THE DAILY STATESMAN.
EXTRA.
THE DAILY STATESMAN,
IS PUBLISHED AT
122 MAIN STREET, CONCORD, N. H.
Single copies can be ?ad on application to the Counting Room of the New-Hampshire Statesman, or to the carriers, Price, one cent per copy.
SPEECH OF Hon. JOHN P. HALE,
Upon the Slavery Resolutions, in the House of Representatives, Thursday, June 25th, 1846.
The resolutions concerning slavery &c., proposed by Mr. Low, of Dover, being the order of the day, and Mr. Hadley's substitute therefor having been rejected, the question recurred upon the adoption of the following amendment offered by Mr. Hale;
"Whereas the government of the United States of America, by its recently avowed policy of extending their territory, and annexing a foreign nation, for the express purpose of strengthening and perpetuating human slavery have placed us as a people before the world in the humiliating and disgraceful attitude of supporters and defenders of a system of oppression, odious to every friend of liberty, and abhorrent to every principle of humanity and religion; and
Whereas, the constant, progressive and increasing encroachments of the slave power have become so formidable and imperious, that forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and to be silent is to be false to the great interests of liberty: Therefore,
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened, That New Hampshire solemnly and deliberately announces and reiterates her abiding and unchanging adherence to the great principle of the declaration of our Revolutionary fathers, that 'all men are created equal,' re-asserted in the first articles of the bill of rights of our own constitution; that she declares her firm determination that in the great contest now being waged between slavery and freedom, her voice shall be heard on the side of the free; that she pledges her cordial sympathy, and, within the limits of her constitutional action, her cooperation with the friends of civil liberty throughout the land, in every just and well directed effort for the suppression and extermination of that terrible scourge of our race, human slavery."
Mr. Marston moved to strike out the preamble.
Upon this question Mr. Hale took the floor and addressed the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker.--I have waited, in the hope that some other gentleman would favor the House with the expression of his views upon this question. It was not my intention, sir, again to have trespassed on your time and patience in regard to this matter, but as a motion has been made to strike out the preamble of the resolution I have had the honor to submit, and as the gentleman from Exeter, (Mr. Marston) has expressed a doubt of the truthfulness of the statements in that preamble--which indeed has more decidely been called in question by other gentlemen--I am induced, however unwillingly, once more to throw myself on the indulgence of the House. And before I proceed, permit me to express my exceeding gratification at the manner in which the gentlemen from Weare (Mr. Hadley) and from Sandbornton (Mr. Sanborn) have borne themselves in the discussion of this matter. It gives me great pleasure to assure them of my unfeigned gratitude for the candid, liberal, manly and dignified manner--devoid of slang and free from degrading personalities--in which they have treated it. I rejoice that the day has at last arrived when such a subject demands, commands and receives such treatment from such men.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Sandbornton says he is an anti-slavery man. I don't doubt it. But he also says that he wants to remain in his party and be an anti-slavery man at the same time. He can't do it--he cannot do it, sir. He says he his a democrat, I don't doubt that--not in the least! But I wish he would go further, and while asserting his democracy, assert also his manhood. I wish he would remember that he is something higher and nobler than a democrat--a man, an honest man--and that he would throw off the party harness and speak out like a man! But he can't--because he wants to stay in his party--I wanted to stay in the party too. But I could'nt, because it seemed proper to me to speak my sentiments on one peculiar topic. There was a feeling in my heart in relation to slavery and its extension which I desired to express. It was uncomfortable to keep it bosomed up. I did express it; the experiment was tried; and the result was--I could not stay in the party. The party cry of "throw him overboard" was raised at once, and they commenced the work of "throwing overboard"--beginning with me and going on till at last they had not bands enough left to man the ship. Sir, I sincerely sympathise with my friend. He will soon be at issue with his party and cast out of the ranks, unless they have learned something from the past. What was it the gentleman said--experientia docet? I have nearly forgotten my Latin, sir, but I suppose the plain English of that is that experience doses and truly, unless the party have had doses enough of experience lately, my friend cannot long stay with them! So much for that.
But the gentleman from Exeter does not like the preamble, though assenting to the resolution. He is like the man who found no fault with the entertainment at a public table, but could not relish the trimmings. The statements of this preamble are the trimmings--and are they not all true? The gentleman objected to the declaration that the purpose of government, in annexing Texas, was to strengthen and perpetuate human slavery. Is it not true? There are some things, sir, to be taken for granted--so obvious as to need no attempt at proof. Circles for instance, are not squares and squares are not circles; and, if this be an axiom in mathematics there are in ethics and politics, other things equally axioms. This declaration is one such thing, and I really had not supposed that one man could be found with mind sufficient to comprehend the position, who would venture to doubt its entire truth. Is all that to be gone over again? Has it come to this, that in the Legislature of New Hampshire, on the 25th of June, 1846, we are called upon to prove that the express purpose--not the sole purpose as had been erroneously quoted, though the statement would be entirely correct even to that extent--that the express purpose of government in the annexation of Texas was to extend and perpetuate slavery? If it has, then I don't know what we shall not be called upon to prove! Why, sir--will gentlemen admit the existence of Texas? Will they allow that there is any such country? That slavery exists there? That there are different shades of color among its inhabitants? They may deny it if they choose, but it is true for all that, and the assertion in this preamble is just as true.
How, Mr. Speaker, does government act in any question, except through its regular constitutional organs? And when the Secretary of the United States speaks by direction of the President, and when Congress bases its official action upon the Secretary's communciations, then I say that government speaks and acts--or else we have no action of the government. The resolution does not say that Mr. Woodbury, or Mr. Buchanan, or Mr. any one else sought this annexation for that purpose, but that the government so sought it. It speaks of the government. Government desired to have Texas for the sake of extending slavery! And let any gentleman stand up if he dare, and deny the truth of this! Why, sir! This extension and perpetuation of negro slavery was the prominent feature, the great merit of the whole affair. It was avowed and declared plainly, boldly, baldly and unequivocally--and, till to-day, I had supposed the matter too plain to be questioned. Look at what is said by Mr. Upshur, then Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. Murphy, dated August 8th, 1843.
"Few calamities could befall this country more to be deplored, than the establishment of a predominant British influence and the abolition of domestic slavery in Texas."
Here we have it. The greatest calamities the United States could experience are, says Mr. Upshur, 1st--"the establishment of a predominating British influence," and 2d--"the abolition of domestic slavery in Texas." Can this be misunderstood? And again, the same Secretary says, Jan. 16th, 1844--
"I will only add, that if Texas should not be attached to the United States she cannot maintain that institution [slavery] ten years, and probably not half that time."
Is that plain? Do gentlemen understand that? Unless Texas were annexed to this country, she could not maintain slavery ten years, and probably not five--and to prevent the abolition of slavery this project of annexation has been urged again and again, till at last it is effected.
Turn now to the declarations of Mr. Secretary Calhoun. in his letter to Mr. Pakenham, April 18th, 1844, he holds this language:
"Without, then, controverting the wisdom and humanity of the policy of Great Britain, so far as her own possessions are concerned, it may be safely affirmed, without reference to the means by which it would be effected, that, could she succeed in accomplishing in the United States what she avows to be her desire and the object of her constant exertions to effect throughout the world, [the abolition of slavery] so far from being wise or humane, she would involve in the greatest calamity the whole country, and especially the race which it is the avowed object of her exertions to benefit."
And to Mr. Green, the next day, he says--
"The step [annexation] was forced on the government of the United States in self defence, in consequence of the policy adopted by Great Britain in reference to the abolition of slavery in Texas. It was impossible for the United States to witness with indifference the efforts of Great Britain to abolish slavery there. They could not but see that she had the means in her power, in the actual condition of Texas, to accomplish the objects of her policy, unless prevented by the most efficient measures; and that, if accomplished, it would lead to a state of things dangerous in the extreme to the adjacent States, and the Union itself. Seeing this, the government has been compelled, by the necessity of the case, and a regard to its constitutional obligations, to take the step it has, as the only certain and effectual means of preventing it."
Why, this covers the ground all over. "The only certain and effectual means of preventing it." Preventing what? What but the abolition of slavery, which Mr. Upshur had before designated as one "of the greatest calamities that could befall this country! Nothing else in the world but this. Why then does any gentleman--how can any gentleman, in view of these official declarations, say that the government has not sought the annexation of Texas for the purpose of maintaining and extending slavery! I am utterly astonished at it; and the more so because, in all the diplomatic correspondence on the subject, the candor with which this object was avowed is worthy of all praise, whatever be the character of the object itself. Then if this be so, as is clearly shown, why not say so? Why not declare it? Gentlemen say it is not expedient. Sir, I know nothing of that expediency which seeks to suppress the truth. Let it come out! Speak it openly--speak it boldly--stifle it not. I have been in the habit of speaking out, and I think it is expedient.
But, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Weare complains that grievious injustice is done to the democratic party by representing it to be the slavery party Now, if he means that by representing the democratic party to be the slavery party, any injustice is done that party which for some years has had the ascendancy in New-Hampshire, but which now is in the minority, then I am glad to hear him say so. Very glad! Not that there is a particle of truth in the assertion, but because it shows that there is a spirit of reform abroad on this subject, which has penetrated even to Weare. A party must be judged of from its acts and its declarations, and looking both at the acts and declarations of the New-Hampshire democracy, let us see how they stand in this respect.
On the 5th of June, last year, the humble individual who now speaks to you had the honor of addressing a public meeting in Concord. The New-Hampshire Patriot of the same day took occasion to make some remarks upon Texas, in which it is declared "that a more happy and contented class than the slaves of the south does not exist." Let me quote a few lines.
"We would that this misguided class of men would go, as we have gone, into the hut of the slave, and there witness the happy contentment that reigns supreme. No vain regrets cloud the present; no foreshadowed trouble darkens the future. Accustomed themselves to the oversight of their masters, and knowing the sufficiency of that oversight, they leave the care of their offspring, without a doubt of the future, to the same supervision.--The prospect of disease and sickness gives them no fear (any further than the bodily suffering necessarily consequent,) for they know that it is for the interest of their owners to give them the best medical attendance. Ignorant that their condition can be improved, they refrain from essaying the attainment of mere utopian dreams, and rest content to enjoy the sunshine of to-day, Blessed in the possession of every necessary actual want, and deprivations are unknown to them. We have observed them at home and abroad; in the field and on holidays, and WE HAZARD NOTHING IN SAYING THAT A MORE HAPPY AND CONTENTED CLASS THAN THE SLAVES OF THE SOUTH DOES NOT EXIST!"
That was the language of the N. H. Patriot, and was there a single member of the democratic party who rebuked it or its editor for a declaration that should have branded its author with infamy? I know of none. Has the paper itself, from that day to this, retracted a single syllable of the statement? I have not heard of it. In my own village there is published a democratic paper which, on Nov. 23d last--the day of the special election--printed a letter from a Democrat in Florida, in which, among many other things, is this paragraph.
"In fine, so far as my own observation extends, they [the slaves] are beings free from care and anxiety--DECIDEDLY THE HAPPIEST RACE OF BEINGS UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH."
Decidedly the happiest race on the face of the earth? And made so by slavery? If the democratic party believe that, as their papers profess to, why, in the name of Heaven, do they not go for it? I would go for it if I believed half as much, and would vote to-day to make it perpetual, not only at the south and in Texas, but in New-Hampshire also--so that our own people might share in this great happiness!
Gentlemen say, however, that it is not fair to go to newspapers for the views of a party: newspapers are irresponsible, and their statements not entitled to confidence. Very well, sir, let us go then to the great sanhedrim of the party itself, and see what we shall find. In the journal of the House of Representatives for 1839, is recorded the passage of these resolutions:
Resolved, That the relation of master and slave, as established by law within the jurisdiction of any of the States, is an institution for which the State, within which it is established, is alone responsible, and with which neither Congress, nor the Legislature of any other State, can rightfully interfere.
Resolved, That the adoption and prosecution of measures by individuals residing within one State, with the avowed design of overthrowing the institutions of another State, by sending emissaries, scattering documents, pamphlets or papers, within that State against the declared will of the same, is a disregard of that comity, and mutual respect, which should ever be cultivated among the States.
Resolved, That Congress ought not to interdict the slave-trade between the States, or to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, or the Territories of the United States.
Resolved, That the resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, by which all memorials relating to the abolition of slavery, upon the presentation of the same, were ordered to lie on the table, without any further action thereon, was not an infringement of the right of petition.
Resolved, That the immediate abolition of slavery, by whatever means effected, without the expatriation of the slaves, would be productive of calamities, moral and political, such as should be deprecated by every friend of humanity.
Here we have it soelmnly declared that the immediate abolition of slavery, by whatever means effected--whether from motives of benevolence or principles of philanthropy, from the operation of christian love or the holy influences of the christian religion--would be productive of calamities to be deprecated by every friend of humanity! These resolutions passed the House by a vote of 137 to 69, and among the ayes are the very sachems of the party. Such is the doctrine of the democratic party as formally announced and proclaimed by the leaders, under their own hand and seal. And yet we are accused of great injustice in regarding the party as a slavery party. With what pretence of reason this accusation is made, every candid man will judge. And we have only to cast our eyes back from year to year, to see how faithfully and fully these principles and doctrines have been acted up to and carried out. Take for example, as a single instance, the case of the printing establishment of the Free will Baptist Society in Dover. It is an extensive concern, publishing a religious periodical, and printing large numbers of bibles and missionary books. Some years since the proprietors applied to the Legislature for an act of incorporation, the better to enable them to carry on their object. The request was favorably entertained, every thing was going on swimmingly, and the desired charter was almost granted--when suddenly somebody said he had heard that the paper had been uttering opinions favorable to abolition. The House was horrified at the bare idea! The bill was rejected at once, and from that time till the present session, the establishment has been knocking at the doors of the Legislature for that simple act of incorporation, which could not be obtained because the editor of the paper had been suspected of the heinous sin of advocating the abolition of slavery. Furthermore, I appeal to the experience of all who hear me to testify if for some years it was not the case in New-Hampshire, that any one promulgating sentiments at all approaching to abolitionism, was instantly a doomed man. Not a church member, even, how good and how pious soever he might be, could rise in a church or prayer meeting and utter a word in behalf of the stricken slave, but he was branded and denounced at once. He could not be elected the next day to the office of constable. Every body knows these facts.
I had occasion the other day to refer to the Patriot's declaration that the influence of the clergy had been most potent to effect the overthrow of the democratic party in New-Hampshire, and for this I am accused of doing injustice to that paper. Let me read the very words of that journal, under date of March 19th, 1846.
"The influence growing out of the public, the social and the fireside inculcations of opinions by the clergy, has been the most potential in inflicting on the democratic party its recent defeat."
According to its own language was I guilty of any injustice towards the paper? And what a spectacle is this! Here is the New-Hampshire Patriot, or its editor, claiming as the chosen body guard of slavery, to walk arm and arm with the minister of God into the pulpit, and dictate to him how he shall pray and what he shall preach. Quitting the house of worship, he accompanies the pastor in his social visits, and stands a monitor over him in his friendly intercourse with his parishioner or neighbor, constantly reminding him that upon the subject of oppression his lips must be sealed. And not content even with that, he follows him to his own fireside circle--the sanctuary of domestic confidence and love, and undertakes to prescribe to him the topics on which he may converse with the dearest objects of his affection,--the chosen recipients of his most secret thoughts. Even there he is warned to keep jealous watch lest inadvertently some word escape his lips, some sentiment find utterance from his tongue, some thought obtrude itself upon his mind, in behalf of those in bonds, in sympathy with the victim of unholy oppression. This is so--it is all true, every word of it--and yet now we are accused of injustice because we say so, and because we dare to call the party which does these things the slavery party!
I am glad of it, Mr. Speaker. It shows that there is an improvement in public sentiment as regards this subject. It demonstrates that there is a change. But gentlemen say there has been no change. Let me ask where was the democratic party at the north, ten years--or five years--or even three years ago--to be found upon this scheme of Texan annexation? To a man they were opposed to it. The leading democratic paper in the county of Hillsborough, the Nashua Gazette, so late as November 16th, 1843--denounced the object and design of annexation to be "as black as ink--as bitter as hell!" The democratic organ in my own town expressed kindred opinions. And the New-Hampshire Patriot--the immaculate, unchangeable Patriot--in May, 1844, spoke thus:--
"Slavery and the defence of slavery from the controlling consideration urged in favor of the treaty (of annexation) by those who have been engaged in its negociation. To these doctrines we can never subscribe, and whenever they are offensively urged upon the free States, they deserve to be pointedly rebuked."
Slavery and the defence of slavery deserve to be "pointedly rebuked!" Where, sir, are those pointed rebukes? Pointed the other way. Yet the party has never changed! Oh! no--certainly not. It is where it always has been. Every thing is whirling round and round about it, while it remains, itself, steadfast and unmoved. Sir, were not the subject too serious to be lightly treated, I should say that the recently assumed position of gentlemen on the other side reminded me of the man who propped himself, as best he might, against the wall of his bed-chamber, and patiently waited until the bed should come round to him. I will venture to say that the whole history of the globe cannot show so absolute, so decided, so barefaced, so profligate a change, as that of this democratic party upon this Texas question. A change, too, without either reason or argument, specious or potent, for it! But hold--I am wrong here. The Richmond Enquirer did adduce a most potent argument. That paper, then in the confidence of government, expressly proclaimed that those who opposed the annexation of Texas "had nothing to expect from the administration." Here indeed was something not to be resisted--and behold, the very types which a month before, had denounced the scheme as "black as ink, and bitter as hell," at once declared it to be brighter than the morning star and sweeter than the honey-comb! And the ever correct and consistent New-Hampshire Patriot faced to the right about instanter.
To illustrate this doctrine of democratic unchangableness, take the legislation upon the right of way, here, in New-Hampshire. Some years ago it was democratic to go for "the largest liberty" on all such matters, and a railroad charter from the White Mountains to the Isle of Shoals might easily have been obtained by any one that chose to ask for it, so he was a good democrat--and that with scarcely any restriction whatever. He could take any man's land, almost without the shadow of compensation. This was democracy then. But time rolled on, and a few years afterwards democracy had provided that roads should not take lands for their purposes except by consent of the owners. The southern part of the State was satisfied with this, its people had got their roads already and cared little about the matter. But the northern sections were not so easily pleased. They wanted roads as well as their brethren, and wanted them, too upon the same advantageous terms. That, however could not be allowed. Democracy had been newly enlightened, and all such provisions as before had been democratic, were now mere bantlings of federalism. It would not do however, to deny the north what the south had, and, in this dilemma, what was to be done? The doctors in the Legislature were somewhat at a loss, but finally they went to work and cooked up an act on the subject, which--and I say it with all due respect to the General Court--contained more absolute folly than was ever before concentrated into one measure by the utmost effort of human ingenuity.--Railroads with the right of way, reasoned these sapient doctors, were at present mere federal, private monopolies--and it was necessary to convert them into pro-slavery, pro-Texas, democratic public institutions. Now the State had the right of eminent domain, and could run a road where it chose and take what land it chose. All that was requisite, therefore, was to make the roads nominally public roads, and the thing would be settled. To do this, they enacted that wherever the road and the landholders could not or would not agree, the former might surrender to the State, which, by virtue of its sovereignty, could do what it chose. All then that the road companies had to do was to get into difficulty with the landholders, knock one or two of them down, bring about a quarrel, send a certificate of its existence to the Secretary of state, and they instantly became the components of a democratic institution of the very first water, with authority to go where they liked and do pretty much as they saw fit. This, sir, is an example of the unchanging nature of New-Hampshire democracy and democratic legislation.
Now for another point. The gentleman from Sandbornton is horror-stricken at the idea of the disunion of these United States. So am I. But who first introduced the idea of disunion in this connection? It was no one else than Rbert J. Walker, the present Secretary of the Treasury. In his letter to the citizen's of Carroll county, Ky., dated Jan. 8th, 1844, he says--speaking of the annexation of Texas--
"One of these results is certain to follow the refusal of re-annexation. 1st. the separation of the south and southwest from the north, and their reunion with Texas--or 2d.--the total overthrow of the tariff--or 3d--a system of unbounded smuggling through Texas into the west and southwest.
The first and grand result, according to Mr. Walker, of a refusal to annex Texas, would be the separation of the south and south-west from the north. That is, if we should decline to annex Texas to us, they would go off and annex themselves to her. Now, do not let it be cast in our teeth that we are the advocates of disunion upon this ground. It was the father of the scheme himself--now the Secretary of the Treasury--who first threw out the insolent threat of disunion against the north. Let the indignation of my friend be visited where it justly belongs.
It is said, again, that this matter of Texan annexation was all settled by the people at the last election. Mr. Polk went before them as the champion of the scheme, and was chosen. Nothing more, therefore, can be said. I am glad to hear that too. But was there not something else also settled by that election? Did any body ever hear of 'Texas and Oregon?' In my recollection, at least, the two words are as intimately connected as were the names of "Tippecanoe and Tyler too" in 1840. And I think we all remember what loving twins these same Texas and Oregon were at the Baltimore Convention. Well, we have got Texas, but where is Oregon?--Have we got that too? I rather guess we have! I believe that our Legislature once resolved that we owned the whole of Oregon up to 54° 40'. [Some gentleman corrected Mr. H., it was up to 54°. Mr. Hale resumed.] Well, sir, up to 54° then. A little softening down, a slight declension, preparatory, perhaps, to the final settlement on 49°. But, at any rate, President Polk has repeatedly declared that our title to 54° 40' was clear and unquestionable, and should not be relinquished, and the democratic party throughout the Union have resolved the same thing over and over and over again. And if I do not mistake, our New-Hampshire Legislature has passed resolutions commendatory of the President's firmness in conducting and maintaining the controversy!
Mr. Speaker, I said last year that government was insincere in its declarations--that it did not mean what it professed to mean--that in this Oregon question Great Britain would take what she wanted and leave us what she didn't want. For this, I was denounced as a falsifier both of what had gone before and of what was to come after. I was branded as every thing that was base--stigmatised as a traducer, liar, slanderer, and I know not what--only because I dared publicly to express what every man of common sense knew, that our government would give up Oregon--the whole of it--and throw Massachusetts, Faneuil Hall, Bunker Hill and all, into the bargain--if it were necessary to the maintenance
of the "peculiar institution." Since then, sir, what we claimed of Oregon has been garrisoned by British troops; American traders have pursued their avocations under the walls of British forts and the folds of British flags, and have been protected by the gleam of British bayonets. But what of all that? Government has settled the boundary on the line of 49°, and if a man wants to stay in "the party," he must come from 54° 40' down to that line--and that, too, without any change.
The Texas question, however,--says the gentleman from Weare--is settled finally, the time for opposition has gone by, and we have nothing more to do with the matter.
How is it settled? Only twenty per cent. of it is settled. One State has been admitted from Texas, but there are four more--four fifths of the whole--yet to come. Settled?--Gentlemen need not "lay that flattering unction to their souls." The question is not settled. It never will be settled--so long as a God of righteousness sits upon the throne of eternity and holds, as he assuredly will, nations as well as individuals to a just account--until the nation shall have repented of its sin in sackcloth and ashes, and "brought forth fruits meet to repentance." The gentleman cannot evade the question. It will follow him to the fireside hearth--it will haunt him in the daily avocations of life--it will press itself upon him even before the altars of the Most High--and not in the wildest and most inaccessible recess of New-Hampshire's cloud capped mountains can he hope to escape it, or hide from it. Settled? Suppose that in 1776, when the fathers of our country met in Faneuil Hall to concert measures for resisting the tyranny of England--suppose that them one of these settling politicians had asked them what they could do. Parliament had passed the stamp act and the {Omitted text, 1w} tax, both Lords and Commons had voted the bills, and the King had signed them. The question was all settled--and what could they do but submit? What would have been their answer but this--that they would have a settlement with the settlers. That is what we want and what the people will have. Or suppose that you, sir, entrust to an attorney the conduct of a suit against a dishonest debtor. The two league together, the debtor pays over a sum of money to the attorney--and when you ask of the latter how the business is going on you are told that "it's all right, the matter is settled." Would you not be likely, sir, to have a settlement with that attorney? According to the system of ethics, morals and politics now set up by the gentleman and his friends, if a man threatens to burn your dwelling--so long as he only threatens, you can deal with him by course of law; but when he goes on to apply the torch, when the flames crackle, and the smoke ascends to Heaven, and the fruits of a life's industry are laid in ruin in an hour--oh! then the mischief is done, the thing is settled, and you must be an exceedingly unreasonable person to complain at all about it.
Sir, the gentleman from Weare does me the honor to dignify my poor talk with the name of eloquence, and regrets that he does not possess it, that he might portray the beauties of this measure. Beauties! Sir, if he had eloquence so that he might speak in the highest strains of mortal power, or had he even an angel's tongue, he would still fail of demonstrating any beauty in it; it is dark--all dark.
But the gentleman from Sanbornton is opposed to slavery! So he may be--so he is, as far as many others are opposed to it, and that is just so far as such opposition will not affect the democratic party. Tell him that slavery is an evil, a curse and a wrong--he assents of course. Say to him that it ought to be abolished--he agrees without hesitation. But ask him to help place New-Hampshire right on this subject, and he stops short. That would hurt the democratic party--he can't stand that. Such is the case with him, and he is not singular in the position either. Thousands in both the whig and democratic ranks occupy precisely the same ground.--Some time ago I chanced to speak on this subject at Keene, and at the close of the meeting a whig said to a democratic friend--"Well, what do you think of this? Your party dare not touch this question for fear of political injury." "But," asked the other, "how is it with you?" "Oh!" was the reply, "the whigs have always been right on the matter."--So it is. The democrats do not care how far this question may split up the whigs--the whigs are willing it should entirely distract the democrats--the abolitionists like to see both parties crumble. Each looks out for himself, while the common cry is--"don't touch our party--let our party alone." The gentleman from Sanbornton says so himself, and is honest in so saying. He seems to think, however, that this movement is only got up here now to ensure the success of the "allied army"--as it has recently been named--over the democracy. Sir, the democracy of New-Hampshire can never again rally around their ancient standard.--That is torn "to tatlers--to very rags." I have seen a great many democrats lately, but I have not yet met the first man, strange to say, who was not always opposed to the course of the party on this topic and upon the radical measures it has sustained. Never, indeed, was a poor bantling more unceremoniously kicked into the street by its own friends and fathers, than the democratic policy of this State has been, since the last election, by the democrats themselves. The only danger the other side have now to apprehend, is the recoil. Democracy may take the back track, perhaps, and seek to outstrip its opponents in that path. The party may possibly go ahead of us in our own road, but that it will ever again be organized under the dictation of the Patriot, or upon the platform of 1839, I have no fears. That question is settled, be it as it may with the Texas question.
But these same gentlemen, sir, do great and monstrous injustice to their friends abroad. Their conduct toward their southern brethren is mean in the extreme. Why don't they come out with the openness and candor of the south on this subject? I wish, while they have all Mr. Calhoun's pernicious opinions and erroneous views, they had half his manly honesty and straight-forwardness in avowing and defending them. It is refreshing to read such language as we find from Mr. Calhoun and Gov. Hammond, after the miserable and contemptible twaddle we are surfeited with, here at the north. Hearken to the last gentleman I named:
"I think, then, I may safely conclude, and I firmly believe, that American Slavery is not only not a sin, but especially commanded by God through Moses, and APPROVED BY Christ through his Apostles. And here I might close its defence; for what God ordained and Christ sanctifies, should surely command the respect and toleration of man."
I like that, Gov. Hammond thinks so, and he says so boldly. There is no evasion, no dodging, no skulking here. He marches up to the line and lays the doctrine right down, without reservation or quibbling. And the gentleman from Sanbornton, too, must march right up and face the mark, or he will be excommunicated and driven out from the party.--Again the Governor says:
"I endorse without reserve, the much abused sentiment of Gov. McDuffie, that 'Slavery is the corner stone of our republican edifice;' while I repudiate, as ridiculously absurd, that much lauded but no where accredited dogma of Mr. Jefferson, that 'all men are born equal.'"
Right, sir, right! What wretched nonsense for the democracy of New-Hampshire to resolve that the abolition of slavery would be a public calamity, and at the same time pretend to have any thing to do with that "dogma" of Jefferson's. Gov. Hammond throws it entirely aside, and under his management the car moves on. But how are our northern democrats to reconcile these two Jeffersons, the one with the other? They acknowledge the authority of both--how are they to be made to appear consistent? Sir, the party is sadly in need of some powerful apparatus, some grand alembic in which its discordant components may be brought together, and by some patent process of political alchemy transformed into a harmonious, beautiful, pro-slavery, pro-Texas, conglumerated and aggregate democracy! Mr. Speaker, gentlemen cannot reconcile their actions with their professions, their conduct with their creed--nor can they defend their course on any ground of consistency. It cannot be done. If God be their God, let them serve him, but if Baal, let them serve Baal. But do not let us, the Legislature of New-Hampshire, be guilty of the miserable inconsistency of professing to abhor slavery, and yet striving for its perpetuation.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that what I have had the honor of saying to the House has satisfied the gentleman from Exeter that the statements in this preamble are true, and that he will acknowledge so much--unless, indeed, he should rely upon the legal maxim that "the suppression of the truth is in itself a falsehood." It is certain that the preamble does not tell the whole truth, and, for my single self, I should be willing to go much further. But I have put it in this mild and modified form, in order that the resolution might commend itself to whatever of conscience there may be in that party which professes to reprobate slavery and yet upholds the institution. Yet I have no hope, no expectation--I had almost said no desire--that any argument on this subject can produce the least effect upon those who remember that they are democrats, but forget that they are also men. And I am forcibly reminded, in this connection, of an incident that occurred the other day when the bill to divide the State into congressional districts was under consideration. Just as the vote was about to be taken on the measure, a member came up stairs in almost breathless haste, and inquired of a friend at yonder door what course "the party" had concluded to adopt in regard to it. Being answ red that no decision had been arrived at, his remark was--"oh, then, I can vote as I've a mind to!" It was owing only to the party failure to lay down a rule in that case, and the consequent liberty to every one to vote "as he had a mind to"--that the opposition to the bill barely reached the respectable number of thirty-five!
I hope, sir, that there has been no party decision upon this matter. I trust that every man will act from his own honest convictions, and come up to what he believes to be the truth. But I make no threat. I presume not to dictate. I shall neither misrepresent nor abuse those who vote against the proposition. Thus far I have carefully endeavored to keep clear of all personalities, and such will continue to be my course. But if any one on the opposite side has aught to gain by personal attacks upon my humble self--the field is wide open before him. I have no laurels to gain by such a contest. The experiment has been tried upon me again and again, but I have not yet descended into the arena of personal calumnition, and I do not intend to. Sir, I was absolutely driven into my present position. God knows I regretted in this instance to leave my party. It was no agreeable thing to me to encounter cold and clouded looks, or averted faces, from those with whom I had so long acted, and who had heretofore clothed their countenances with smiles and their lips with words of welcome and encouragement. But when it came to this--that I was to make myself part and parcel of the greatest wrong recorded in modern history--or else lose caste with the democracy, I could not hesitate which alternative to take. I chose my path, and party denunciation was instantly let loose upon me, as it will be upon every northern democrat who pretends to think and speak for himself on this accursed institution of slavery. But, thank Heaven, the people are superior to the party, and the people have at last become aroused as to this subject.
There is another topic, sir, connected with this, on which the people have a right to know the sentiments of their public men. I mean the present war with Mexico. I had occasion to say something about that the other day, and the gentleman from Weare seems to think that I have got into an embarrassing dilemma because I denounced the war and its authors, while at the same time my friend from Keene (Gen. Wilson) has volunteered for it. As to that, I tell the member from Weare, and every body else, that I am sure my friend from Keene does not want me to stand up here and attempt any defence of his course. He is able to protect himself, fully and amply; and it would be an insult to him and the House, for me to offer a syllable in his aid. Whenever and however he may be assailed--whether in the legislative hall or upon the field of battle, whether by the tongue of an opponent in debate or the sword of an enemy in conflict--the creative arm of the Almighty has never yet made that man on whom the gentleman from Keene would call for help. I shall say nothing concerning him. But I will say, that as regards myself--and I say so with all due humility--I am able to take care of myself on this war question. I am neither unable nor afraid to speak, and to speak out upon it.
I said before that this war--the result of Texan annexation was "unparalleled in infamy in the annals of modern history." That was my expression, and were some dispensing power now to proffer me the chance to retract that declaration, I would not do it. I repeat, sir, this war is unparalleled in infamy in modern history. I care not who fights its battles or who strives to vindicate its origin. The pent up thunders of denunciation against federalism and all that, which more than thirty years ago were hurled at the Hartfort Convention, may now all be hurled at me--I care not. I repeat the declaration--I abide by it--the war is unparalleled in infamy! I never can or will admit the contrary. And, sir, if it shall so happen that, when I am called from life, I shall leave behind me a friend who may think me of importance enough to have a stone to mark my grave, I am entirely willing to let it be recorded upon it,--"the man who denounced the Mexican war" The scheme of annexation and the consequent war are unequalled in their infamy, and will be so regarded by future ages. Some may look upon the partition of Poland as a parallel to this case. Sir, it is no touch to it. There is this difference between the two. Russia, Austria and Prussia never pretended to be free countries; their sovereigns said that rulers were responsible to Heaven for the government of the earth, and as they did not much like the then government of Poland, they cut her in pieces and shared her territory between them. But they made no lying pretence about the matter--they did the deed under no veil of hypocrisy. They did not come before the nations of the world, with long faces and canting tongues, to talk about "extending the area of freedom!" No, sir, they came out boldly and avowed their real object and motives--they said what they meant, and because they did so, they will occupy a higher place in history than we shall--at least in regard to this transaction. Mr. Calhoun, indeed, was bold enough to tell the truth. He took Texas in order to extend the area of slavery, and he honestly says so. If his friends at the north had been equally candid, they would not have rendered themselves liable to the charge of contemptible hypocrisy. No fault could have been found with them on that score.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt and no fear as to how this subject will stand in the future. I trust that the shadow of the Hartford Convention is not to extend over all time, and that a period will come when a man may declare his opinion of a public war, without being branded as an enemy to his country if he does not see fit to unite in singing pćans to the powers that be. But if this is not to be allowed, how easy will it be for any administration, in fear that its hold upon the fickle favor of the public may be loosened, to plunge the country into war upon any pretext, or
upon no pretext, and thus secure to itself a continuance of power. The weaker, the more imbecile and wicked the administration, the better for this purpose, and consequently the more popular. But I trust that such a doctrine will never be fixed in the public mind. Look at the example of Lord Chatham in the revolutionary war. He knew the war to be unrighteous, but did he think that, therefore, government was to be eulogized and be praised on account of it? No, sir, no! He denounced it as wicked, and unjust, and unholy--and every body now allows him to have been right.
Mr. Benton, in the Senate of the United States has ably treated this matter, and it were to be wished that some of his political allies were half as honest in regard to it. Before the treaty of annexation was ratified and the present war had arisen, he assumed these four positions, and he proved them too.
This was what Mr. Benton declared. Well, sir, we have the war now--and let me ask if it be not all that he said it would be. Is it unjust? I think so, and many of the people think so likewise. Was it made inconsistently with the provisions of the constitution? If those provisions mean any thing at all, or have any force whatever, it clearly was. Was it made upon a weak and groundless pretence? Sir, I was about to say it was, but I should have been wrong. The administration had not ingenuity enough to get up even "a groundless pretext!" They couldn't raise one, and they therefore resorted to an absolute and bare-faced falsehood in the preamble of their declaration.
Sir, it gives me no pleasure to dwell on this subject, and I have spoken of it at all, only because I have been compelled to do so. But in view of the whole question as it stands, in view of the action of the Legislature of this State in 1839, in view of the tone of the public press and of the sentiment of the people at large--let me ask if the time has not come when New-Hampshire should wake up on this matter? When she should look to see if she is in her true position with regard to it? If it be true that her citizens are opposed to slavery, why should they not say so in the most effective way it can be said? What a singular anomaly would the condition of things here present to the view of an impartial and disinterested stranger. Coming amongst us, meeting with the people, talking upon this subject--apparently he hears but one voice, he finds at least just now, one unanimous expression of feeling in opposition to Slavery. It is the same in the street, in the public meeting, in the house of worship. Might he not well conclude that he had fallen on the chosen home, the very temple of liberty? But let him wait till March, and on the day of election he will see hundreds, and thousands, and tens of thousands of the very men so earnest in their abhorance of slavery, go up to the polls and, knowingly and wittingly, deposit their ballots for measures directly and palpably intended for the support of the institution, and for men whose chief qualification it is, that they will uphold such measures.
Sir, if God were, to-night, to judge this people for the sin of slavery, New-Hampshire would drink more deeply of the bitter cup of retribution than South Carolina herself. Last year, New-Hampshire was a greater bar to liberty, stood more in the way of freedom, than South Carolina. And why? I will tell you why. When the subject of slavery is introduced on the floor of Congress, a member from South Carolina rises and addresses the House. He goes, of course, in favor of slavery--he speaks for it and votes for it--upholds it in all its relations--and supports, in order to sustain it, the gag-rule, the Mexican war and every thing else which tends in its favor. But of what avail is all this? He exercises no influence, not a particle--except so far as his own individual vote goes--because he is pleading his own case. Slavery is his peculiar institution. He was born under it, reared under it, and has lived under it. He must support it--he cannot do otherwise. But next rises a member from New-Hampshire. Every eye is fixed upon him--every ear is opened wide to bear what he may utter. Here--this is the feeling--here comes one from the "Gibraltar of democracy," the mountain home of liberty--whose winds breathe of liberty as they sweep through her valleys, whose eagles scream of liberty as they soar above her towering hills. What has he to say? The panting breasts of the oppressed throb high with hope that now, at least, some truth will be told that shall strike conviction to the mind even of the oppressor, some considerations urged that shall lighten the galling yoke of bondage. He speaks--and what is it? Cold, heartless, worthless commonplace. He is in favor of what? Why, of liberty in the abstract--until the assertion of liberal doctrine touches the democratic party, when lo! he turns round and votes side by side with the member from South Carolina, just exactly, and just as far, as the slave-holder wishes him to vote. Do you not see that this man exerts far more influence in favor of slavery than the other? Is it not plain that his voice is ten thousand times more potent than any voice from the south, to perpetrate the accursed institution and rivet still more tightly the fetters on the thrall-bowed slave? Let any gentleman deny it, if he can. Would to God it could be denied!
But, say gent?emen, we should confine our action to our own State. Well, sir, that is precisely what this resolution does. It was the good old doctrine, sir, to confine action on this subject to the States themselves, and I wish it had obtained to this day. Because then, the present state of things would not have occurred. This new experiment of annexing a foreign country to the Union, for the purpose of perpetuating slavery, would not have been tried. But because this state of things does exist, and because this experiment has been tried--this is the very reason why the people of the free States should rise up in their might within those States, and declare their will that the experiment shall go no further. Let us do so here.--And when the second Texan State shall come to ask admission into the republic, do not let it be a member from New-Hampshire that shall rise in his place and object to the very entertainment of discussion on the question of slavery within the limits of the new comer. That was the case in the last Congress--let it never happen again! It is ours to prevent it, and when we remember that it was left to a New-Hampshire Representative--to the everlasting honor or disgrace (I will not attempt to say which, gentlemen can judge for themselves,) of the State--to object to the reception of a resolution concerning a portion of free territory in Texas--when we recollect this, I say we are called upon by every consideration to take all care, within the constitutional sphere of our action, that such a thing shall not again occur.
If no action can be constitutionally taken, the resolution proposes none. But the passage of the resolution will itself be action. There is an influence going abroad on this subject--and spreading wider and wider every day--with a force and effect, compared to which the conflicts of armed hosts and the decrees of battle are but as dust in the balance. It is the result of a sound public opinion, and it cannot be overthrown. It will work. There is no statute of treason that can avail to arrest or to quell it. And in aiding the progress of this sound public opinion, we have much to do. Let us not suppose that we are sitting here in a dark corner, or that what we do will not tell elsewhere. It will tell. It has told, with tremendous energy already. The very beginning of the result in New-Hampshire has even now told to great effect.--It has made the chain hang more lightly on the limb; it has given encouragement and hope, where all before was darkness and despair!
Sir, I stand here to speak, not to parties, but to men. Yet I will tell both whigs and democrats that, if they attach themselves to the principles of slavery, there is no salvation for them. The car which has started on its progress will crush to atoms, beneath its ponderous wheels, whatever obstacle may intervene. The democrats have already experienced a part of the effects, and let not the whigs flatter themselves that their efforts can avail to stop that onward progress which has ground their rivals to powder. I do not pretend to be advised of the course of the whigs on this measure, nor of the democrats, (except in so far as they say they never change,) but I say to them both that the force of freedom will be too strong for both of them. The great hosts in favor of liberty are marshaling for the contest--and they will conquer, whatever be opposed. To be successful, all parties must join with them.--There is ground enough--higher ground than has yet been occupied, though destined soon to be taken up; there is room enough in freedom's ranks for all soldiers that may come--work enough--places enough. For those anxious to shine as party leaders, indeed, there are but few places. Every man in the battle of liberty is, of himself, a leader as well as a soldier. Each and all are fighting for freedom--not for individual power or place--and freedom will be their reward.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not go out of my way to denounce party, though party has denounced me. There is higher ground than party in this question. And I could wish--an idle wish indeed, and which perhaps had better not be spoken--I could wish that when this vote is taken, it be not by yeas and nays, but that every member's heart should give in the vote recorded there, even without his own volition.
I have trespassed too long upon the patience of the House. I have endeavored to treat this subject candidly and dispassionately, and to avoid personalities in debate. But let no one suppose that I say this with any view of begging off for myself. No, sir. If there be, on the other side, any great gun or any small gun to be discharged at me--let it come. Gentlemen may say what they choose--may be as bitter and as personal as it may to them seem good. I care not for that. I only say that, in such a contest, I have no arms to contend with them. And now, sir, one word more and I have done.
The preamble to the original resolutions introduced by my colleague (Mr. Low) that "pending the choice" of a Senator in Congress it was expedient to make certain declarations, seemed to me to look something like holding a rod over the heads of the candidates. I said nothing about it at the time, for the delicacy of my own position forbade. But if it was intended as an instruction, an admonition, a premonitory hint, or any thing of that nature--I have this to say, now, in regard to it. In my letter to my constituents in Jan'y 1845, will be found this passage:
"I acknowledge, in its broadest latitude and most unlimited application, the doctrine that "a representative is bound by the will of his constituents;" not that he is bound to render a cold, formal, and heartless compliance with their plainly declared intentions, but that he is at all times cheerfully, zealously, and, as far as may be, effectually to carry out their designs and purposes. I believe in the right and the duty of the people to hold their representatives to a strict account for the manner in which they execute the trust committed to them, and in the corresponding obligation of the representative to be at all times ready to render a strict and honest account of his stewardship."
To this doctrine I adhere. As to instructions, I am always willing to be instructed by those who can instruct me--and if, when in Congress, any portion of my constituents shall send me instruction or advice, I shall receive it most gladly; I will give it careful and respectful consideration, and I shall be most happy if, on such consideration, I can conscientiously comply with it. But if, on calm, careful and deliberate reflection, I cannot reconcile such instruction to my own sense of duty, I shall disobey it. For instructions from the Legislature, as such--they will be received with the same respect, but I shall claim to read for myself the evidence of public sentiment and opinion, and to judge for myself upon that evidence.
The representative to Congress and the representative here, are alike servants of the people, and are responsible to the people. If there be any right of instruction between them, it is a mutual right, and may be exercised by the one as well as by the other. And, while giving respectful attention to expressions of the people's will, I shall regard them as of no additional force if they come to me filtered through the sieve of a Legislative resolution of instruction. I trust I shall not be misunderstood. I have endeavored to be explicit on this point before the people, and to the opinions I have thus expressed before the people's representatives, I shall adhere.
Mr. Speaker, I tender my most grateful thanks to the House for the indulgence they have vouchsafed to me. I trust that our action will be such as favorably to commend itself to all our future reflections, to coming generations, and to God. And if this great evil of slavery cannot be stayed, if the seeds of its further extension are to be sown, and we are to reap their fruits--as reap we must--my earnest prayer is that in that day of fearful retribution, my native State, New-Hampshire, may stand erect and call God to witness that she is innocent of the sin. If the blood of agony must continue to flow from the lacerated bodies of those held in bondage, may New-Hampshire, at least, keep the hem of her garments uncontaminated by the pollution.
Hon. John P. Hale's Speech.
Price $1,00 per hundred. A supply will be kept in the Statesman Counting Room done up in wrappers, for the convenience of those who may wish to send them to friends.
Orders should be sent immediately, as the edition is limited to 3000 copies.
An American Time Capsule: Printed Ephemera
Return to:
Also see:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms -
2008 GunShowOnTheNet.com