought of being brought down to "the standard of prices throughout the world." This is the topic on which the press speaks, as far as I have met its language, and this the Senator has labored to explain by reading from his speeches; but he does not read the parts of his late speech to which I chiefly replied, and to which I have drawn his attention, but the public shall have an opportunity to read it, and judge for themselves whether it can have any interpretation but that given to it. But the Senator now, for the first time as far as I have heard, asserts that he did not hear the whole of my speech. Not hear it when it was mostly a comment upon his remarks, and he present and near me! If he did not hear it all why did he speak to me at the close as if he had? Why did he use complimentary language which I shall not repeat in this place ? money man he says they have hugged the manu- But, sir, the Senator complains that I have put He thinks I have not only made him too much of a hard-money man, but have imputed to him an opinion that the bill will have a greater tendency to restrain the issues of bank paper, and to introduce hard money, than he contended for. He admits that it is to have some influence-how much does not appear. Have I not shown that he is in favor of a reduction of prices" to the standard of prices throughout the world" Have I not shown that he contends for this as a wise policy, that we may obtain exclusive possession of our markets, and enter successfully with our manufactures and products the markets of the world, by selling as low as any country? Have I not shown that this standard of prices, as it is called, is identical, in all its effects, with the standard of prices in hard-money countries? Have I not shown that this reduction in prices, both of wages and property, is proposed to be accomplished by reducing the amount of our currency till prices are brought to this standard? And have I not shown all this by the printed speech of the Senator, as put forth with his approbation? Are not the language and the conclusions irresistible? It will, it must, be so understood by all who read it. SENATE. his only purpose. Am I, under such circum- But, sir, my object in rising was announced in the outset to be limited to a reply to the doctrines and opinions of the Senator, and chiefly to those which related to manufacturing and labor. My attention was attracted by these, as my speech fully proves, and my object was to test their soundness, and not weigh or consider the exact influences of the bill in carrying out these doctrines and opinions. The power of the bill was a subordinate matter, and will be so considered by the public. It may answer to talk about here, but will be of little avail. Attention is and will be directed to the policy; to the reduction of wages and property advocated by the Senator. The public will be content, as I am, that he should limit the power of the bill where he pleases, while his, arguments show its tendency is toward the establishment of his general policy. The doctrines and principles advanced will go out with it, and they must be subjected to scrutiny, as they cannot be shut out of view by a controversy about the probable degree of effect of the bill. The doctrines go to the German standard of prices; and at that point they will hold the Senator. But, in the opinion of the Senator, I make him a hardmoney man, contrary to my express admission that he is for a mixed currency. Not so. makes himself such, against his own declarations. He takes both grounds, and I give him credit for it in my speech; and it is for him, and not for me, to harmonize the opinions. He The Senator has reiterated an isolated sentence of my speech, and again infers that I have represented him as arguing that wages and property will be reduced one half. I have several times told him distinctly that such was not my meaning, nor was it the fair construction of the whole text. I argued simply that he was in favor of reduction, without intending to say how much. I assured him that my purpose did not go beyond that. This was due to him, for he gave a meaning to the language that was not designed to be conveyed. With this he is not content, but persists in his own construction, reasserting it in acrimonious language. While he does this, he admits that if he had made such a proposition, it might have been justly characterized as flagitious. Now, sir, I leave you and all others to determine whether a reduction of wages and property to German prices, with labor at a few pence a day, is a descent of one half; whether such a process reaches hard money, whether it will "cover the country with blessings and benefits,' or be flagitious. After all this; after a delay of six weeks, without complaint till the doctrine was condemned by the public, and after bringing the Senator to this point; after showing that he is in favor of German prices, and that he calls Germany emphatically a hard-money country, he complains that I made him too much of a hard-money man, and that I make him express the opinion that the subTreasury bill will bring things nearer to this result than they contended for, or believed it would. What if it should produce this result? What if it should go beyond his anticipations? What if Sir, the Senator is of opinion that I would hold there is a misapprehension by me of his views as him and his friends up as enemies of the laborers. to the extent of its influence-of what consequence This again is a great mistake. I have spoken of is it? It will only carry out his views and policy his opinions, his statements, and his views of more strongly than he anticipated; and that pol-policy, not of his motives or feelings. I have icy, he says, would "cover the country with traced his arguments out into their consequences, blessings and benefits." He cannot seriously and left the matter there for approval or condemregret this, if it should turn out to be so. It is, nation; but have neither held the Senator nor his sir, a small matter, and will be so regarded. For friends up as enemies of anybody. he will not deny that he is for a reduction of the currency, and that such a reduction, in his opinion, will reduce prices, and consequently the price of labor, for the reasoning of most of his But, sir, what is the issue made now? It has dwindled down into this: the gravamen, as he expressed it, is, that I have put into his mouth words that he never used in regard to the influence which the sub-Treasury may have in introducing a specie currency. I have made him also, he thinks, too much of a hard-money man. I do not, in stating his objections, pretend to use his words, for that is out of my power. In treating of this subject he has reviewed his opinions upon banks, excessive issues of paper, a mixed currency, the reduction of the currency, and the effect on wages. Though he states the gravamen to be what I have described, yet he has thought it necessary to dwell on all these matters, and especially to labor to prove that he is in favor of banks and a mixed currency, and that he is not for coming down to hard money alone, or for reducing wages to the hard-money standard. But, sir, he does not come to the point to which I have called his attention. I asked him more than once to tell me what he means in his speech, wherein, speaking of the failure in success of our manufactures and the remedy for that evil, he says, among other language equally forcible, "Reduce our nominal to the real standard of prices throughout the world, and you cover the country with blessings and benefits." This, he contended, is what the interests of the manufacturers require. Yes, sir, to reduce thus the prices of production and wages. I asked him what this standard of prices throughout the world was, and whether it was not hard money.speech goes to that point. Nor will he deny that, But to this no answer has been made. He does not meet the inquiry, but affirms he is for a mixed currency, and not for reducing wages to the humble pay of the serfs of Europe; but what is the meaning of this part of his speech? Has it none, or, if it has any, what is it? He is for reducing "the paper babble," in other words, bank paper, to this standard; and this is "to cover the country with blessings and benefits." Sir, take this language in connection with what I read from the in his opinion, the bill tends to reduce the cur- If I could be surprised at anything, it would be at the tone assumed in this controversy. The Senator talks of my hectoring him, and one would think he considered me the aggressor. Sir, let all who have heard and witnessed what has passed bear testimony to the unfounded character of such a suggestion, and to the manner in which the Senator proceeded to correct what at most could be no more than a misapprehension. The matter is unprovoked, and of the Senator's own seeking. Any misapprehension would have been cheerfully set right, if it had been pointed out in terms of courtesy. But the Senator chose to make this appeal in the way and manner in which it has been done, accompanied by language 26TH CONG....1ST SESS. which is unparliamentary, ungentlemanly, and untrue; and let the tribunal to which he has anpealed decide between us, and determine whether I have met his complaints, and whether there is the least ground to sustain his charge of misrepresentation. ABOLITION PETITIONS. SPEECH OF HON. JESSE A. BYNUM, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, On the resolution of Mr. THOMPSON, of South Carolina, on Mr. BYNUM said he had much regretted the progress of the present discussion now going on before the House, and exceedingly lamented the character it had assumed. It had been his object at an early stage of the session to arrest it by a move which he had then made, but for which he || had been rebuked and read a lecture from a quarter that he had least expected. He however felt no disposition at this time to recriminate and to wage war with those men who wore the profession of friendship to the South. The subject to him was of a magnitude too immense to involve in it even a personal consideration, and he should endeavor, if possible, to soar above all such. So far, in his judgment, this discussion had been conducted entirely to the injury of one section of this country, and with the greatest injustice to one of the great parties in this House, for the complete and entire vindication of both of which it would only be necessary to exhibit a plain statement of the facts and the history of the subjects involved, as they have transpired, both here, in this House, upon this floor, and elsewhere within the last five or six years, which, at a proper time, it is my design at present to do before I take my seat, if my health and strength should sustain me in the effort. But before he proceeded to that part of the subject he begged the House to excuse him while he noticed several remarks that had fallen from different gentlemen who had preceded him on the opposite side. The first of those whose remarks he would notice was the very honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] That gentleman had taken bold grounds. The gentleman had said, in substance, that before the rights of the abolitionists to petition upon the subject of slavery should be thwarted by this House, the whole people of the non-slaveholding States would rise en masse to revenge an indignity so flagrant and so violative of their constitutional rights. Now, sir, (said Mr. B.,) before a right can be violated, it appeared to him that some evidence, at least, of its existence should be made to appear. If the venerable and honorable member means that the abolitionists have any right to the slaves of the South, or interest in the existence of slavery there, then I would listen to his argument in demonstration of its violation by any action of this House. Sir, has he attempted, has he condescended to attempt, to show this? Then how has a right been violated that never has existed? The whole of such arguments are founded on assumption, and assumption alone; and what is such an assumption but a usurpation, or an attempt to usurp an interest, or the right in an interest, that never did exist, by purchase, acquiescence, gift, or contract? Sir, the whole idea of violating a right that never existed is both utopian and ridiculous. But, say gentlemen, the right is derived from the constitutional compacts. The Constitution, they say, has granted the right by declaring that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now, sir, is this the right to which they allude? If so, it is clearly no right at all, by a fair construction of that instrument. An impartial interpretation will not justify an inference so absurd. The whole object of this clause was to remove Abolition Petitions-Mr. Bynum. the infliction of some grievance, either personal or To indulge for a moment the idea that the pa- The clause of the Constitution, then, to which repeated allusions have been made, refers exclusively to grievances tangible, real, and substantial, and there cannot be a doubt of its framers having no other in contemplation at its formation. This, then, does not appear to me ever to have been one of those legitimate subjects of grievances entertained by the founders of the Government. The right of petition, then, sir, so far, may be well questioned, where there is neither interest nor grievance upon which to found the right to redress. It is manifest, therefore, that the right of petition is a relative one, and relates immediately to a redress of a substantial and direct grievance, and to none others, as a contrary supposition would involve a glaring absurdity and impracticability, to carry out which there can be no practical, sagacious statesman that does not now see that this whole country will be deluged with the blood of its own citizens. Such a right, if it were possible for it to exist, is too obscure and remote to be yielded without convulsing to the very center the entire Republic. No man will yield it, and all are ready now to resist it at the hazard of all that can make life desirable; and he that could desire its discussion, under present circumstances, here, must be blind, and of the most obtuse intellect-one who cannot have one single honest feeling for the tranquillity, peace, and prosperity of our common country. If ever the sacred compromise of the Constitution is rescinded, this will be the very question that will blow its sacred fragments into a thousand atoms. Yes, sir, it is to be the fatal rock upon which this mighty vessel of State, in which we have so triumphantly sailed for the better part of a century, will be wrecked and shivered into atoms; and any statesman, after reviewing what has transpired here within a few days past, is too blind to deserve a seat here if he has not been able to perceive it. The whole object of the petitioners is without license from the Constitution, and in opposition to the understanding of every member of the Convention that framed that instrument. This has not and cannot be denied even by the learned gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS.] But (says that honorable gentleman) his efforts are made in deference of a form-a mere etiquette, I suppose which by him is placed far beyond the duties that we owe to preserve the Constitution and the Union. Sir, the idea is preposterous, and can receive tolerance only from bookmen unpracticed in the art of life, and who alone are familiar with the impracticable theories of the closet; and here let me say to gentlemen, the prayer of the petitioners is not more unconstitutional than their grant would be inexpedient and impracticable. Then why, again I would ask, this agitation, this continued effort to disturb the peace Ho. OF REPS. and harmony of the country? The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] says that the South have caused it, that they keep up the agitation. How monstrous! The South the cause of it! Who have regularly introduced the subject for the last six years by folios of petitions-the South? No, sir; the idea is ridiculous, no mat-) ter from what quarter it comes. The South have) only begged to be let alone. Let her institutions alone and this is all she asks; and this she never mentions until you attempt here on this floor to invade her rights of property and the safety and security of her persons. This is the agits tion that the South is guilty of here through her Representatives, except a few who play in the hands of the abolitionists for political effect, regardless of their sacred allegiance to the South and its vital interests. Mr. Speaker, I have been amused for the few days past at the declarations of gentlemen who have embarked here in the cause of the abolitionists, while I have felt humiliated at times, as a southern man; and I doubt whether to attribute such declarations to arrogance or to their want of a better knowledge of southern men and of southern character. Gentlemen say just let them take this matter in their hands and they will manage it so as to quiet the abolitionists and to secure the peace of the country; we at the South do not understand this subject as well as themselves. Sir, this we have been told by the honorable members successively from Massachusetts, two from New York, and one from Pennsylvania, [Messrs. ADAMS, BIDDLE, GRANGER, and HUNT.] Most modest and high-minded gentlemen! Sir, this is adding insult to injury. What! yield to you the right and privilege of settling for us and our constituents this momentous question. Heavens! what a request. Have you not in this impeached either our integrity or competency? Surely, gentlemen, you are dreaming. You settle this question for the South! Never! never! Ideny your interest in it and repel the implicatian of ignorance on the subject. Sir, I throw it back, not in retort, but as a fact which may be clearly de-, monstrated by your own declarations here, displaying a most entire want of knowledge, yes, practical knowledge, not only of the subject before us, but an entire want of knowledge of the characters with whom you have to deal on the subject. You settle this question for us, without one particle of interest in it and without the most ordinary practical knowledge of it; and we, who have everything near and dear to man at stake, to set by, as mere idle spectators of the scene! Surely, I say, Mr. Speaker, gentlemen have forgotten the theme on which they are disposed to speak. No, sir; this is a southern question, exclusively so, and must be, and will be, settled by southern men, until they become traitors to their country and to themselves. But, says the honorable member from Massachusetts, [Mr. ADAMS,] they dread discussion coolly on this subject, and tells us that he is prepared to discuss the subject coolly and without agitation. Indeed, sir, what has the honorable member at stake that should excite and agitate him on this subject? Is his house in danger of the incendiary's torch? Are his fireside and household deities in peril of midnight insurrec tion? Are his wife and children hourly at the mercy of the black assassins, who are instigated by these discussions to acts of murder? Has he so early forgotten the bloody scenes of Southampton, that have so recently passed in a neighboring State? Can he suppose, and will it be asked of them, that those who are daily subject to the reacting of such a scene on them, shall, like him, look coldly on these bloody consequences? Has the gentleman, and others, given a moment's reflection on the incomparable differ ence in the condition of the parties whom he invites to this discussion? Have gentlemen condescended to compare the difference, in interest and feelings, which must of necessity exist between the two parties on this subject? Have they, will they, compare the enormous arrogance, and the trespasses about being made by one party, with the humble attitude of defense assumed and re solved on by the other? Sir, on the one side everything exists that can arouse and excite and inflame a man of sensibility or of honor; while, 26TH CONG....1ST SESS. on the other side, there is nothing but religious superstition, ignorance, or wantonness, or a thirst for mischief, that should excite, agitate, or inflame any man, except the deep detestation of the attempts of a fanaticism that is fraught with such incalculable disasters to the human race. Well may gentlemen on the other side, therefore, affect a serenity of temperament on this subject unknown to those who are so much more deeply interested in the discussion than themselves. But the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] contends that all this agitation and struggle is carried on merely for the right of petition. Can gentlemen be candid who make such assertions? For the right of petition! Why, sir, who denies that? Is there a solitary one in this House, either Whig or Democrat? No, sir! no, sir! not one of either party, where the prayer could be granted and carried out in conformity with the letter, spirit, and requisitions of the Constitution. The entire rights that we exercise here as Representatives are constitutional, and none others. Can we, then, justifiably entertain a proposition directly subversive of those rights, and remain faithful to the Constitution? I defy you to take the first step in the execution of the abject of your petitions without blowing into atoms every fragment of that glorious instrument under the authority of which we have alone convened here. What, then, is it but treason to every article of that sacred compact, that you do in entertaining this subject, which, the most stupid is now ready to admit, must annihilate its very existence? Hence the inconsistency in the positions taken by the gentlemen on the opposite side to me is wholly irreconcilable with every principle of reason, and equally so with any fair construction of your Constitution. But, sir, I will not argue the right of petition further, as I will show before taking my seat that it is used here as well as elsewhere, as a mere catch and humbug, to amuse and delude the ignorant into toils of revolution and blood. No man believes here, nor any intelligent one abroad, that the right of petition is, or ever has been, in danger by the action of this House; and it is used only as a mere platform upon which the abolitionists and their political friends wish to stand to hurl their firebrands of revolution and desolation at the sacred temple of your Constitution. It is a deception that they are attempting to play off upon the ignorant and credulous, to conceal the absurdity of their attempts and the enormity of their projects. No, sir, their object never has been to vindicate the right of petition. They do not say so in scarcely any of their reports or resolutions adopted by their different meetings; and it is used here to sustain them for want of any other plausible argument, and as the only one that gentlemen can excuse themselves by, for appearing here as their apologists. The whole attempt, therefore, I look upon as not less farcical than hypocritical, which has been clearly evinced to my mind by the remarks of nearly every member that has addressed the House in favor of the petitions. Not a speech have they made, scarcely, after telling us that their object was merely to defend the right of petition, before they have launched out on the evils of slavery, the inexpediency of its existence, and the necessity of its entire abolition, with the vilest denunciations against our institutions where it is tolerated, in which their whole feelings upon the subject have been satisfactorily, to my mind at least, developed; and I had only regretted that gentlemen had not the boldness to come out and declare their true positions upon the subject openly and freely. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] says that we should not only receive these petitions, but that they should be read, referred, reported upon, and discussed. Yes, all this to be done to observe a form, when it is admitted by all that it is impossible now to grant the prayers of the petitioners. Why such a sacrifice of substance to mere form? If our minds are perfectly made up on this subject as all are ready to acknowledge, why for the sake of this mere form keep up this agitation at the sacrifice of that substance that can alone hold together an hour the now freest Government on earth? Can such a course be sanctioned by any enlightened man living? But, you. Abolition Petitions—Mr. Bynum. say these gentlemen, our people (meaning abolitionists) only wish to discuss this question with Where the reason for consuming time in discussing when the minds of one party are irrevocably made up, of which again and again the other party has been told. This, too, however, is not what they say in their various resolutions, essays, and reports. They speak in them a very different language; they declare in tones of thunder their object to be abolition and universal emancipation, when their instruments here declare that they only contend for the right of petition and desire discussion, showing a total variance in the declarations of their advocates here and those set forth by themselves. There is mystery in this not to be overlooked by those most interested in this subject, and is enough to create a suspicion that there is something foul in these professions in the breast of the most unsuspecting among us. Is there no stratagem in all this; first, to get this subject legitimately on this floor and the right of discussing it here acquiesced in; and, by discussing and debating it the right of adjudicating it acknowledged by this House? Is it by this stealthy process that the abolitionists seek to insinuate their deadly poison within the walls of your Capitol? Is it by such means that they are to gain entrance and get their right to abolish slavery acknowledged on the floors of Congress? Sir, I implore southern gentlemen to mark the insidious progress of this bloody cloud that is now rising and threatens to pour out its unhallowed contents upon our devoted country. she We were told a few days ago by the honorable member from New York, [Mr. GRANGER,] and it was reiterated in substance by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the North had rights and dare maintain them. What, sir, was the meaning of this? What rights of the North have been threatened or invaded by the South? None, sir; none. The South knows too well its own rights and their value to invade that of others. This, sir, was a most unfortunate declaration, coming from the source it does, and will have the effect to open the eyes of every southern man in the nation. What rights have that gentleman's constituents to the South that they know or dare maintain? Is this the insinuation, at last leaked out, that he and his constituents have a right to the slave property in the South? Is this his meaning? Then I can only say in the language of a greater man, "Come and take them," and we will endeavor to give you a hearty welcome. Sir, the South wishes to meddle with no right of the North; desires nothing but friendship and brotherly love, the preservation of our Union, and the continuance of a liberal intercourse between us; but if the contest is to come that has been intimated by the honorable member, let me say to him, as brave, as gallant as may be his constituents, he will find spirits in the South as brave and gallant as they dare be, and with a cause in defense of their homes and firesides so just, that infants would rise from their cradles to do battle with a plundering foe. If these projects are persisted in, "to this complexion must it come at last," and the honest people of each section of country cannot know it too soon, who little dream at this time that a dire project is on foot by which they are to imbue their hands in their brother's blood. Yes, sir, the actors in this scene would keep dark, until, by exciting one portion of your countrymen against the other, they gradually and imperceptibly prepare the minds of the most innocent and unsuspecting people of each section of the country for the execution of their ruthless and diabolical purposes. I will not reply to the remarks about the abuse that is poured upon us by the English periodicals and penny posts that have been alluded to by the honorable member last up, from New York, [Mr. HUNT.] Their abuses against our institutions that recognize slavery cannot be greater than it || has ever been against the very form of our free Government, and our free republican institutions; nor less than it is against our religion and morals. From the subjects and vassals of kings and despots, Americans should never look for compliments. Sir, they owe us no good-will, and it is the height of folly, I have ever learned, to receive counsel from an enemy. But if one thing can be more laughable than LO. OF REPS. another, it is in the declaration of the gentleman [Mr. HUNT] who addressed the House on this subject last. I had long listened to the remarks of that honorable member, as I had to all that had preceded him on that side of the question, in endeavoring to explain, if possible, what their real object was, and what they really desired to effect, by the course that they wished this body to pursue in relation to these petitions, who has finally, after laboring nearly three hours, concluded by telling us that they, and the whole subject, ouglit to be given in charge "of him" of Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] to make such a report as he thought fit and proper on this subject. Yes, this is the novel idea, the modest request, that has just been made by an honorable member on the opposite side. Is it possible that any sane man can believe that the South could be thus cajoled into submission to such an act? Why not say place them in the hands of "him" from Vermont [Mr. SLADE] at once, and effect an entire surrender of everything that is dear to a southern man into the hands of those that they have long been taught to believe were their deadliest enemies on earth? Sir, I feel humbled that it did not meet with the deep detestation of every southern man on its utterance. What man who would assent to such a proposition here would dare return to the South and meet the frowns of his insulted and betrayed constituents? Do gentlemen believe that a report from such a source, however satisfactory to abolitionists, would be received as satisfactory to the South and the West? What! a report from a man, although he may be as pure as the icicles that are now hanging down from the domes of this magnificent edifice, or with a heart as spotless as the bleaching snow that now covers the puriieus of your Capitol, could produce nothing at this time, after what has recently transpired here, that could be received without exciting the greatest distrust in the mind of every man south of the Potomac! A report from one who we have been taught from earliest infancy was the great natural enemy of everything that is southern, to be received by them as satisfactory, is a thing that proves conclusively, to me, that the gentlemen are entirely uninformed upon the subject on which they have spoken, and know but little, indeed, of the true characters of those whom they have presumed to instruct upon this great question of national policy. The honorable member from Pennsylvania,[Mr. BIDDLE,] too, has come forward with great plausibility, and apparent candor, to advise and instruct those that have resisted the introduction and discussion of those petitions. He has given us a history of his last canvass, in which he has been pleased to inform us that he took ground against the abolitionists, and sustained himself; but that the course we have pursued here, in refusing to consider the petitions, is altogether erroneous; that it only increases their number, and keeps up the agitation of the subject. if, says he, you will receive, discuss, and report on them, you will put arguments in the mouths of those that oppose them that will effectually silence their complaints. With what truth this assertion is made (without impeaching the gentleman's veracity, as I dare say he believes what he has said) I will show, by incontestable evidence, before conclude. But that a gentleman of his distinguished talents could expect such a thing for such an object, is truly extraordinary. What, sir, does the gentleman ask? To give up a great constitutional question, in admitting the petitions to be received, debated, and decided on by this House for the mere experiment of putting arguments in the mouths of certain gentlemen who profess to be our friends, but never vote with us, to enable them to meet and silence the complaints of the abolitionists at home? Was the gentleman aware of the price that it was to cost us to put arguments in his mouth by abandoning the grounds that we have so long and uniformly taken upon this most vital question? Was he aware that it amounted to a direct request to surrender to the abolitionists the great constitutional grounds that we so long have contended for, and resolved on maintaining, at the hazard of life and fortune, and all that is dear to man upon this earth? Would it not virtually be placing the whole question in the power of Congress, at once, for an experiment that I will show has already 26TH CONG....1ST SESS. been tried and failed effectually? Such a course would be treasonable to every vital interest of the South. The admission of their right of action, which amounts to a jurisdiction of the question by Congress, is the first great point that the friends of the abolitionists desire to effect here; and, sir, if this be the friendship of the gentleman, may the Lord deliver the South from such friends. When the day arrives that this House attempts to assume the jurisdiction of this subject, and discuss it here, the days of the Republic will be numbered, and he who could desire to bring about such a discussion, can have but little love for the blessings arising from the freest Government on the earth, and it is a poor compliment indeed to the intelligence of any southern man, to suppose that he could be induced, for a moment, to tolerate a proposition so monstrous. I know, Mr. Speaker, and regret it most sincerely too, that there has been a resolution introduced by a southern man,* [Mr. CHINN, of Louisiana,] in the debate of the 3d January, at which the abolitionists and their friends have taken new courage, on which they build their greatest hope of success in entering this House. Such a proposition is all, I know, that the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. ADAMS] has been contending for here for the last six years, and is all that the abolitionists themselves expect to gain at present; but, sir, this unfortunate resolution cannot meet with the APPROBATION OF THE SOUTH. Abolition Petitions-Mr. Bynum. and to which I invoke the attention of every gen- "But, while such are my present impressions upon the HO. OF REPS. have had the goodness to call my attention, that I am in favor of an interference by Congress in manumitting your slave property, is destitute of foundation; so far from it, I do not see on what authority the General Government could interfere, without a change of the Constitution, even at the instance of either or of all the slaveholding States." Here, sir, is an avowal of the same sentiments without reserve or equivocation. This letter was written two years before his election to the Chief Magistracy; yet, with all this evidence before us, there are those so reckless, or ignorant, and des perate as to charge his supporters at the South with having betrayed the interests of the South upon this great question of southern rights for yielding him their support. But how has Mr. Van Buren acted since these declarations and pledges were given? Has he defaulted in the least in any one respect? No, sir. His very first act after his face of the world. In his inaugural address, he embraces the very first occasion to declare himself on this absorbing subject. Here, sir, are his sentiments as delivered to the American people in that most valuable and celebrated address. This concludes the paragraph. Now, sir, how different is the inference from that made by the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania! What southern man, uncontaminated by political preju-election was to renew those solemn pledges in the dices, could desire more? Here Mr. Van Buren declares to the world, in language emphatic, that the reasons for opposing the exercise of the power to abolish slavery in the District even, (mark that,) are 66 as imperative in their nature and obligations" as the most palpable want of constitutional power would be. Now, does he not acknowledge in this that the obligations on him are equally binding with any of a constitutional nature; and what more could an honest, honorable people desire? If he would not obey the one, he certainly would not the other. But I will read another extract from the same document to quiet, if possible, the consciences of gentlemen: "I prefer that not only you, but all the people of the United States, shall now understand, that if the desire of that portion of them which is favorable to my elevation to the Chief Magistracy should be granted I must go into the presidential chair the inflexible and uncompromising opponent of any attempt on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia against the wishes of the slaveholding States; and, also, with a determination equally decided, to resist the slightest interference with the subject in the States where it exists." Here, again, we have a reiteration of the same declarations in substance: "I must go into the presidential chair the inflexible and uncompro Congress to abolish slavery in the District," &c. Here is an additional confirmation of what I before read, but which the member from Pennsylvania did not read. And again I say, what more could have been asked? What further was necessary to be added to satisfy any man whose object was truth, in relation to this momentous subject? Had his declarations been all that he made then, they would have been sufficient for any inquirer after truth. But I will read further from the same: I will now, sir, once more, and for the last time, in this debate, pay my respects to the honorable member from Pennsylvania, [Mr. BIDDLE,] a gentleman, I confess, worthy of respect, both by the correctness of his deportment and his distinguished talents. The gentleman informed the House that he had resolved to leave us; that he was done with public life, and had no motives to misrepresent anything here. But sir, as he retires, Parthian like, he forgets not to hurl back, as he flies, his rankling javelin at his unvanquished foes. He most adroitly, I will not say insidiously, has introduced in this debate, not for po-mising opponent to any attempt on the part of litical effect, I hope, the opinions of the distinguished individual who is now at the head of this Administration. I saw, sir, the chuckle and smile of approbation that it created in a certain quarter, and I thought then how easy it would be, by a fuller statement of facts, to convert those smiles into lamentations and mourning. Now, sir, I will not accuse the gentleman from Pennsylvania of wanting candor, but if he had read but a few paragraphs more from the communication of the President to the Jackson committee, he would have deprived me of the trouble of doing it myself. He read, however, only enough of that document to place the President in a false position before the public, to the entire gratification of his enemies both here and abroad. Now I hold in my hand the same document, and will read more fully his opinions upon the subject referred to, and to show why they were received, as satisfactory to the South. In his reply to a committee of gentlemen, who addressed Mr. Van Buren on the subject, from the town of Jackson, North Carolina, under date, "Washington, March 6, 1836," he says: "Thus viewing the matter, I would not, from the lights now before me, feel myself safe in pronouncing that Congress does not possess the power of interfering with, or abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia."" Now, sir, so far the honorable member saw fit to read, and no further, from this document, and here was he disposed to leave the subject of Mr. Van Buren's opinions to the edification of his enemies both South and North; but I will supply the omission, and will commence with the very next word, and read the paragraph through, *Mr. CHINN demanded the yeas and pays, which were ordered. Mr. C. said that, before the question was taken, he would ask that a resolution which he would send to the Clerk's table, and which he intended to offer in case of the rejection of the other, might be read for information. The SPEAKER said it could only be read by leave. Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and addresses of every description, touching the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or in the States or Territories, or in any manner relating to the existence of slavery or the slave trade in the United States, be referred, without debate, to a select committee, with instructions to consider and report thereon. "I do, therefore, believe that the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia against the wishes of the slaveholding States (assuming that Congress has the power to effect it) would violate the spirit of that compromise of interests which lies at the basis of our social compacts; and I am thoroughly convinced that it could not be so done without imniinent peril, if not certain destruction, to the union of the States. Viewing the matter in this light, it is my clear and settled opinion that the Federal Government ought to abstain from doing so, and that it is the sacred duty of those whom the people of the United States intrust with the control of its action, so to use the constitutional power with which they are invested as to pre vent it." it." Sir, could a position on this subject be more clearly defined? Could the South, if they ever intended to support a Northern man, expect to get one more explicit, more decided, more satisfactory? I submit it to every man of reflection, that has the least candor or honesty about him. "So to use the constitutional power as to prevent Can any man doubt the meaning of this? No, sir; no, sir; there are none who look to the interest of the South, and place this subject above their paltry party feelings. But let me tell gentlemen, long bfore the date of this letter, Mr. Van Buren expressed similar sentiments to the above, when he was not before the people as a candidate for their suffrages for the presidency of the United States. In a letter to Mr. Gwynn, of the State of Mississippi, in 1834, he used this language, in reply to one written to him on this subject: "My opinions on the subject of the power of Congres over slave property in the Southern States are so well un derstood by my friends, that I am surprised that an attempt to impose upon the public respecting them should be hazarded. The subject is, in my judgment, exclusively under the control of the State governments; and I am not apprised, nor do I believe that a contrary opinion to an extent deserving consideration, is entertained in any part of the United States. The charge, therefore, to which you Mr. B. then read the following extracts: "The last, perhaps the greatest, of the prominent sources of discord and disaster supposed to lurk in our political condition, was the institution of domestic slavery. Our forefathers were deeply impressed with the delicacy of this subject, and they treated it with a forbearance so evidently wise, that, in spite of every sinister foreboding, it never, until the present period, disturbed the tranquillity of our common country. Such a result is sufficient evidence of the justice and patriotism of their course; it is evidence not to be mistaken, that an adherence to it can prevent all embarrassment from this as well as from every other anticipated cause of difficulty or danger. Have not recent events made it obvious to the slightest reflection that the least deviation from this spirit of forbearance is injurious to every interest, that of humanity included? Amid the violence of excited passions, this generous and fraternal feeling has been sometimes disregarded; and standing as I now do before my countrymen in this high place of honor and of trust, I cannot refrain from anxiously invoking my fellow-citizens never to be deaf to its dictates. Perceiving, before my election, the deep interest this subject was beginning to excite, I believed it a solemn duty fully to make known my sentiments in regard to it; and now, when every motive for misrepresentation has passed away, I trust that they will be candidly weighed and understood; at least they will be my standard of conduct in the path before me. I then declared that if the desire of those of my countrymen who were favorable to my election was gratified, 'I must go into the presidential chair the inflexible and uncom promising opponent of every attempt, on the part of Con gress, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia against the wishes of the slaveholding States; and also with a determination equally decided to resist the slightest interference with it in the States where it exists.' I submitted also to my fellow-citizens, with fullness and frankness, the reasons which led me to this determination. The result authorizes me to believe that they have been approved, and are confided in, by a majority of the people of the United States, including those whom they most immediately affect. It now only remains to add, that no bill conflicting with these views can ever receive my constitutional sanction." Such, sir, are the sentiments contained in his inaugural address to the people of this country. "No bill," says he, "conflicting with these views, can ever receive my constitutional sanction." What equivocation, noncommittalism, or mental reserve is here shown? What more, again I ask, can any true friend to the South desire on this subject? and how has Mr. Van Buren demeaned himself since his elevation to the Presidency, upon this subject? What pledge is it that he has not complied with, to the letter, that he has ever made to the American people? I defy calumny itself to point to one. Such, then, is the evidence that the South has for believing him sound on this great and paramount subject. Such is their justification for sustaining him without fear upon this subject. Such is the evidence in relation to his own personal and political course; and I here ask and demand to know, if any there are that now think it unsatisfactory. It will not do for them now to say he does not deny the constitutional right to interfere in the District-when their idol, Mr. Clay, is a fathom more deeply committed in its favor than Mr. Van Buren, who admits there are obligations equally binding on him against interference as his constitutional obligations would be. that Having considered what Mr. Van Buren has said and done on this subject, I will now show what his friends who sustain him have said and done. Yes, sir, and have been said and done on this floor, in the Hall of the Congress of the United States. Yes, I will not, by denunciation, or dec'lamation, endeavor to show, but will do it by an exhibition of the records of this House, that no the journals before I dismiss the subject? Mr. FILLMORE said he did not understand man will dare dispute, what course has been pur-party-something of which I propose to show by sued here in relation to this subject, by what their opponents have been pleased to call Van Buren Democrats. I will commence with the history of the subject since the formation of the present parties, up to which time the subject of abolition had never been considered or seriously entertained by this body. But before I proceed with this exposition of the recorded facts which have taken place here, before our own eyes, by the parties, many of whom are still present, and now with us, I must beg to notice one further remark made by the honorable member from New York, [Mr. HUNT,] who immediately preceded me in this debate, and here I will take the occasion to say, that the same trick, disengenuousness, and hypocritical design, seem to have characterized the speeches of nearly every gentleman, whether from the North or from the South, of that party, who have addressed the House on this subject. It seems to have been the settled plan of the party, or they have adopted it with a uniformity that excludes all supposition of its occurring by accident, of arraigning the Democratic party and denouncing them for attempting to make, as they are pleased to call it, political capital out of the subject of abolition, while, sir, there has not been one of them who has spoken on that side who has not attempted to produce the impression that the Democrats were the abolitionists, and the Whigs deserved great credit for the noble stand that they had taken on the subject. This, sir, was the intended SAUCE for our southern palate, while, in the next breath, if he was a northern Whig particularly, he would inveigh and rant most furiously against the denials by the Democrats to the North and South of the most holy and sacred right of petition. This, sir, was their sauce for the palates of the fanatics of the North. While this game has been carried on by the abolitionists and their advocates on this floor the southern wing of the same party have invariably risen and denounced, in the most unmeasured terms, those Democrats of the North who have dared to come forward to take one step toward the maintenance of the rights of the South by voting for such resolutions as the South might consider safe, while they pass unnoticed, and frequently with fulsome compliments, those very northern Whigs and abolitionists, from whom they cannot get a vote even for any one of their own propositions; not one step taken by them against abolitionists. By such means have southern Whigs endeavored to draw off from the support of such measures as the South felt disposed to adopt for her own security; and to excuse themselves to the South for such a course here they profess to be in favor of the most ultra measures for southern institutions; measures that they believed no man living, not in a slaveholding State, dare go for, and by this maneuver (to make political capital themselves) draw off the only men who have dared to stand by the South at all, and confound them with the whole body of the abolitionists-their own friends-the Whig party of the North. This is the game now played here, to the deadly injury of every southern interest; a game that now has become as clear to the eye of every intellectual, intelligent man as noonday; a sophistry and deception too flimsy, let me tell these gentlemen, to escape the penetration of any plain, practical, discerning man. Sir, so barefaced have these practices become since the recent events of a certain convention (pointing toward Harrisburg) that it is difficult for a southern man to rise in his place here and complain of the injustice done by these petitioners to their institutions without getting around his ears a swarm from the southern wing of a certain party. Can it be that these men are so exceedingly blind as to flatter themselves that by bullying and their adroitness in debate they can excuse this conduct before an unseduced and uncorrupted people? Sir, let me say to these gentlemen that such a course is at the sacrifice of the dearest rights and interests of the South; and if they ever succeed with their ultra measures they will have to rely alone for that success on the votes of those very men of the North who are the daily theme of their bitter denunciation. And how then will they reconcile this course with the gratitude that every sincere friend of the South must owe this Mr. PRENTISS, by the permission of Mr. B., made the following explanation of the case referred to above. Mr. P. said Mr. HUNT, of New York, in his remarks of yesterday, referred to the fact that Mr. Levi S. Chatfield, who represents the county of Otsego in the Assembly of that State, had moved to insert the name of Gerrit Smith, a leading abolitionist, in a bill appointing a United States Senator, and spoke of it as an evidence that the Democrats of the North favored that interest, Mr. Chatfield being, he said, a prominent member of that party, and its candidate for Speaker of the body of which he is a member. HO. OF REPS. ridiculous statements that they seldom ever gave him much pain. The gentleman, too, contradicted himself before he got through with his story. He told us that Smith was stopped from his lectures in Utica by the Democratic mob, and he was compelled to retire to his own residence, some distance from the town, to effect his object; which showed clearly what a favorite he and his doctrines were with the Democratic party there. Now, he doubted very much if Smith himself was not a Whig; he had heard so, at least. Other instances might be cited of abolitionists being in the Democratic party, he had no doubt. Sir, I dare say there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of abolitionists in the Democratic party. No man has ever doubted but that there were some, nor that there were Federalists in that party, and members of every other denomination-Quakers, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Catholics and Jews, if you please. This no man has ever undertaken to deny. Sir, there ever will be good and bad in all churches, backsliders and hypocrites, and it is the same with parties. But the characters of such churches, societies, and parties are only affected seriously by such until a majority of their members are proven to be of such materials, and in their proportion to the whole body. My design is not, therefore, to speak of individual instances, upon which so much stress is laid by the opposite party, not only here, but throughout the country, where they have attempted to confound the parties for political effect and deception, and which has rendered it so indispensably necessary (for a fair understanding of their position and relation) that the whole history of the course that each of the parties have pursued as bodies, parties, and societies, should be exhibited as it stands on the unalterable records and Journals of the House. Sir, I will not stoop to deal in "as I am informed, and as I have heard." Such evidence does not become this or any other deliberative body upon so grave a subject. Up to the time of 1834, 1835, and 1836 this subject had produced but little excitement in any part of this country. The abolition of slavery in the West Indies, by the English, first put this ball in motion in this country through those who so much admired English institutions, who readily seized on the religious fanaticism of our northern brethren, who are known to be exceedingly inflammable from the influence which their priests and ministers exercise over them throughout that section of country, in some parts of which old England herself is not more priest-ridden; and I doubt much if the whole project is not of English birth, brought into this country and nurtured through the affiliation of both the churches of England and America; and it is hence nothing more nor less than a covert Mr. P. asked leave to say a word in reply to the imputation upon Mr. Chatfield of being an abolitionist. He said that Mr. Chatfield was one of his constituents, and that the gentleman from New York [Mr. HUNT] had spoken truly when he pronounced him to be a man of talents and influence. Mr. P. knew him well, and could assure the House that he was a Democrat; and one, too, who had been a uniform opponent of abolition-religious crusade against our Government, our ism, not only in the county of Otsego, but in the legislative hall of his State, where the Democrats had sent him for the last two years to look after their interests. In the preliminary action of the Assembly on the question of appointing a Senator, Mr. Chatfield having been called on to nominate a candidate, named Eben B. Morehouse, who is a resident of the same town where my home is, and who has on every suitable occasion repudiated abolition doctrines and sentiments; but in the further progress of the question a bill was introduced for consummating the appointment, and Mr. Chatfield, finding that the Whigs were determined that no other name but that of Nathaniel P. Tallmadge should be inserted in it, and after the names of Albert H. Troy and Addison Gardner, two distinguished gentlemen of the opposite politics, had been rejected, moved that of Gerrit Smith, as a sort of burlesque upon the whole proceeding, which was carried on in such "hot haste" as to break over all rules of legislation, the majority even refusing to print the bill which solemnized the marriage banns between whiggery and conservatism. Mr. BYNUM said this had terminated just as he had expected when he heard it fall from the lips of the gentleman from New York. It was so perfectly in character with the statements which that party are in the daily habit of making upon every subject that they touched that it never made the least impression on his mind as to its truth. He was so accustomed to their idle and Union, and our liberty. Look you, sir, at every petition in every public meeting or convention, and you will find the very "ear marks" of ministerial instrumentality nearly in every step and thing that has been taken and done on this subject; and who are now entering into the political arena of this country and entwining themselves around one or the other of the great political parties of the nation. My whole object now, by ref erence to these facts, is to show by which party they have been most countenanced and sustained upon this floor, that the American public may be abused no longer by the most odious misrepresentations of partisan politicians and party presses. To these facts I earnestly invite the attention of every member of the House, and every American citizen out of it, that would be informed on the subject. Here are the records, the resolutions, and propositions, and the names recorded of those that sustained and those that supported them: Twenty-Fourth Congress, Journals of the House of Representatives, January 6, 1836, page 141. Mr. JARVIS (a Democrat from Maine) submitted the following, namely: "Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, the subject of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress. "And be it further resolved, That in case any petition praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia be hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opinion of this House that the same ought to be laid upon the table without being referred or printed. "The resolution being read, "A motion was made by Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, that the resolution do lie on the table." |