SPEECH
. JAMES H. HAMMOND,
DELIVERED AT
4 u
I -
BARNWELL C. H.,
OCTOBER 29TH, 1858.
CHARLESTON;
STEAM POWER PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS & CO.
1858.
SPEECH
of
. JAMES H. HAMMOND,
delivered at
BARNWELL C. H.,
OCTOBER 29th, 1858.
CHARLESTON :
steam power press of walker evans & co.
.1858.
SPEECH.
I thank you very sincerely for this kind and cordial recep¬
tion. To stand here and speak to the people of Barnwell
reminds me of times long gone by. I have done it, I believe,
but once in more than twenty years. But those were stirring
times when, a quarter of a century ago, I so often spoke to
you here of the Constitution and the Union—of your rights
and wrongs in this confederacy. No, not to you, but to your
fathers. I am, indeed, happy to recognize in this assemblage
many who were actors in those scenes ; but many, many
more, have been summoned hence, while you have grown up
to supply their places. The gallant spirits who then sur¬
rounded me here, and whose kindling eyes and heaving
bosoms animated and responded to my speech, have for the
most part passed away; but the theme is still the same; and
it is my part to-day, adhering with unchanged conviction and
unabated zeal to every principle I then maintained, to dis¬
course upon the same great topics. Our battle then was for
the Constitution and our rights, in the Union, if possible—out
of it, if need be. And this is our battle now.
The lapse of thirty years has brought much experience to
the survivors of those who enlisted for this great cause in
South Carolina. The veil of what was then the future—a
future covered with angry clouds and doubt and darkness—
has been removed, and looking back, we now see the events
of long years which were unknown to us. The hard fought
fields: our chequered fortunes; our victories; our defeats;
the dead, the living, all then deep buried in the womb of time,
are now all clear and palpable. And to those of us who have
been spared to make this retrospect, it is a proud satisfaction
to know, that time and events have proved that our principles
were true and our cause just; to recognize the unflinching
courage and overpowering ability with which they have been
so long maintained, and to feel renewed assurance that they
must finally and fully triumph.
4
Your fathers confided in me from the first moment that we
met upon this spot. They took me in their arms and lifted
me into all the high places that were within their reach; and
I have had many proofs that they taught you to confide in
me as they had done. For this great and generous and abid¬
ing confidence and trust, I never knew but one reason; and
that was, that I always told them the truth, according to my
best knowledge and belief. And as I dealt with them, I shall
deal with you.
The last Legislature of the State conferred on me the high
honor of a seat in the Senate of the United States, and during
the late stormy session of Congress, I in part represented you
there. You will expect me to give you some account of the
proceedings there, and most especially of those which occu¬
pied four-fifths of the time of the session, and produced such
great excitement throughout the country. I allude to the
Kansas question. And as no exception has been taken, so
far as I know, to any act of mine, save my course on that, I
will take this occasion to give my views in full upon it.
When, four years ago, the Kansas and Nebraska act was
passed, giving governments to those territories, I was, like
most of you, a private citizen. I was earnestly engaged in
renovating old lands, and creating new out of morasses
hitherto impenetrable, and I had as little desire or expecta¬
tion of ever again taking a part in public affairs, as the least
ambitious of you here present. I made up my mind then
that this bill was fraught with delusion and trouble to the
South, and so expressed myself on all suitable occasions.
The bill had two leading features in it. It enacted that
every territory, in forming its constitution for the purpose of
applying for admission into the Union, should have the right
to establish its own organic or constitutional laws, and come
in with its own institutions, with the single condition that
they should be republican. Why, unless our constitution is
mere waste paper, all our institutions shams, and our theory
of self-government a fallacy, this principle and privilege is
their essence; lies at the bottom of the whole and consti¬
tutes the corner stone. It is the very right for which our
5
fathers fought and made a revolution. I might not have
refused to re-affirm it, but it was supererogatory ; it might
well weaken the whole structure to dig up, for the purpose
of verification, its foundation.
The other feature of the bill was the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise line. That was already repealed. It had long
fulfilled its mission. It had calmed the troubled waters for a
time. It was obsolete until the annexation of Texas, when
we acceded to the demand to extend it through the northern
deserts of that State. But when California came—California
that should have been, and may yet be, a slave State—and
we demanded to extend that line to the Pacific, and thus se¬
cure for the South a portion of the magnificent territory pur¬
chased in part by her blood and treasure, it was refused.
Then that line was blotted out everywhere and forever. To
repeal it was a mere formality. The Supreme Court has
recently pronounced it unconstitutional, and so the repeal
was in no respect of any importance.
But this bill, with these two features, neither of them of any
practical importance, magnified and exaggerated by orators and
newspapers into a great southern victory, led the South into
the delusion that Kansas might be made a slave State, and in¬
duced it to join in a false and useless issue, which has kept
the whole country in turmoil for the last four years, and gave
fresh life and vigor to the abolition party.
Through the most disgusting, as well as tragic scenes of
fraud and force, the Territory of Kansas at last came before
Congress for admission as a State, with what is known as the
Lecompton constitution, embodying slavery among its pro¬
visions. But at the same time the convention, by an ordi¬
nance, demanded of the United States some twenty-three mil¬
lions of acres of land, instead of the four millions usually al¬
lowed to new States containing public lands. It was almost
certain that a majority of the people of Kansas were opposed
to this constitution, but would not vote on it; and this addi¬
tional nineteen millions, which, if allowed, would probably
have kept them again from the recent polls, was what the
South was expected to pay for that worthless slavery clause,
6
which would have been annulled as soon as Kansas was ad¬
mitted. I confess my opinion was that the South herself
should kick that constitution out of Congress. But the South
thought otherwise. When the bill for its adoption was framed
with what is called the Green Proviso, 1 strenuously objected
to it, and felt very much disposed to vote against the whole,
but again gave up to the South, which accepted it by accla¬
mation. If that proviso meant nothing, and so I interpreted
it, it was nonsense and had no business there, being without
precedent. If it could be made to mean anything, it must
have been something wrong and dangerous. But, as I said,
the South took that bill far and wide. The House rejected it.
They passed then the Crittenden substitute, which proposed
to submit the Lecompton Constitution to a vote of the people
of Kansas, and to accept it, if ratified by them. The Senate
had previously refused that substitute, and did so a second
time. It then asked a committee of conference. That com¬
mittee reported what is called the " English Bill." By that
bill Congress accepted the Lecompton constitution, pure and
simple without proviso. The Land Ordinance of the Lecomp¬
ton Convention, which was in no wise a part of the constitu¬
tion, but a separate measure, demanded, as I have said, a do¬
nation of some twenty-three millions of acres of land, being
nineteen millions more than had been given to any other land
State. The English Bill cut this down to the usual amount
of four millions of acres, and required that the people of Kansas
should ratify this modification, and surrender all claim to the
remainder of the lands, as the condition of her final admis¬
sion. Such a requisition has been made on every new State,
carved out of the public lands, that has been admitted into
this Union—sometimes in the enabling act, and where there
was not one, always after accepting the constitution. Go to
the statutes of Congress and you will find it in every one of
them; It is the custom, it is necessary, and this feature in the
English Bill was in accordance with strict precedent. The
only difference is this: that usually the Legislature of the State
has been required to accept this compact by an irrevocable act,
but in this case it was referred to the people of Kansas directly.
7
In this there was no sacrifice of principle whatever, nor was
it without precedent altogether, for in the case of the State last
before admitted, Iowa, this question had been submitted to the
legislature or the people, as Iowa might prefer. This is the
whole sum and substance of this English bill, except that it
further declared that unless the people of Kansas accepted this
modified ordinance, they should not be admitted as a State
until they had a population that would entitle them to one
Representative under the federal apportionment. I voted for
this bill; I voted properly; I voted no compromise; I sacri¬
ficed no particle of principle or southern interest. It is true
its phraseology is halting and bungling. It was drawn up
hastily and in great excitement. I objected to the wording
of it in several passages, but I assured myself that nothing
sinister was designed, and I voted for it, leaving its authors re¬
sponsible for its diction on the statute book. I thought it
preferable to the first bill the Senate passed, and voted for it
more willingly. It is true some northern democrats who voted
against the Senate bill voted for this, and thus it was carried*
But was that a reason why I should not vote for it? Does
that prove that I sacrificed any principle ? They found them¬
selves wrong, and perhaps wanted some excuse to retrace their
steps. I was happy to assist in giving it to them without cost
to ourselves. I was particularly pleased to get rid of the mys¬
terious proviso of the first bill, and to require a solemn com¬
pact in regard to the public lands, which had not been properly
provided for in that bill.
The only principle involved in this whole Kansas affair—
if an affair so rotten, from beginning to end, can have a prin¬
ciple at all—was this: Would Congress admit a slave State
into the Union? The Senate said yes. The House, by
adopting the Crittenden substitute, said yes, if we are assured
that a majority of the people of the State are in favor of it.
For this substitute all the opposition voted in both Houses,
so that every member of Congress, of all parties, first and last,
committed themselves to the principle and policy that a State
should be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery,
according to the will of its own people—thus reenacting one
8
feature of the Kansas and Nebraska bill. I should myself
have been willing to rest there, and let Kansas rest also.
Whatever there was of principle or honor in the matter was
secured by the votes already given. The English bill, how¬
ever, came up in due course, and I voted for it cheerfully,
believing that it was better calculated than any that had been
offered to close up this miserable business, which has fur¬
nished much the most disgraceful chapter, so far, in our
history.
But it is said that in submitting this land ordinance to a
vote of the people of Kansas, Congress submitted also the
Lecompton constitution with its pro-slavery clause. If so,
the passage in which it was done can surely be pointed out.
Badly drawn up as the hill is, I should like to see the clause
or the words that would justify such an assertion. If there
was such a clause, why did not Judge Douglas and his friends
vote for it ? Why did not the black republicans and all who
voted for the Crittenden substitute which submitted the con¬
stitution, vote for this bill ? It was the very point they made,
yet to a man they voted against it. That, I think, should be
conclusive.
But, then, it is said it was a virtual submission of the con¬
stitution to the people, because, if they refused to ratify the
modified land ordinance, the admission of Kansas under the
Lecompton constitution was defeated. Well, the facts are so;
I cannot and do not deny them. But I should like to know
how that could by any possibility have been avoided or reme¬
died. Suppose Congress had admitted Kansas without modi¬
fying anything, yielding even to her enormous " land grab,"
which embraced many more acres than there are in all
South Carolina, I should like to know if the Lecompton
constitution would not still have been submitted to the people
as virtually as it was by the English bill; that is, not sub¬
mitted at all, but left with them—an inevitable necessity.
Congress could do no more, no less, no other way. The
constitution belonged to the people of Kansas. Congress
could not withhold it from them a moment, nor could it make
them organize under it, assemble their Legislature, assume
9
the position of a State, and send Senators and Representatives
to Congress against their own will. Can Congress coerce a
State into the Union ? Then Congress can coerce a State to
remain in the Union, or drive a State out of it. Congress is
omnipotent. But where are then the rights of the States ?
Fortunately for us, the constitution of every State and of every
Territory asking to be a State, is not only virtually but actu¬
ally in the hands of its people at all times and under all
circumstances, and they cannot be divested of that control
without the utter destruction of the constitution and an entire
revolution. The whole power of Congress in the premises is
exhausted when it accepts the constitution without condition.
There are some who go still further, and assert that,
although there might be no way to avoid a submission of the
Lecompton constitution to the control of the people of Kan¬
sas, yet that the conference bill was a compromise of principle,
inasmuch as it specifically required them to act, and it made
for them the definite opportunity to defeat the constitution as
well as the ordinance. Now this is true as a fact, yet the
inference is absurd upon its very face. If Congress could not
take the Lecompton constitution out of the hands of the
people of Kansas, what difference did it make whether they
voted on the ordinance in August, under the direction of
Congress, or any other time, whether fixed by Congress or
themselves ? August was agreed upon, because it was very
well to set a time and let things end. But from August to
August, again and forever, this constitution was in the hands
of the people of Kansas, and they could do with it what they
pleased. True, Congress might have avoided that specific
occasion and August vote by swallowing the land ordinance
and all, and asking no security for the remainder of the public
lands; but still Kansas could have refused to organize as
a State, and no power under our constitution could have
interfered. It is all words, and nothing more. Congress was
charged with bribing Kansas to become a slave State. But
the bribe was by the conference bill, four millions of acres of
land instead of twenty-three millions. If we had given her
the whole twenty-three millions for her useless slavery clause
10
there might have been some ground for the charge. Yet
it would have been of no avail, for Kansas could, under
no bribe or coercion known to our Government, have
been compelled to accept the constitution or ordinance, or
become a State against her will at any period whatever. I
will not presume that any one is less proficient in constitu¬
tional lore, or is less conversant with the history of congres¬
sional proceedings in the admission of new States than
myself. But I will say that I am incapable of comprehending
them at all if in this conference bill there was any " compro¬
mise" of southern principle or interests, any concession what¬
ever by the South, any departure from the strictest construc¬
tion of the constitution, or any material deviation from the
usual practice of the Government.
The people of Kansas have, by an overwhelming majority,
rejected the land ordinance as modified by Congress, and re¬
fused to come into the Union on such terms. Be it so. It
is what I expected—what I rather desired. It sorts precisely
with what 1 felt when I saw Kansas thrust herself into Con¬
gress and demand—reeking with blood and fraud—to be en¬
rolled among the States. Let her stay out I am opposed to
her coming in before she has the requisite population: not
because she will be a free State, but because I fully approved
of the prohibitory clause of the conference bill, and for that
reason voted against the admission of Oregon. Unless in
exceptional cases, such as that of Kansas was last winter, I
do not think that a State should be admitted with less popu¬
lation than would entitle her to a member of the House. It
is not just to the other States, and is not consonant with the
theory of our government.
But I will not detain you longer with what belongs to the
past. The present and the future are what concerns us most.
You desire to know my opinion of the course the South
should pursue under existing circumstances. I will give you
frankly and fully the results of my observation and reflection
on this all-important point. The first question is, do the
people of the South consider the present union of these States
as an evil in itself, and a thing that it is desirable we should
11
get rid of under all circumstances ? There are some, I know,
who do. But I am satisfied that an overwhelming majority
of the South would, if assured that this government was here¬
after to be conducted on the true principles and construction
of the constitution, decidedly prefer to remain in the Union,
rather than incur the unknown costs and hazards of setting
up a separate government. 1 think I state what is true when
I say that, after all the bitterness that has characterized our
long warfare, the great body of the southern people do not
seek disunion, and will not seek it as a primary object, how¬
ever promptly they may accept it as an alternative, rather
than submit to unconstitutional abridgments of their rights.
I confess that, for many years of my life, I believed that our
only safety was the dissolution of the Union, and I openly
avowed it. I should entertain and without hesitation express
the same sentiments now, but that the victories we have
achieved and those that I think we are about to achieve,
have inspired me with the hope, I may say the belief, that we
can fully sustain ourselves in the Union and control its
action in all great affairs. It may be well asked how I can
entertain such views and expectations, when within these
few years the South has lost her equality in the Senate, and
the free States have at length a decided majority in both
Houses of Congress, while this unfortunate Kansas contest
has swept into their political graves so many of our ancient
friends in those States, that it may be doubted whether they
have at this moment, after the recent elections—the finale of
the disastrous Kansas abortion—a majority in any single one
of them ; and there seems to be at present no prospect of our
extending the area of slavery in any quarter.
These facts are true, and if you will bear with me I will
place them all in the strongest light I can before you—for it is
of the utmost importance that we should at least see clearly
how we stand, and what are our resources, in order to form
an idea of what we can do, and how avoid wasting our
strength on what cannot be accomplished. The equality of
the free and slave States has long been lost in the House; by
the admission of California it was lost in the Senate. Since
12
hen another free State has been admitted, and another yet
has passed the Senate, and in a few years more we shall have
Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, New Mexico, and perhaps
others, on our roll. The emigration from Europe to the
North is sufficient to form one or more new States every
year. To the South there is literally no emigration. We
have, since the closing of the slave trade, added to our popu¬
lation mainly by the natural increase of our people, and we
have no surplus population, white or black, to colonize new
States. We lost Kansas partly by our inability to colonize it,
and we are perhaps yet to have a struggle for a portion ot
Texas. The idea then of recovering the equality of the two
sections, even in the Senate, seems remote indeed. We have
it proposed to re-open the African slave trade, and bring in
hordes of slaves from that prolific region to restore the bal¬
ance. I once entertained that idea myself, but on further
investigation I abandoned it. I will not now go into the dis¬
cussion of it, further than to say that the South is itself di¬
vided on that policy, and, from appearances, opposed to it by
a vast majority, while the North is unanimously against it.
It would be impossible to get Congress to re-open the trade.
If it could be done then it would be unnecessary, for that
result could only be brought about by such an entire aban¬
donment by the North and the world of all opposition to our
slave system, that we might safely cease to erect any defences
for it. But if we could introduce slaves, where could we
find suitable territory for new slave States! The Indian
Reserve, west of Arkansas, might make one. But we have
solemnly guaranteed that to the remnants of the red race.
Everywhere else, I believe, the borders of our States have
reached the great desert which separates the Atlantic from
the Pacific States of this confederacy. No where is African
slavery likely to flourish in the little oasis of that Sahara of
America. It is much more likely I think to get the Pacific
slope, and to the north in the great valley, than any where
else outside of its present limits. Shall we, as some suggest,
take Mexico and Central America to make slave States ?
African slavery appears to have failed there. Perhaps, and
13
most probably, it will never succeed in those regions. If it
might*, what are we to do with the seven or eight millions of
hardly semi civilized Indians, and the two or three millions
of Creole Spaniards and mongrels who now hold those coun¬
tries ? We would not enslave the Indians ? Experience has
proven that they are incapable of steady labor, and are
therefore unfit for slavery. We would not exterminate them,
even if that inhuman achievement would not cost ages of
murder and incalculable sums of money. We could hardly
think of attempting to plant the black race there, superior
for labor, though inferior perhaps in intellect, and expect to
maintain a permanent and peaceful industry, such as slave
labor must be, to be profitable, amid those idle, restless, de¬
moralized children of Montezuma, scarcely more civilized,
perhaps more sunk in superstition than in his age, and now
trained to civil war by half a century of incessant revo¬
lution. What, I say, could we do with these people or
these countries to add to southern strength ? Nothing. Could
we degrade ourselves so far as to annex them on equal terms,
they would be sure to come into this Union free States all.
To touch them in any way is to be contaminated. England
and France, I have no doubt, would gladly see us take this
burthen on our back, if we would secure for them their
debts and a neutral route across the Isthmus. Such a route
we must have for ourselves, and that is all we have to do
with them. If we cannot get it by negotiation or by pur¬
chase, we must seize and hold it by force of arms. The law
of nations would justify it, and it is absolutely necessary for
our Pacific relations. The present condition of those un¬
happy States is certainly deplorable, but the good God holds
them in the hollow of his hand and will work out. their
proper destinies.
We might expand the area of slavery by acquiring Cuba,
where African slavery is already established. Mr. Calhoun,
from whose matured opinions, whether on constitutional prin¬
ciples or southern policy, it will rarely be found safe to depart,
said that Cuba was "forbidden fruit" to us, unless plucked in
an exigency of war. There is no reasonable ground to sup-
14
pose that we can acquire it in any other way; and the war
that will open to us such an occasion will be great and* gene¬
ral, and bring about results that the keenest intellect cannot
now anticipate. But if we had Cuba, we could not make
more than two or three slave States there, which would not
restore the equilibrium of the North and South; while, with
the African slave trade closed, and her only resort for slaves
to this continent, she would, besides crushing out our whole su¬
gar culture by her competition, afford in a few years a market for
all the slaves in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. She is,
notwithstanding the exorbitant taxes imposed on her, capable
now of absorbing the annual increase of all the slaves on this
continent, and consumes, it is said, twenty to thirty thousand
a year by her system of labor. Slaves decrease there largely.
In time, under the system practiced, every slave in Amer¬
ica might be exterminated in Cuba as were the Indians.
However the idle African may procreate in the tropics, it yet
remains to be proven, and the facts are against the conclusion,
that he can, in those regions, work and thrive. It is said
Cuba is to be "Africanized" rather than that the United States,
should take her. That threat, which at one time was somewhat
alarming, is no longer any cause of disquietude to the South?
after our experience of the Africanizing of St. Domingo and
Jamaica. What have we lost by that ? I think we reaped some
benefit; and, if the slaves of Cuba are turned loose, a great sugar
culture would grow up in Louisiana and Texas, rivalling that
of cotton, and diverting from it so much labor that cotton would
rarely be below its present price.
You must not suppose, for a moment, that I am opposed to
"the expansion of the area of African slavery." On the con¬
trary, I believe that God created negroes for no other purpose
than to be the " hewers of wood and drawers of water"—that
is to be slaves of the white race; and I wish to see them in
that capacity on every spot on the surface of the globe where
their labor is necessary or beneficial. Nor do I doubt that such
will be the final result. Much less would I oppose the acquisi¬
tion of territory that would place the slave States on a numeri¬
cal equality, and more, with the free States in the Union.
15
But this review and scrutiny of the resources of the South
shows, I think, pretty conclusively,that we have not now the
surplus population, nor suitable territory, within our present
reach, to create any number of slave States; that to attempt
it by costly, yet impracticable and abortive, enterprises, will be
to waste our strength to no purpose; and that the idea of re¬
covering the equality in voting of the slave and free States,
whether on the floors of Congress or elsewhere, is visionary.
We had better then, I think, at once make up our minds,
according to the facts, and giving up ail bootless efforts, look
every consequence of our position full in the face. For one,
I can do so without dismay—without the slightest trepidation.
Why the South, numbering twelve millions of people, possesses
already an imperial domain that can well support an hundred
millions more. What does she need to seek beyond her bor¬
ders, or what has she to fear? With such a sea coast and har¬
bors; such rivers, mountains and plains; so full of all the
precious metals, so fertile in soil, so genial in climate, producing
in such unparalleled abundance the most valuable agricultural
staples of the world; capable of manufacturing to any extent;
and possessing the best social and industrial systems that have
ever yet been organized,—she might have sunk into sloth from
excess of prosperity had she not been kept on the alert by the
fierce assaults of an envious world. Assaults which, at one time
alarming, it has been in fact scarcely more than wholesome
exercise to repel; an exercise which has made us the most
virtuous and one of the most enlightened and most powerful
people who now flourish on the globe. The South has long
been undervaluing and doing great injustice to herself. She
has been lamenting her weakness, and eroaking about the
dangers that beset her, when she might glory in her strength
and hurl defiance to her enemies.
But it is said that with a fixed and overwhelming free
State majority against us in this Union, with all our natural
advantages, we must dissolve the connection to insure our
present safety and accomplish our proper destir^. Perhaps
so. But permit me to suggest, not yet The dissolution of
the Union is an alternative that we have always at command,
16
and for which we should be ever ready; but a peaceful, pros¬
perous and powerful people may not challenge Fate a day
too soon. The question still remains, can the free States be
brought to concur permanently in any line of policy that will
subvert the constitution, and seriously damage the South in
this confederacy ? I do not believe that they can. Reckless
as is political ambition, and insane as fanaticism ever is, I
have no idea that the free States can be consolidated on the
wild project of ruling the slaveholders by mere brute num¬
bers, either through the ballot box or by force of arms ;
whether to emancipate our slaves, or strip us of the fruits of
their labor; or to govern us with the mildness and paternal
care due to inferiors. The nervous in the South, and the
abolition demagogues of the North, may believe it. But
when it comes to the actual test, if neither sober sense nor
patriotism should prevail, the sense of danger and the love of
cotton and tobacco would, with our northern brethren, in
every crisis over-ride their love of negroes. On this I think
you may depend, despite the insolent boasts of the aboli¬
tionists of what they will do when they get the government
in their hands. The North has only to be made clearly sen¬
sible how far she can go, and what the South will not submit to.
She will not trespass beyond that, but will content herself
with the glory of carrying the alternate biennial elections, as
she has just done—always leaving it to the democracy to
carry that which makes the President
But I am making mere assertions. Allow me, then,
to refer to facts to show the past power of the South in this
Union, and the present state of the great questions in which
she is most deeply interested. When, thirty years ago, we
began this arduous conflict for the constitutional reform of
this government and the security of the South, the South
herself was thoroughly divided. The tariff, the bank, the in¬
ternal improvement system, nay, even abolition itself, all had
the sanction of a large number of our most prominent south¬
ern men. If they did not all originate, they were all resus¬
citated, in that era of infatuation, when a southern President
proclaimed that we were "all federalists, all republicans;"
17
when southern statesmen sneered at State rights, and the
constitution became for the time a dead letter.
The tariff of 1828 levied average duties of more than forty
per cent, on all of our imports. By the tariff of 1857 the
average of duties was reduced below twenty per cent. We
have accomplished that much ; and, besides, the principle of
free trade is pretty generalt^r-eonceded now throughout the
Union. It cannot be denied that this is a great success. I
think the duties should be reduced still lower; and particu¬
larly that the discriminations against the agricultural interests
should be abolished. But it is supposed that there will be a de¬
mand for their increase at the next session. If so, it will of course
be resisted, and I trust successfully. Free trade is the test,
the touchstone of free government, as monopoly is of despot¬
ism. I have no hesitation in saying that the plantation States
should discard any government that made a protective tariff
its policy. They should not submit to pay tribute for the sup¬
port of any other industrial system than their own, much
less, to make good the bubble speculations of another section
of the Union. Unequal taxation is, after all, what we have
most to fear in this Union, and against that we must be
always ready to adopt the most decisive measures.
The internal improvement system was in full vigor in 1828.
Inaugurated also by southern men, it absorbed all the surplus
of the treasury, and being in its nature unlimited, it was
capable of absorbing all the revenue that could be extorted by
the highest possible tariff. That too, if not destroyed, has
been checked and crippled by southern action. It is true that
it still appears annually in Congress—but the once haughty
brigand is now little more than a sturdy beggar.
We had then, also, in full operation, a Bank of the United
States, with branches in all our principal cities. It received
and speculated on all the revenues of the Government, and
controlled and concentrated in the North all the exchanges,
thus levying a per centage upon every commercial transaction
of the South. That has been annihilated. It sleeps the sleep
that knows no waking. But let me say that the system which
it established still exists. Despite of its destruction by th e
2
18
Federal Government and the collection of the revenue in
specie, our exchanges still centre in the North, and our other¬
wise stable industry is still compelled to participate more or
less in all the reckless speculations of that fanatical section—
more fanatical in its love of money than even in its de¬
votion to negroes. But this is a self-imposed vassalage.
Through the privileges which our southern legislatures
have granted to our innumerable banks, we are made
tributary to New York, which is' itself tributary to London,
the great world centre of exchanges in our age. Thus, by
our own acts, we pay double tribute, though nearly all the
trade of the United States with England is based on southern
products.
Thus has the South, by her energy and ability, disposed of
the capital grievances against which she protested—with
almost half her public men against her—in 1828. During
this time our opponents have twice wrested the government
from us, and inflicted other injuries, but they were soon
stripped of their power and their acts repealed. Only four
times since the organization of this Government has the North
had possession of it, and in each case only for one term.
The North has never united long on any policy. The injuries
inflicted on the South have been mainly inflicted by her
own ambitious, factious and divided public men, and our
history proves that no man and no measure has yet been
strong enough to stand against the South when united. I
believe none ever will.
But it is thought that the abolitionists will inevitably get the
power of this government permanently into their hands, and,
backed by the opinion of the world, use it for our destruction.
Let us consider what are the facts. From the time that the
wise and good Las Casas first introduced into America the in¬
stitution of African slavery—1 say institution, because it is the
oldest that exists, and will, I believe, survive all others that
now flourish—it has had its enemies. For a long while they
were chiefly men of peculiar and centric religious notions.
Their first practical and political success arose from the con¬
vulsions of the French revolution, which lost to that empire
19
its best colony. Next came the prohibition of the slave trade—
the excitement of the Missouri Compromise in this country, and
the then deliberate emancipation of the slaves in their colonies
by the British Government in 1833-4. About the time of the
passage of that act, the abolition agitation was revived again
in this country, and abolition societies Were formed. I re¬
member the time well, and some of you do also. And what
then was the state of opinion in the South? Washington had
emancipated his slaves. Jefferson had bitterly denounced the
system, and had done all he could to destroy it. Our Clays,
Marshalls, Crawfords," and many other prominent southern
men, had led off in the colonization scheme. The inevitable
effect in the South was, that she believed slaver/ to be an evil—
weakness—disgraceful—nay, a sin. She shrunk from the dis¬
cussion of it. She cowered under every threat. She attempted
to apologize, to excuse herself, under the plea—which was
true—that England had forced it on her; and in fear and
trembling she awaited a doom that she deemed inevitable. But
a few bold spirits took the question up; they compelled the
South to investigate it anew and thoroughly, and what is the
result? Why, it would be difficult to find now a Southei'n
man who feels the system to be the slightest burthen on his
conscience; who does not, in fact, regard it as an equal ad¬
vantage to the master and the slave, elevating both ; as wealth,
strength and power; and as one of the main pillars and con¬
trolling influences of modern civilization ; and who is not now
prepared to maintain it at every hazard. Such have bden for
us the happy results of this abolition discussion. So far, our
gain has been immense from this contest, savage and malig¬
nant as it has been. Nay, we have solved already the question
of emancipation by this reexamination and explosion of the
false theories of religion, philanthropy and political economy
tvhich embarrassed our fathers in their day. With our con¬
victions and our strength,emancipation here is simply an im¬
possibility to man, whether by persuasion, purchase or coer¬
cion. The rock of Gibraltar does not stand so firm on its basis
as our slave system. For a quarter of a century it has borne
the brunt of a hurricane as fierce and pitiless as ever raged.
20
At the North and in Europe they cried " havoc," and let loose
upon us all the dogs of war. And how stands it now ? Why,
in this very quarter of a century our slaves have doubled in
numbers, and each slave has more than doubled in value.
The very negro who, as a prime laborer, would have brought
four hundred dollars in 1828, would now, with thirty more
years upon him, sell for eight hundred dollars. What does
all this mean ? Why, that for ourselves we have settled this
question of emancipation against all the world, in theory and
practice, and the world must accept our solution. The only
inquiry is, how long this newfound superstition will survive,
and how far it may carry its votaries elsewhere ? What
changes in production, in commerce, society or government, it
may effect ? For production, commerce, society and govern¬
ment, must yield and change whenever they come in contact
with the great fundamental principle of the subordination of
the inferior to the superior man—as made by God ; and especi¬
ally of the colored to the white races. It is, I say, only through
the evils that this superstition may bring upon other peoples,
and especially on those of the North and of Europe, with
whom we are so closely connected, that the South can be ma¬
terially damaged by it, standing as she now does, firm, assured,
•united. How, then, is it with others?
Permit me to say that, in my opinion, the tide of abolition
fanaticism has begun to ebb everywhere, and will never rise
again. When the English freed the negroes in their colonies,
it was not wholly a sentimental movement, dictated by polit¬
ical radicals and the saints of Exeter Hall. Her statesmen,
in their ignorance, thought that was is called free labor—
that is, " wages slavery"—would succeed in tropical culture,
as well or better than slave labor. In their arrogance they
believed also that all the world must follow their example in
this silly scheme of abolition ; and that from her great wealth
and world-encircling colonies, the monopoly of cotton and
sugar culture would fall into the hands of England. Nature,
and the indomitable spirit and intellect of the South, have
disappointed all their calculations. The South still flourishes,
and cotton and sugar, and coffee and rice and tobacco? are
still the heritage of the slaveholders.
21
Galled by their utter dependence upon us for cotton, with¬
out the free use of which they would both tumble into ruin in
a day, England and France, who, in her frequent frenzies, at
length destroyed all her colonies by emancipation, have ran¬
sacked the universe to find climes and soils adapted to the
cheap growth of this great staple. They have failed every¬
where. It is not that the sojls and climates do not exist; but
that this and the other great agricultural staples, sugar, rice,
tobacco, cotfee, can never be produced as articles of wide ex¬
tended commerce, except by slave labor. This they at length
found out. But such labor they had repudiated everywhere.
No, not everywhere. Not in France nor in Great Britain,
where they still hold sacred splendid thrones and palmy aris¬
tocracies amid starving laborers; only for outside barbarians
they ordained freedom and equality; but failing in all their
schemes, and finding that, with all their costly expenditures
and high sounding manifestoes, they had simply ruined their
own colonies, and made themselves the vassals of the slave¬
holders, what have they done ? Why, renewed the slave
trade. Not in name. Oh, no! Exeter Hall and the Parlia¬
ment Houses still thunder execrations against that; while the
colonists, under governmental protection, and with English
money, wrung by taxation from her " wages slaves," are im¬
porting by hundreds of thousands Chinese and Hindoo cool¬
ies, under conditions compared with which Algerine slavery
of the last century was merciful. They do not hold them as
we do our slaves, for better for worse, in sickness and health,
in childhood and old age. No; in their prime of life they
seduce them from their homes, transport them to distant and
unwholesome climes; for the merest pittance of wages, con¬
sume their best years in the severest labors, and then turn
them out to die—the direst slavery that brutal man has ever
instituted. France, less sensitive—having no Exeter Hall—
embracing the same scheme, resorts to Africa, and openly
makes purchases, for so they may be called, from slave
catchers; nay, she buys from the President of Liberia, the far-
famed settlement of our own Colonization Society; buys the
colonists, our own emancipated slaves, who, sick of freedom,
2*
22
prefer any form of slavery, and in their desperation do not
hesitate to make their pious patrons in this country the laugh¬
ing stock of the whole world.
Thus these two nations—France and England, whose
adoption of this abolition crotchet alone made it respectable
and influential—have thoroughly renounced it, practically,
and almost in theory. The press of England, perhaps the
greatest power of the world, sustains these movements ; while
in France the newspapers are openly discussing the question
of importing negro slaves, by name, into Algeria. I think it
may be fairly said that in Europe abolition has run its course.
Brougham, Palmerston, Russell, and all the old political agi¬
tators, are hanging their harps upon the willows. Even the
son of Wilberforce, the fanatic, approves of coolie slavery,
which we abbot. But recently the British government openly
surrendered itf* im to the right of search—a claim set up
mainly to pui down the African slave trade, and without
which all attempts to do it will probably be idle. And there
is nothing to surprise us in all this, if we are correct in our
views of African slavery. If it is sustained by the religion
of the Bible; if neither humanity nor sound philosophy op¬
pose it; if, as we are convinced, it is a social, political and
economical benefit to the world, then it was inevitable that,
sooner or later, the abolition crusade must die out—and why
not now ?
If there is truth in what I have stated to you—if the aboli¬
tion fever has nearly or quite exhausted itself ^Europe—if time
and facts have proved there that it is an absurdity—it seems
to me we should not doubt that its career is about to close
here. Such is my opinion, however differently those may
think who judge only by appearances, or take their cues from
agitating politicians. I ask any one to tell me upon what
measure or upon what man the abolitionists of this country
can ever again muster their legions as they did in 1856 ?
Kansas is squeezed dry. It stinks in the nostrils of all people.
They can do no more there. Will they try a "cry" against
the Supreme Court for the Dred Scott decision? What is
there in that to inflame popular sentiment? It is always
23
uphill business to agitate against a judiciary, but especially
against the Supreme Court of the United States, which the
northern people have been taught to revere as the bulwark
to their liberties. Will they demand the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia? They have never been
able to do much with that, though they have often tried. That
issue is a little too practical and too dangerous. Not many
are bold enough to embark in it. They might as well make
the question of disunion nakedly. Will they take up the
abstract, and, probably, never again to be other than abstract,
proposition of "no more slave States ?" They have done it.
They have already split upon it. The northwest will not
take it, and the free States, at bottom, all want Cuba. They
love molasses, and hanker after free trade with that rich island.
Where, then, are they to go, I cannot see. They do not ap¬
pear to see themselves. "Will any one state the practical
question, if we offer them none,—and we have none to offer,—
on which they are next to rally for the conquest of the South ?
The measure or the man ? It does seem to me that this great
fire is dying out for want of fuel. That this crusade, as many
crusades have done, has exhausted itself, and that there is no
argument or leader that can keep it alive. They have had
their Peter Hermits, but their Godfreys, their Baldwins, their
lion-hearted Richards, where are they ? It seems that they
will scarcely agree even on their Louis IX. who shall lead
their last pious campaign and suffer martyrdom.
And let me say that if the abolitionists cannot unite the
free States as a purely anti-slavery party in the presidential
election of 1860, and fail again in 1864, we shall never hear
more of them as a political party; and it is only as a political
party that they are worthy of our notice. There always will
be abolitionists—for fools, enthusiasts, men of morbid imagi¬
nations, bent on mischief, or ambitious of notoriety, always
will exist. But the abolition party in the free States is now
almost wholly political. Do you suppose that the Sewards,
Hales, Wades, Wilsons, Chases and their associates, care any¬
thing for African slavery, or are really hostile to our system
of labor, any more than is the President, Dickinson, Bright,
24
Pugh or Douglas ? I do not. Their object is political power.
They have placed themselves on this spring-tide of fanaticism
to obtain it. If it fails them—if, at the next presidential elec¬
tion, assuredly if at the two next—we beat them, all this
party machinery will fall to the ground, and the Smiths, Tap-
pans, Garrisons and Parkers, will be left alone to their glory.
But if I am all wrong—if my facts and reasoning are false,
and my hopes delusive—if, in 1860, they beat us—what then ?
These are questions that may well be asked. And the an¬
swer is obvious. We must be prepared; and the very efforts
we must make to prevent such results will better prepare us
than any course we can pursue that I can see. We must be
prepared, I say, to take care of ourselves, whatever may come.
It is clear that the slaveholding States of this confederacy,
whatever hazards they may choose to incur by remaining in
alliance with a majority of non-slaveholders now so inflamed
against them, must ever and at all times hold their destinies
in their own hands. They can never permit any foreign
power to legislate in reference to their peculiar industrial
system, whether to abolish or to modify, or impose undue
burdens on it. Such legislation must be resisted with all our
means, and without regard to any consequences. If it should
so happen that the free States of this Union, being now, and
always to be, in a majority, do establish a political line be¬
tween the two sections and the two systems of labor, legislate
upon it and maintain it, then they will constitute a power as
foreign to us as any nation in the world, and we cannot sub¬
mit to it. Whatever the weak and defenceless colonies of
other countries may have submitted to, before these Southern
States will be placed in the condition of St. Domingo or
Jamaica, or one at all approximating to it, they will rend this
Union into fragments and plunge the world in ruin. It is in
their power to do both, for the world cannot get on without
them; and, if ruthless fanaticism and brute force combine,
under whatever names, and with whatever authority, to ride
them down, they will carry with them the pillars of the
temple of civilization, and Urce a common fate on all
mankind.
25
There are many who believe that some such a catastrophe
is inevitable. It cannot be denied that from appearances
here and elsewhere, it is entirely possible, and it may not be
unwise for all of us to suppose it probable. Although I think
that the ranks of our enemies are broken and the moral
victory won, I am far from proclaiming that the battle is over,
and that we have now only to gather the fruits of our suc¬
cess. Many a battle has been won and lost again, by over¬
weening confidence, by reckless pursuit, or by turning aside
for the sake of spoil. Let us fall into none ot these errors,
for we are still in the very heat and turmoil of this great con¬
flict, and all might yet be lost. What I wish to impress upon
you is that there is hope for effort—triumph for union, energy
and perseverance.
It has fallen upon the slaveholders of the South to conduct
this question of African slavery to its final conclusion. Such
is our fate. It is inevitable. Let us cheerfully accept and
manfully perform our destined parts, and do it with no dis¬
trust of God; with no misgivings of our cause or of our¬
selves ; with no panic; no foolish attempt to fly from dan¬
gers which cannot be avoided, which have not been proven
to be insurmountable, and which I for one believe that we
can conquer. After what has been achieved by a divided
South, now that it is almost thoroughly united—now that we
have a President and his Cabinet—a majority in both Houses
of Congress—a Supreme Court of the United States, and still
hosts of allies in the free States, all substantially concurring
with us in our construction of the constitution, and under its
obligations earnestly battling with us for the maintenance of
our rights and interests; we owe it to our country, to our¬
selves, to the world and to posterity, to cast aside all weak
fears—all petty or impracticable issues—all mere wrangling
and vituperation, personal and sectional, and move forward
with the dignity of conscious strength and the calmness of
undoubted courage, to the overthrow of every false theory of
government, and every sentimental scheme for organizing
labor; carrying with us the constitution of our fathers, and
if we can, their Union.
26
But the slave States constituting, and as I think forever to
constitute, a numerical minority, can however accomplish
nothing in this Union without the aid of faithful allies in the
free States. It has been of late too much the habit in the
South to mistrust all such allies—to disparage, to denounce
and drive them from us Nothing could he more unwise or
more unjust. It is distrusting the truth and justice of our
own cause, or calumniating human nature; to doubt that
there are in the free States thousands of sound-thinking, true-
hearted and gallant men, who concur essentially in our views,
and are ready to make common cause with us. Nay, it is
falsifying history and fact. During the late session I saw
men acting cordially and vigorously with us against the
positive instructions of their excited constituents, at the haz¬
ard of political martyrdom ; and, in two instances, that mar¬
tyrdom was consummated before the adjournment Shall we
do no honor to such men ? Shall we pay no tribute to such
heroic devotion to truth, to justice, and the constitution ?
Shall we revile them in common with all northern men, be- 1
cause many revile and some have betrayed us ? To be truly
great, we must be not only just, but generous and forbearing
with all mankind. Let us place ourselves in the situation of
northern public men in this great contest, consider their dan¬
gers and responsibilities, and making every allowance for
human weakness, do homage to the brave and faithful.
And this leads me to say that, having never been a mere
party politician, intriguing and wire-pulling to advance myself
or others, I am not learned in the rubric of the thousand slang,
unmeaning, and usually false party names to which our age
gives birth. But I have been given to understand that there
are to be two parties in the South, called " National" and
" State Rights Democrats." The word " national" having
been carefully excluded from the constitution by those who
framed it, I never supposed it applicable to any principle of
our Government, and having been surrendered to the almost
exclusive use, in this country, of the federal consolidationists,
I have ever myself repudiated it. But if a southern " Na¬
tional Democrat" means one who is ready to welcome into
27
our ranks with open arms, and cordially embrace and pro¬
mote according to his merits every honest free State man
who reads the constitution as we do, and will cooperate
with us in its maintenance, then I belong to that party, call
it as you may, and I should grieve to find a southern man
who did not.
But, on the other hand, having been all my life, and being
still, an ardent " State Rights" man—believing " State Rights"
to be an essential, nay, the essential element of the constitu¬
tion, and that 110 one who thinks otherwise can stand on the
same constitutional platform that I do, it seems to me that I
am, and all those with whom I act habitually, are, if demo¬
crats at all, true " State Rights democrats." Nothing in public
affairs so perplexes and annoys me as these absurd party
names, and I never could be interested in them. I could
easily comprehend two great parties, standing on the two great
antagonistic principles which are inherent in all things human:
the right and the wrong, the good and the evil, according to the
peculiar views of each individual, and was never at a loss to
find my side, as now, in what are known as the democratic
and republican parties of this country. But the minor distinc¬
tions have, for the most part, seemed to me to be factitious and
factious, gotten up by cunning men for selfish purposes, to
which the true patriot and honest man should be slow to lend
himself. For myself, and for you, while I represent you, I
shall go for the Constitution strictly construed and faithfully
carried out. I will make my fight, such as it may be, by the
side of any man, whether from the North, South, East or
West who will do the same, and I will do homage to his
virtue, his ability, his courage, and—so far as I can—make
just compensation for his toils and hazards and sacrifices. As
to the precise mode and manner of conducting this contest,
that must necessarily, to a great extent, depend upon the exi¬
gencies that arise; but of course I could be compelled by no
exigency, by no party ties or arrangements, to give up my
principles, or the least of those principles which constitute
our great cause.
If.JfieJ3mUh~-has any desire to remain in the Union, and
28
control it, as her safety requires that she should, in some essen¬
tial particulars, if she does remain in it, she must concilitate
her northern allies. She must be just, kind and true, to all
who are true to truth and to her. But if she determines, and.
whenever she determines, to throw off her northern friends
and dissolve this Union, I need scarcely say that I shall, with¬
out hesitation, go with her fully and faithfully. I do not for
a moment doubt that, in or out of this Union, she can sustain
herself among the foremost nations of the earth. All that she
requires is the union of her own people, and happily they
never were at any former period so united, and harmonious as
now. A homogeneous people, with our social and industrial
institutions the same everywhere, and all our great interests
identical, we should always have been united in our moral
and political opinions and policy. The ambitious dissensions
of the host of brilliant men whose names adorn our annals,
have heretofore kept us apart. The abolitionists have, at length,
forced upon us a knowledge of our true position, and com¬
pelled us into union—an union not for aggression, but for de¬
fence; purely conservative of the constitution and the consti¬
tutional rights of every section and of every man. The union
of these States, from the Canadas to the Rio Grande, and from
shore to shore of the two great oceans of the globe, whatever
splendor may encircle it, is but a policy and not a principle.
It is subordinate to rights and interests. But the union of the
slaveholders of the South is a principle involving all our rights
and all our interests. Let that union be perfect and perpetual.
It constitutes our strength, our safety and prosperity. Let us
frown down every proposition that might seriously divide us,
and present to our assailants from every quarter a solid and
impregnable phalanx. Let us also give to the winds every
thought of fear, every feeling of despondency, and fully com¬
prehending, and temperately but resolutely asserting, our great
power in this confederacy and throughout fhe world, let us
develope and consolidate our resources, and devote ourselves
manfully and hopefully to the accomplishment of the mag¬
nificent future that is within our reach.