Chapter 10

"Mr. Davis.—With the permission of the senator from Ohio, I will ask him whether he understood the senator from Virginia to assert that the Constitution of the United States would give the right to carry this property into the limits of a State where it is prohibited?"Mr. Pugh.—No, sir; but I say that this proposition is nothing, unless it goes to that extent."Mr. Davis.—In the absence of my friend from Virginia, I would say that his theory, I believe, agrees with mine; and certainly does not go to that extent. It is that the Constitution makes it property throughout the United States. It can, therefore, be taken and held wherever the sovereign power of a State has not prohibited it. When it reaches the territory of a sovereign State where its introduction is inhibited, it there stops; except for the reserved right to recover a fugitive, and for the right of transit, which belongs to every citizen of the United States. That is the decision of the Supreme Court."Mr. Pugh.—I repeat my assertion: if the Constitution of the United States gives this form of property its peculiar protection, as gentlemen assert, and the right to carry it, it is carried into every State over the constitution and laws of the State; for the Constitution of the United States is supreme above the constitutions and laws of the States; and it means that, or it means nothing. There is no distinction; there can be none made; and my colleague put the very question which proved the fallacy of the whole proposition. But senators say there is no sovereignty in the territories. I agree to that; but why do we deceive ourselves about words? There is no such language as sovereignty in the Constitution of the United States. Senators say it requires a power of sovereignty to exclude slavery, and the senator from Mississippi has just now spoken of the sovereignty of the State which excludes slavery. He says it requires sovereign power to exclude slavery. Well, how is that sovereignty to be expressed?"Mr. Davis.—When a State, being a sovereign, by its organic law excludes that species of property, the act is final. There is no sovereignty in the Constitution, as the senator states, and why? Because the Constitution is a compact between sovereigns creating an agent with delegated powers; and sovereignty is an indivisible thing. They gave functions of sovereignty from their plenary power. Sovereignty remained with the people of the States."Mr. Pugh.—Then I understand the senator that the sovereignty can only speak through a constitution, and that it is in the constitution of a State only that the power to admit or exclude slavery is to be exercised. Why, sir, until the year 1820 not a State of this Union, in her constitution, either admitted or excluded slavery, and I do not believe Virginia did until 1850 or 1851. None of the States did it until Missouri when she came into the Union, and she put it into her constitution, not upon the idea that that was peculiarly the place, but for the express purpose of disarming her legislature. It was an ordinary legislative power, nothing else in the world; known and recognized as such and admitted as such by every State in the Union. New York abolished slavery by law, Pennsylvania abolished slavery by law, and in the States where the institution continued, it was fostered, protected, and recognized by ordinary acts of legislation."Mr. Davis.—I am sorry to interrupt the senator again, and I believe this will be the last time. The first instance he will find was that of Massachusetts, who, in her bill of rights, at the Revolutionary era, made a declaration which her supreme court held to be the abolition of slavery; and I think he will find that it has generally been acted on in that way; but he has not the right to assume anything more than I stated. I stated a mode."

"Mr. Pugh.—No, sir; but I say that this proposition is nothing, unless it goes to that extent.

"Mr. Davis.—In the absence of my friend from Virginia, I would say that his theory, I believe, agrees with mine; and certainly does not go to that extent. It is that the Constitution makes it property throughout the United States. It can, therefore, be taken and held wherever the sovereign power of a State has not prohibited it. When it reaches the territory of a sovereign State where its introduction is inhibited, it there stops; except for the reserved right to recover a fugitive, and for the right of transit, which belongs to every citizen of the United States. That is the decision of the Supreme Court.

"Mr. Pugh.—I repeat my assertion: if the Constitution of the United States gives this form of property its peculiar protection, as gentlemen assert, and the right to carry it, it is carried into every State over the constitution and laws of the State; for the Constitution of the United States is supreme above the constitutions and laws of the States; and it means that, or it means nothing. There is no distinction; there can be none made; and my colleague put the very question which proved the fallacy of the whole proposition. But senators say there is no sovereignty in the territories. I agree to that; but why do we deceive ourselves about words? There is no such language as sovereignty in the Constitution of the United States. Senators say it requires a power of sovereignty to exclude slavery, and the senator from Mississippi has just now spoken of the sovereignty of the State which excludes slavery. He says it requires sovereign power to exclude slavery. Well, how is that sovereignty to be expressed?

"Mr. Davis.—When a State, being a sovereign, by its organic law excludes that species of property, the act is final. There is no sovereignty in the Constitution, as the senator states, and why? Because the Constitution is a compact between sovereigns creating an agent with delegated powers; and sovereignty is an indivisible thing. They gave functions of sovereignty from their plenary power. Sovereignty remained with the people of the States.

"Mr. Pugh.—Then I understand the senator that the sovereignty can only speak through a constitution, and that it is in the constitution of a State only that the power to admit or exclude slavery is to be exercised. Why, sir, until the year 1820 not a State of this Union, in her constitution, either admitted or excluded slavery, and I do not believe Virginia did until 1850 or 1851. None of the States did it until Missouri when she came into the Union, and she put it into her constitution, not upon the idea that that was peculiarly the place, but for the express purpose of disarming her legislature. It was an ordinary legislative power, nothing else in the world; known and recognized as such and admitted as such by every State in the Union. New York abolished slavery by law, Pennsylvania abolished slavery by law, and in the States where the institution continued, it was fostered, protected, and recognized by ordinary acts of legislation.

"Mr. Davis.—I am sorry to interrupt the senator again, and I believe this will be the last time. The first instance he will find was that of Massachusetts, who, in her bill of rights, at the Revolutionary era, made a declaration which her supreme court held to be the abolition of slavery; and I think he will find that it has generally been acted on in that way; but he has not the right to assume anything more than I stated. I stated a mode."

JAMES L. ORR.

Col. Orr is of Irish extraction, his ancestors on the paternal and maternal side coming originally from Ireland. His grandfather, a native of North Carolina, was a Revolutionary soldier. Christopher Orr, his father, was a country merchant of considerable means, and who expended them liberally upon the education of his children. James L. Orr was born May 12, 1822, at Craytonville, Anderson District, South Carolina. He began his education at a common school, but was soon sent to the Anderson Academy, at the same time, however, assisting his father in keeping his books. When he was eighteen years old, he was sent to the University of Virginia, where his proficiency in his studies was so great, that he attracted the attention of his tutors, who predicted a promising career for the young student. In 1841, he left college and spent two years in pursuing a course of general reading, of the greatest importance to him in after life.

In 1843, he studied law, was admitted to the bar. He began the practice of law at home, in Anderson, the same year establishing a village newspaper and editing it. It was called the "Anderson Gazette." In 1844, when but twenty-two years of age, his neighbors and friends elected him to the State Legislature, where he began his political career in a quiet, unostentatious manner. Still, he took a very decided position—one which gave an indication of his future policy. It was this: he delivered a speech in opposition to the doctrine of nullification, in reference to the tariff of 1812. He also took democratic ground in favor of the election of Presidential electors of the people. They were then, and are now in South Carolina, elected by the legislature.

In 1848, Mr. Orr became a candidate for Congress. His chief opponent was a Democrat, a lawyer of wealth and talents, and of course the contest was simply one of personal popularity, as both gentlemen held the same political sentiments. After a very lively contest, Mr. Orr was elected by 700 majority over his Democratic competitor. He entered Congress at a time when the country was convulsed with the slavery question, and though such men as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Cass, and the like, were in Congress, he very soon attracted the attention of the experienced legislators of that time. Not by egotistic speeches, forcing himself, as some men do, upon the attention of Congress and the country, but by delivering, at judicious times, speeches which were full of solid ability. While he was a firm defender of slavery and what are called "the constitutional rights of the South," he condemned the agitation of the question of slavery, and arrayed himself against the ultraists of his section of the country. Col. Orr's constituents were so well pleased with his conduct that they have left him in it till he was, in December, 1857, elected speaker of the House of Representatives.

When the compromise measures were passed, South Carolina for a time seemed to favor a secession from the Union. A Constitutional Convention had been called and a large majority of the delegates were pledged to favor secession. Col. Orr, however, come out very boldly and eloquently against their policy. A General Convention of the disaffected people was held in Charleston, in 1851, and Col. Orr attended as a delegate from the Anderson District. In the Convention he took strong ground against disunion, and introduced resolutions embodying his opinions on that subject. But out of 450 members, only 30 came to his support. But Col. Orr was undaunted by the majority of numbers against him. He appealed to the people by voice and pen, and as the result he and a companion in his disunion views were elected to the proposed Southern Congress over two secession candidates. An apparent admirer of Col. Orr, speaking of this contest, says:

"That the crisis was one full of alarm and danger must be admitted even by those furthest from the scene, and most disposed to deny both the right and power of a State to secede; and that Mr. Orr, in the very opening of a brilliant political career, hazarded his future hopes and prospects to a sense of right and duty, entitles him to the regard of every true lover of the Union. His triumph was highly honorable to himself, and fixed him more firmly than ever in the esteem and affections of his constituents."

The same writer remarks:

"The Congressional career of Mr. Orr, which a want of space prevents us from noticing more in detail, has been both a brilliant and a useful one. Always sustaining his positions with eloquence and force of argument, and exhibiting great fairness in debate, he has commanded attention, and exercised a powerful influence over the questions of the day. His habits of thorough investigation and analysis, and his tenacious adherence to his convictions of right, have frequently placed him at the head of important committees; and his reports are among the ablest in our legislative records. As chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, during the discussion of the most important and exciting measures, he displayed so much promptness, firmness, and intelligence in his decisions that he won the confidence and respect of men of all parties; and at the commencement of last Congress he was almost unanimously selected by the Democrats as their candidate for Speaker. His party was, however, in the minority, and his election failed. When the present session of Congress opened, Mr. Orr was nominated, without opposition, and elected its presiding officer. So far he has justified the expectations of his friends and of the party which placed him in the chair. In the fulfillment of the duties of his present position Mr. Orr will doubtless add honorably to the reputation he now enjoys. He is too wise a man not to perceive that while fidelity to party was the best ladder for him to rise to his present height, impartial neutrality will now serve his fame and ambition better."

Upon the whole, Mr. Orr made an admirable Speaker to the Thirty-fifth Congress. If he was not always rigidly impartial, the exceptional cases were rare, and when he was swerved from the straight line of duty by his sectional prejudices.

In November, 1855, to go back a little—Col. Orr published a letter in reference to the duty of South Carolina toward the Democratic party of the North. The people of that State were then, as they seem almost always to be, in a state of high excitement on the slavery question. Many leading politicians counselled secession and non-action in reference to the Presidential canvass. But Col. Orr took different ground. In his letter to Hon. C. W. Dudley, dated Anderson, Nov. 23, 1855, he said:

"A convention is merely a method of finding out what the popular opinion is, and giving to it a more conspicuous and imposing expression. It has been steadily and uniformly pursued by the Democracy of all the States (except our own) for fifteen years or more, and the selection of delegates, manner of voting and nominating, has been defined by a usage well understood and acquiesced in, as if regulated by law. Hence, we know that such a convention will assemble in Cincinnati in May next, and that it will nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency—adopt a platform of principles—and it is nearly certain that the nominees will receive the votes of the Democratic party of every State in the Union. Shall the Democracy of this State send delegates? It is our privilege to be represented there, and at the present time I believe it to be a high and solemn duty to meet our political allies, and to aid, by our presence and councils, in selecting suitable nominees and constructing a platform, which will secure our rights and uphold the Constitution."There has never been a time since the convention policy was adopted—if, indeed, there has been such a time since the government was inaugurated—when the success of the Democratic party in the electoral college was so vitally important as now. If that party should be defeated in the election before the people, every patriot's mind must be filled with gloomy forebodings of the future. The indications now are, that the opposition to the Democratic party, made up of Know Nothings, Abolitionists, and Fusionist, will run two or more candidates: if the Democracy fail to secure a majority in the electoral college over all elements of opposition, then the election must be made, according to the Constitution, by the House of Representatives. Can we safely trust the election of our rights to that body? The House is now elected, and weknowthat a decided majority of the House are members of the Know Nothing, Fusion and Whig parties; and if the election be devolved on them, the Democratic party will be certainly defeated, and perhaps a Fusionist promoted to the Presidency. Are the people of South Carolina so indifferent to their relations to the Federal Government, that they will quietly look on and see such an administration as we have had since the 4th of March, '53—an administration that has faithfully and fearlessly maintained the Constitution in its purity—supplanted by Know Nothingism or Black Republicanism? That is the issue to be decided in the next presidential election, and that, too, in the electoral college; for if we fail there, then we know now with absolute certainty that we must be defeated before the House. Was it, then, ever so important before that the Convention should be filled with discreet, patriotic men; that there should be the fullest representation of every man devoted to the Democratic faith, and opposed to Fusion and Know Nothingism; that they should commune freely together, and nominate a candidate who will command the confidence of the entire party."We have heard much of southern union being necessary to our safety. We now have it in our power, by cordial coöperation with our southern sisters, to secure it—to secure it on such a basis as will permanently preserve our institutions. We can here make our demand, and with a united South, we can offer it to the true men of the North. If we act wisely and present such an ultimatum, I doubt not that thousands, perhaps millions, at the North, will espouse and maintain it; for it is a platform of the Constitution, and there are hosts of conservative men who I know are prepared to maintain the Constitution of our fathers."Will we reject it with silent contempt—adhere to our isolation, and stubbornly refuse to fraternize with her, and all the balance of our southern sisters? Who doubts that all the South will be represented there? and can it be said, truthfully, that our voice can be of no avail or weight, when the ultimatum shall be laid down? If we send delegates, who can say that our votes may not secure a reliable nominee and a sound platform? Will the instructions of Georgia to her delegates be more or less potent with the indorsement of all or of only a portion of the South?"If, indeed, fanaticism is in the ascendant in the North, and cannot be overcome, then what initiative step toward a southern Union, for the last resort, can be more effective than to unite all the South on the Georgia platform and instructions? Our influence in counsel and in action will be increased, whenever we show a hearty disposition to harmonize with our sisters in the South. Have we not heretofore kept aloof from their consultations in every instance, save in the Nashville Convention?—and that was a movement which did not derive any popularity in the South from being suspected of having originated in South Carolina. Sooner or later we must learn the important truth, that the fate and destiny of the entire South is identical. Isolation will give neither security nor concert. When we meet Virginia and Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, in consultation, as at Cincinnati, it is the supremacy of Pharisaism to flippantly denounce such association as either dangerous or degrading. North Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Texas, will be there represented; and are we too exalted or conceited to meet them at the same council board?"We shall meet there many liberal men from the North; those who in their section have done good service against political abolitionism. When we insist upon our platform with firmness, and they see we only make a demand of our constitutional rights, they will concede it; and when they go home they will prosecute the canvass in good faith, upon the principles enunciated at the Convention. Concert among ourselves, with the aid of the conservative men at the North, may enable us to save a constitutional Union; if that cannot be preserved, it will enable us to save ourselves and our institutions. Are we alone to have unoccupied seats, when such grave matters are to be decided by the Cincinnati Convention?"Suppose the Democracy of this State should decide not to send delegates, and the other States of the South should follow her example, who would be voted for? Could the party,even at the South, without some concert, which could only be secured by meeting, rally upon the same man? No well-informed person would venture an affirmative answer; what would be the result? The Democratic party would certainly be defeated, and the Know Nothing, or Black Republican party, would as certainly be successful. Our policy, then, would inevitably bring upon us defeat; and if we are to be saved from a free-soil President, it is only to be done by the party in the other States assembling and making a nomination in which we refuse to participate. Even those who are opposing the sending of the delegates, I doubt not, rejoice in the hope that the other States, despite our impracticable example, will meet and nominate candidates."The northern Democrats aided us to bring into the Union Texas, a magnificent slave-holding territory—large enough to make four slave States, and strengthened us more in that peculiar interest than was ever before done by any single act of the Federal Government. Since then they have amended a very imperfect fugitive slave law, passed in 1793, and have given us now a law for the recovery of fugitive slaves, as stringent as the ingenuity of man could devise. Since then they have aided us by their votes in establishing the doctrine of non-intervention with slavery by Congress in the territories. Since then they have reduced the odious tariff of 1842, and fixed the principle of imposts on the revenue, not the protective basis. Since then they have actually repealed the Missouri restriction, opened the territories to settlement, and enabled us, if the South will be true to herself, and aid in peopling Kansas, to form another slave State."In 1843, a man would have been pronounced insane, had he predicted that slavery would be introduced there by the removal of congressional restrictions. Since then they have adopted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and Madison's report—the very corner-stone of State rights—as a part of the Democratic platform. They have by their votes in Congress and Convention given all these pledges to the Constitution since 1843; and if we could then fraternize with them, what change has transpired that justifies the delegates in that Convention, at least, in refusing now to fraternize with northern and southern Democrats?"

"There has never been a time since the convention policy was adopted—if, indeed, there has been such a time since the government was inaugurated—when the success of the Democratic party in the electoral college was so vitally important as now. If that party should be defeated in the election before the people, every patriot's mind must be filled with gloomy forebodings of the future. The indications now are, that the opposition to the Democratic party, made up of Know Nothings, Abolitionists, and Fusionist, will run two or more candidates: if the Democracy fail to secure a majority in the electoral college over all elements of opposition, then the election must be made, according to the Constitution, by the House of Representatives. Can we safely trust the election of our rights to that body? The House is now elected, and weknowthat a decided majority of the House are members of the Know Nothing, Fusion and Whig parties; and if the election be devolved on them, the Democratic party will be certainly defeated, and perhaps a Fusionist promoted to the Presidency. Are the people of South Carolina so indifferent to their relations to the Federal Government, that they will quietly look on and see such an administration as we have had since the 4th of March, '53—an administration that has faithfully and fearlessly maintained the Constitution in its purity—supplanted by Know Nothingism or Black Republicanism? That is the issue to be decided in the next presidential election, and that, too, in the electoral college; for if we fail there, then we know now with absolute certainty that we must be defeated before the House. Was it, then, ever so important before that the Convention should be filled with discreet, patriotic men; that there should be the fullest representation of every man devoted to the Democratic faith, and opposed to Fusion and Know Nothingism; that they should commune freely together, and nominate a candidate who will command the confidence of the entire party.

"We have heard much of southern union being necessary to our safety. We now have it in our power, by cordial coöperation with our southern sisters, to secure it—to secure it on such a basis as will permanently preserve our institutions. We can here make our demand, and with a united South, we can offer it to the true men of the North. If we act wisely and present such an ultimatum, I doubt not that thousands, perhaps millions, at the North, will espouse and maintain it; for it is a platform of the Constitution, and there are hosts of conservative men who I know are prepared to maintain the Constitution of our fathers.

"Will we reject it with silent contempt—adhere to our isolation, and stubbornly refuse to fraternize with her, and all the balance of our southern sisters? Who doubts that all the South will be represented there? and can it be said, truthfully, that our voice can be of no avail or weight, when the ultimatum shall be laid down? If we send delegates, who can say that our votes may not secure a reliable nominee and a sound platform? Will the instructions of Georgia to her delegates be more or less potent with the indorsement of all or of only a portion of the South?

"If, indeed, fanaticism is in the ascendant in the North, and cannot be overcome, then what initiative step toward a southern Union, for the last resort, can be more effective than to unite all the South on the Georgia platform and instructions? Our influence in counsel and in action will be increased, whenever we show a hearty disposition to harmonize with our sisters in the South. Have we not heretofore kept aloof from their consultations in every instance, save in the Nashville Convention?—and that was a movement which did not derive any popularity in the South from being suspected of having originated in South Carolina. Sooner or later we must learn the important truth, that the fate and destiny of the entire South is identical. Isolation will give neither security nor concert. When we meet Virginia and Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, in consultation, as at Cincinnati, it is the supremacy of Pharisaism to flippantly denounce such association as either dangerous or degrading. North Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Texas, will be there represented; and are we too exalted or conceited to meet them at the same council board?

"We shall meet there many liberal men from the North; those who in their section have done good service against political abolitionism. When we insist upon our platform with firmness, and they see we only make a demand of our constitutional rights, they will concede it; and when they go home they will prosecute the canvass in good faith, upon the principles enunciated at the Convention. Concert among ourselves, with the aid of the conservative men at the North, may enable us to save a constitutional Union; if that cannot be preserved, it will enable us to save ourselves and our institutions. Are we alone to have unoccupied seats, when such grave matters are to be decided by the Cincinnati Convention?

"Suppose the Democracy of this State should decide not to send delegates, and the other States of the South should follow her example, who would be voted for? Could the party,even at the South, without some concert, which could only be secured by meeting, rally upon the same man? No well-informed person would venture an affirmative answer; what would be the result? The Democratic party would certainly be defeated, and the Know Nothing, or Black Republican party, would as certainly be successful. Our policy, then, would inevitably bring upon us defeat; and if we are to be saved from a free-soil President, it is only to be done by the party in the other States assembling and making a nomination in which we refuse to participate. Even those who are opposing the sending of the delegates, I doubt not, rejoice in the hope that the other States, despite our impracticable example, will meet and nominate candidates.

"The northern Democrats aided us to bring into the Union Texas, a magnificent slave-holding territory—large enough to make four slave States, and strengthened us more in that peculiar interest than was ever before done by any single act of the Federal Government. Since then they have amended a very imperfect fugitive slave law, passed in 1793, and have given us now a law for the recovery of fugitive slaves, as stringent as the ingenuity of man could devise. Since then they have aided us by their votes in establishing the doctrine of non-intervention with slavery by Congress in the territories. Since then they have reduced the odious tariff of 1842, and fixed the principle of imposts on the revenue, not the protective basis. Since then they have actually repealed the Missouri restriction, opened the territories to settlement, and enabled us, if the South will be true to herself, and aid in peopling Kansas, to form another slave State.

"In 1843, a man would have been pronounced insane, had he predicted that slavery would be introduced there by the removal of congressional restrictions. Since then they have adopted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and Madison's report—the very corner-stone of State rights—as a part of the Democratic platform. They have by their votes in Congress and Convention given all these pledges to the Constitution since 1843; and if we could then fraternize with them, what change has transpired that justifies the delegates in that Convention, at least, in refusing now to fraternize with northern and southern Democrats?"

The reader will easily see Col. Orr's position from this letter. He is a southern Democrat, and, as such, a defender of slavery and slavery extension, a free trader, and an opponent of all homestead bills, but he does not go with the most ultra class of Southern politicians; in short, he is "a National Democrat." He stands by the Democratic organization of the country, so long as it stands by the South and her institutions as well as it has done in the past. Upon the new issues of intervention for slavery in the territories he has not yet spoken, but he was, of course, a rigid Lecomptonite. But during the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill he spoke very decidedly. He said: "The legislative authority of a territory is invested with no vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory, when the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws, what is the remedy?None, sir.If the majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it ingrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial legislature for its protection."

In Congress, Col. Orr has generally ranged himself with the compromising democracy. He is not born of the old aristocratic stock of South Carolina planters, but was the son of a worker—a country merchant. This fact has never been lost sight of by a portion of the citizens of South Carolina, and they have been, some of them at least, his bitter enemies for years. It is not impossible but Col. Orr, for this reason, has taken a more "national" view of politics, and has refused to go out of the Union for the sake of the slaveholding aristocracy.

In his personal appearance Col. Orr is not, perhaps, prepossessing; though his great, black eye and fine open face show the force and power of his intellect. He is large in person, and not particularly graceful in his actions or appearance. He has a certain dignity, however, which enforces attention if he is the orator of the occasion, and obedience if he is the presiding officer.

JOHN MINOR BOTTS.

We have no extended sketch of Mr. Botts to present to the reader, but a few leading facts in reference to the political man.

Mr. Botts is a native of Dumfries, Prince William County, Virginia, and was born in September, 1802. As early as 1834, he joined the Whig party, and in 1839, he came to Congress as a Whig. He was known in the House as a follower of Mr. Clay, or rather a supporter of Mr. Clay and his peculiar doctrines. Mr. Botts, in other words, was in favor of a highly protective tariff, the distribution of the public lands, and internal improvements. He is to-day in favor of these measures of what he would call reform. So strong was he in his devotion to the tenets of the Whig party, that when President Tyler disappointed his friends by his tariff policy, Mr. Botts, though a friend of years, at once terminated the friendship. He could not hold in respect the man who, it seemed to him, had betrayed his friends.

Mr. Botts was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska act and to the passage of the Lecompton bill. Nevertheless he is a slaveholder and a defender of the institution as it now exists in Virginia. But he is not a believer in the finality of the present system, nor is he afraid to express his opinions of slavery. This will be seen at once by the perusal of a letter to the "Richmond Whig," from Mr. Botts, from which we quote. It is dated April 18, 1859:

"I have recently received many letters from different parts of the State, asking for a copy of my Powhatan speech, delivered in 1850, which it is impossible for me to furnish, as I have only some half dozen copies left. As the best means of supplying the information so earnestly sought by those friends who are anxious to ascertainwhat horrible sentiments I uttered on the subject of slavery, which have been recently, to a great extent, substituted for the 'free negro' misrepresentation, I have concluded to publish, for the benefit of the Imposition party in particular, everything in that speech that relates to the question of slavery; garbled extracts of which have already appeared in a small portion of the press of that party—many of them, seeming to think there was no great amount of capital to be made out of it, have declined to notice it. The following is the portion objected to. I said:"'There are, sir, two parties in our country, distinct from all the rest, of whom I wish to say a word. The one in the North, called 'Abolitionists,' and the other, in the South, known as 'Disunionists.' I am not sure for which of the two parties I have the least sympathy or respect; and I am not sure to which attaches the largest share of the responsibility for the chief difficulties with which the nation has been lately afflicted."The Abolitionists seem to estimate the value of this Union (and to hold as a condition and a price for its continuance) by theabolition of African slavery. While the ultra men of the South, or disunionists, seem to regard theperpetuationandextensionof slavery as the chief bond that can hold them and the Union together. For neither of these parties have I any sympathy. I hold to the Union for far different, and, I trust, higher and nobler purposes. It is for theperpetuation of American Freedom, rather than theabolitionorperpetuation of African Slavery. I am one of those who think slavery, in the abstract, is much to be deprecated; and whilst I think that, as at present organized in the southern States, it is a humanizing, civilizing, and Christianizing institution, as must all agree who will take the pains to compare the present condition of our slaves with the original African race, yet I regard it as a great calamity that it should have been entailed upon us; and I should look upon that man as the first and greatest benefactor to his country, whose wisdom could point out to us some practical and satisfactory means by which we could, through our own instrumentality, and without interference from our neighbors, provide for the ultimate emancipation and removal of all the slaves in the country. I speak of this as a desirable thing, especially to the owners of slaves, who, I think, are the chief sufferers, but at the same time I fear it is perfectly Utopian to attempt it; but I have seen too much difference between the enterprise, the industry, and the prosperity of the free and the slave States, to doubt the advantage we would derive from it if it could be accomplished.'"Now, there it is; let them make the most of it. I will add, that I said it all at mature age, after full and careful deliberation, honestly believing and thinking all that it contains. I have seen no reason formodification,recantation, orequivocation. What I thought and said then, I think and repeat now,in the most emphatic terms; and hold, that he who objects to the sentiments conveyed, to be consistent, must not only be in favor of reopening the African slave trade at this time, but must take the position, that if no such thing as slavery had ever been known to or introduced amongst us, he would now favor its introduction for the first time; for if its original introduction is not to be deprecated, but justified and approved, why would he not advocate a traffic that holds so high a place in his judgment and regard? I do not know how many there are in this State, or in the South, who set themselves up as advocates of this revolting trade, nor do I care; I have only to say, that I am not one of them, and that, as ahumanized,civilizedandchristianized, member of the community, I should be utterlyashamedof myself, if I couldentertainany other opinions than those I have expressed; and I should deserve the scorn of all men, if I could permit any condition of the public mind to induce me so far todebasemyself as to render me capable of expressing any other, for the purpose of catering to a morbid, vitiated, and corrupt taste, or to an affected and artificial sentimentality on the subject of slavery. These were then, and are now, my honest convictions, and I think all who have participated in the clamor that has been attempted to be gotten up, for the opportunity afforded me of proclaiming them from the house-tops, to thehumanized,civilized, andchristianizedworld; and I hope the Imposition press, throughout the State, will publish them, and that their candidates for gubernational and subordinate honors may read this my last declaration on the subject, wherever they may speak."In another part of that speech I said:"'What I would ask anddemandof the North, is that they shall not interfere with slavery as it exists under the Constitution; that they shall not touch the question of the slave trade between the States; that they shall carry out the true intent and meaning of the Constitution in reference to the restitution of fugitive slaves. These are thetrue issuesbetween the North and the South; and I would go as far as he who goes furthest in exacting them, 'at all hazards, and to the last extremity." And what I would ask of the South is, not to suffer itself to be led off, without due consideration, upon false issues, presented by intemperate or over-zealous politicians, many of whom delight in, and live upon, agitation and excitement, and many more, perhaps, who owe their ephemeral fame and position to apretended, exclusive championship for southern rights. Southern honor does not depend upon making unreasonable and untenable demands. The interferencewith, or abolitionofslavery, where it exists, is one thing; the extension of it, where it does not exist, is a very different thing! Let us claim no more than we are entitled to under the Constitution; and then, what we do claim, let us stand by, like men who "know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain them.'""I have seen no reason to recant what I said here, either; these are the sentiments I now entertain, as I did when they were delivered before the people of Powhatan. What fault do they find with this? Do they indorse it or repudiate it? If they indorse it, even-handed justice requires them to say so. If they condemn it, justice to themselves, as they are resolved to make war on me, requires that they should point out wherein they differ from me."In this connection it may be proper to add, for the information of all who feel an interest in my record, one short paragraph from my African Church speech, in 1856, relating to the same subject; and from the several extracts herewith furnished, I think few will have any difficulty in ascertaining my position on the slavery question. Here is the passage referred to:"'My position on the question of slavery is this; and, so far from wishing to conceal it, I desire it should be known to all. Muzzles were made for dogs, and not for men; and no press and no party can put a muzzle on my mouth, so long as I value my freedom. I make bold, then, to proclaim that I am no slavery propagandist. I will resort to all proper remedies to protect and defend slavery where it exists, but I will neither assist in nor encourage any attempt to force it upon a reluctant people anywhere, and still less will I justify the use of the military power of the country to establish it in any of the territories. If it finds its way there by legitimate means, it is all well; but never by force, through any instrumentality of mine. I am myself a slaveholder, and all the property my children have in the world is slave property, inherited from their mother; and he who undertakes to connect my name, or my opinions, with abolitionism, is either a knave or a fool, and not unfrequently both. And this is the only answer I have to make to them. I have not connected myself with any sectional party or sectional question; and so help me God, I never will.'"

"'There are, sir, two parties in our country, distinct from all the rest, of whom I wish to say a word. The one in the North, called 'Abolitionists,' and the other, in the South, known as 'Disunionists.' I am not sure for which of the two parties I have the least sympathy or respect; and I am not sure to which attaches the largest share of the responsibility for the chief difficulties with which the nation has been lately afflicted.

"The Abolitionists seem to estimate the value of this Union (and to hold as a condition and a price for its continuance) by theabolition of African slavery. While the ultra men of the South, or disunionists, seem to regard theperpetuationandextensionof slavery as the chief bond that can hold them and the Union together. For neither of these parties have I any sympathy. I hold to the Union for far different, and, I trust, higher and nobler purposes. It is for theperpetuation of American Freedom, rather than theabolitionorperpetuation of African Slavery. I am one of those who think slavery, in the abstract, is much to be deprecated; and whilst I think that, as at present organized in the southern States, it is a humanizing, civilizing, and Christianizing institution, as must all agree who will take the pains to compare the present condition of our slaves with the original African race, yet I regard it as a great calamity that it should have been entailed upon us; and I should look upon that man as the first and greatest benefactor to his country, whose wisdom could point out to us some practical and satisfactory means by which we could, through our own instrumentality, and without interference from our neighbors, provide for the ultimate emancipation and removal of all the slaves in the country. I speak of this as a desirable thing, especially to the owners of slaves, who, I think, are the chief sufferers, but at the same time I fear it is perfectly Utopian to attempt it; but I have seen too much difference between the enterprise, the industry, and the prosperity of the free and the slave States, to doubt the advantage we would derive from it if it could be accomplished.'

"Now, there it is; let them make the most of it. I will add, that I said it all at mature age, after full and careful deliberation, honestly believing and thinking all that it contains. I have seen no reason formodification,recantation, orequivocation. What I thought and said then, I think and repeat now,in the most emphatic terms; and hold, that he who objects to the sentiments conveyed, to be consistent, must not only be in favor of reopening the African slave trade at this time, but must take the position, that if no such thing as slavery had ever been known to or introduced amongst us, he would now favor its introduction for the first time; for if its original introduction is not to be deprecated, but justified and approved, why would he not advocate a traffic that holds so high a place in his judgment and regard? I do not know how many there are in this State, or in the South, who set themselves up as advocates of this revolting trade, nor do I care; I have only to say, that I am not one of them, and that, as ahumanized,civilizedandchristianized, member of the community, I should be utterlyashamedof myself, if I couldentertainany other opinions than those I have expressed; and I should deserve the scorn of all men, if I could permit any condition of the public mind to induce me so far todebasemyself as to render me capable of expressing any other, for the purpose of catering to a morbid, vitiated, and corrupt taste, or to an affected and artificial sentimentality on the subject of slavery. These were then, and are now, my honest convictions, and I think all who have participated in the clamor that has been attempted to be gotten up, for the opportunity afforded me of proclaiming them from the house-tops, to thehumanized,civilized, andchristianizedworld; and I hope the Imposition press, throughout the State, will publish them, and that their candidates for gubernational and subordinate honors may read this my last declaration on the subject, wherever they may speak.

"In another part of that speech I said:

"'What I would ask anddemandof the North, is that they shall not interfere with slavery as it exists under the Constitution; that they shall not touch the question of the slave trade between the States; that they shall carry out the true intent and meaning of the Constitution in reference to the restitution of fugitive slaves. These are thetrue issuesbetween the North and the South; and I would go as far as he who goes furthest in exacting them, 'at all hazards, and to the last extremity." And what I would ask of the South is, not to suffer itself to be led off, without due consideration, upon false issues, presented by intemperate or over-zealous politicians, many of whom delight in, and live upon, agitation and excitement, and many more, perhaps, who owe their ephemeral fame and position to apretended, exclusive championship for southern rights. Southern honor does not depend upon making unreasonable and untenable demands. The interferencewith, or abolitionofslavery, where it exists, is one thing; the extension of it, where it does not exist, is a very different thing! Let us claim no more than we are entitled to under the Constitution; and then, what we do claim, let us stand by, like men who "know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain them.'"

"I have seen no reason to recant what I said here, either; these are the sentiments I now entertain, as I did when they were delivered before the people of Powhatan. What fault do they find with this? Do they indorse it or repudiate it? If they indorse it, even-handed justice requires them to say so. If they condemn it, justice to themselves, as they are resolved to make war on me, requires that they should point out wherein they differ from me.

"In this connection it may be proper to add, for the information of all who feel an interest in my record, one short paragraph from my African Church speech, in 1856, relating to the same subject; and from the several extracts herewith furnished, I think few will have any difficulty in ascertaining my position on the slavery question. Here is the passage referred to:

"'My position on the question of slavery is this; and, so far from wishing to conceal it, I desire it should be known to all. Muzzles were made for dogs, and not for men; and no press and no party can put a muzzle on my mouth, so long as I value my freedom. I make bold, then, to proclaim that I am no slavery propagandist. I will resort to all proper remedies to protect and defend slavery where it exists, but I will neither assist in nor encourage any attempt to force it upon a reluctant people anywhere, and still less will I justify the use of the military power of the country to establish it in any of the territories. If it finds its way there by legitimate means, it is all well; but never by force, through any instrumentality of mine. I am myself a slaveholder, and all the property my children have in the world is slave property, inherited from their mother; and he who undertakes to connect my name, or my opinions, with abolitionism, is either a knave or a fool, and not unfrequently both. And this is the only answer I have to make to them. I have not connected myself with any sectional party or sectional question; and so help me God, I never will.'"

JAMES H. HAMMOND.

The moderate political views which Gov. Hammond, of South Carolina, has within a couple of years given publicity to, has given him a somewhat national reputation among the adherents of the Democratic party. He came to Congress as a politician of the Southern Rights school, and it was generally supposed that he would be found acting with the ultra wing of the Southern party in Congress. He brought with him the reputation of a scholar and an orator, and mingled at once in the Lecompton fray. He took sides with the administration against Mr. Douglas, though it was noticed at the time that the senator had very little to say about the Lecompton Constitution and the real issue then before Congress. His speeches were upon the general question of slavery.

The new senator from South Carolina attracted the universal attention of Congress and the strangers then present in Washington, and the impression he made was generally a happy one. His manners were quiet, unostentatious, gentlemanly. His style of speech was smooth, pleasant, and sometimes eloquent. As a man he was liked. Genial in his nature and pleasant in his conversation, he soon made warm friends at the capital—even among some of the very men whom he had in his South Carolina home regarded as little less than monsters in human shape. Senator Hammond at first tried his lance with the Illinois Giant, but either from personal considerations, or other, he soon desisted. To show Gov. Hammond's position on the slavery question in the winter of 1847-8, we quote a few passages from his celebrated speech delivered in the Senate in the Lecompton debate. We have, in the following passage, his opinion of squatter sovereignty:

"If what I have said be correct, then the will of the people of Kansas is to be found in the action of her Constitutional Convention. It is immaterial whether it is the will of a majority of the people of Kansasnow, or not. The convention was, or might have been, elected by a majority of the people of Kansas. A convention, elected in April, may well frame a constitution that would not be agreeable to a majority of the people of a new State, rapidly filling up, in the succeeding January; and if legislatures are to be allowed to put to vote the acts of a convention, and have them annulled by a subsequent influx of immigrants, there is no finality. If you were to send back the Lecompton Constitution, and another was to be framed, in the slow way in which we do public business in this country, before it would reach Congress and be passed, perhaps the majority would be turned the other way. Whenever you go outside of the regular forms of law and constitutions to seek for the will of the people, you are wandering in a wilderness—a wilderness of thorns."If this was a minority constitution, I do not know that that would be an objection to it. Constitutions are made for minorities. Perhaps minorities ought to have the right to make constitutions, for they are administered by majorities. The Constitution of this government was made by a minority, and as late as 1840 a minority had it in their hands, and could have altered or abolished it; for, in 1840, six out of the twenty-six States of the Union held the numerical majority. In all countries and in all time, it is well understood that the numerical majority of the people could, if they chose, exercise the sovereignty of the country; but for want of intelligence, and for want of leaders, they have never yet been able successfully to combine and form a stable popular government. They have often attempted it, but it has always turned out, instead of a popular sovereignty, apopulacesovereignty; and demagogues, placing themselves upon the movement, have invariably led them into military despotism."I think that the popular sovereignty which the senator from Illinois would derive from the acts of his territorial legislature, and from the information received from partisans and partisan presses, would lead us directly intopopulace, and not popular sovereignty. Genuine popular sovereignty never existed on a firm basis except in this country. The first gun of the Revolution announced a new organization of it, which was embodied in the Declaration of Independence, developed, elaborated, and inaugurated forever in the Constitution of the United States. The two pillars of it were Representation and the Ballot-box. In distributing their sovereign powers among the various departments of the Government, the people retained for themselves the single power of the ballot-box; and a great power it was. Through that they were able to control all the departments of the Government. It was not for the people to exercise political power in detail; it was not for them to be annoyed with the cares of government; but, from time to time, through the ballot-box, to exert their sovereign power and control the whole organization. This is popular sovereignty, the popular sovereignty of a legal constitutional ballot-box; and when spoken through that box, the 'voice of the people,' for all political purposes, 'is the voice of God; but when it is heard outside of that, it is the voice of a demon, thetocsinof the reign of terror."

"If this was a minority constitution, I do not know that that would be an objection to it. Constitutions are made for minorities. Perhaps minorities ought to have the right to make constitutions, for they are administered by majorities. The Constitution of this government was made by a minority, and as late as 1840 a minority had it in their hands, and could have altered or abolished it; for, in 1840, six out of the twenty-six States of the Union held the numerical majority. In all countries and in all time, it is well understood that the numerical majority of the people could, if they chose, exercise the sovereignty of the country; but for want of intelligence, and for want of leaders, they have never yet been able successfully to combine and form a stable popular government. They have often attempted it, but it has always turned out, instead of a popular sovereignty, apopulacesovereignty; and demagogues, placing themselves upon the movement, have invariably led them into military despotism.

"I think that the popular sovereignty which the senator from Illinois would derive from the acts of his territorial legislature, and from the information received from partisans and partisan presses, would lead us directly intopopulace, and not popular sovereignty. Genuine popular sovereignty never existed on a firm basis except in this country. The first gun of the Revolution announced a new organization of it, which was embodied in the Declaration of Independence, developed, elaborated, and inaugurated forever in the Constitution of the United States. The two pillars of it were Representation and the Ballot-box. In distributing their sovereign powers among the various departments of the Government, the people retained for themselves the single power of the ballot-box; and a great power it was. Through that they were able to control all the departments of the Government. It was not for the people to exercise political power in detail; it was not for them to be annoyed with the cares of government; but, from time to time, through the ballot-box, to exert their sovereign power and control the whole organization. This is popular sovereignty, the popular sovereignty of a legal constitutional ballot-box; and when spoken through that box, the 'voice of the people,' for all political purposes, 'is the voice of God; but when it is heard outside of that, it is the voice of a demon, thetocsinof the reign of terror."

Speaking of the South and slavery, he said:

"If we never acquire another foot of territory for the South, look at her. Eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles. As large as Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Spain. Is not that territory enough to make an empire that shall rule the world? With the finest soil, the most delightful climate, whose staple productions none of those great countries can grow, we have three thousand miles of continental shore line, so indented with bays and crowded with islands, that, when their shore lines are added, we have twelve thousand miles. Through the heart of our country runs the great Mississippi, the father of waters, into whose bosom are poured thirty-six thousand miles of tributary streams; and beyond we have the desert prairie wastes, to protect us in our rear. Can you hem in such a territory as that? You talk of putting up a wall of fire around eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles so situated! How absurd."But, in this territory lies the great valley of the Mississippi, now the real, and soon to be the acknowledged, seat of empire of the world. The sway of that valley will be as great as ever the Nile knew in the earlier ages of mankind. We own the most of it. The most valuable part of it belongs to us now; and, although those who have settled above us are now opposed to us, another generation will tell a different tale. They are ours by all the laws of nature; slave labor will go over every foot of this great valley where it will be found profitable to use it; and some of those who may not use it are soon to be united with us by such ties as will make us one and inseparable. The iron horse will soon be clattering over the sunny plains of the South, to bear the products of its upper tributaries to our Atlantic ports, as it now does through the ice-bound North. There is the great Mississippi, a bond of union made by Nature herself. She will maintain it forever.""In all social systems, there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life—that is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand—a race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified, in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity, to stand the climate to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves, by the 'common consent of mankind,' which, according to Cicero, 'lex naturæ est'—the highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; it is a word discarded now by 'ears polite;' I will not characterize that class at the North with that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal."

"But, in this territory lies the great valley of the Mississippi, now the real, and soon to be the acknowledged, seat of empire of the world. The sway of that valley will be as great as ever the Nile knew in the earlier ages of mankind. We own the most of it. The most valuable part of it belongs to us now; and, although those who have settled above us are now opposed to us, another generation will tell a different tale. They are ours by all the laws of nature; slave labor will go over every foot of this great valley where it will be found profitable to use it; and some of those who may not use it are soon to be united with us by such ties as will make us one and inseparable. The iron horse will soon be clattering over the sunny plains of the South, to bear the products of its upper tributaries to our Atlantic ports, as it now does through the ice-bound North. There is the great Mississippi, a bond of union made by Nature herself. She will maintain it forever."

"In all social systems, there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life—that is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress, civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand—a race inferior to her own, but eminently qualified, in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity, to stand the climate to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found them slaves, by the 'common consent of mankind,' which, according to Cicero, 'lex naturæ est'—the highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; it is a word discarded now by 'ears polite;' I will not characterize that class at the North with that term; but you have it; it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal."

Upon going home to his South Carolina plantation, a change seems to have come over the mind of the senator—or he was greatly misunderstood while at Washington. In a speech, delivered at Brownwell Court House, South Carolina, October 27, 1858, he astonished some of his neighbors as well as distant friends and enemies, by the enunciation of peculiarly moderate views for a South Carolina Democrat. Let us quote a few paragraphs. First upon Disunion. Says Senator Hammond:

"But I will not detain you longer with what belongs to the past. The present and the future are what concern 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 observations and reflections 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 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 hereafter 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. I think I say 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, however 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 in 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 I think we are about to achieve, have inspired me with hope, I may say the belief, that we can fully sustain ourselves in the Union, and control its action in all great affairs."

Upon the African Slave Trade thus speaks the senator:

"We have it proposed to reopen the African slave trade and bring in hordes of slaves from that prolific region to restore the balance. I once entertained that idea myself; but, on further investigation, I abandoned it. I will not now go into the discussion of it further than to say that the South is itself divided 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 reopen the trade. If it could be done, then it would be unnecessary, for that result could only be brought about by such an entire abandonment 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. Nowhere 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 anywhere 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 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 countries? We would not enslave the Indians! Experience has proved 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, demoralized 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 revolution. 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 burden 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 can not get it by negotiation or by purchase, 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 unhappy States is certainly deplorable, but the good God holds them in the hollow of his hand and will work out their proper destinies."

Upon the Cuban question:

"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 principles 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 grounds to suppose that we can acquire it in any other way; and the war that will open to us such an occasion will be great and general, 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 our whole sugar 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 practised, every slave in America 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?"

And finally upon his own position as a National Democrat:

"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 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 myself repudiated it. But if a southern 'National Democrat' means one who is ready to welcome into our ranks with open arms, and cordially embrace and promote according to his merits every honest free State man who reads the Constitution as we do, and will coöperate 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 does 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 Constitution, and that no 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 Democrats 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 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 distinctions 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 exigencies 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."

"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 Constitution, and that no 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 Democrats 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 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 distinctions 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 exigencies 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."

Senator Hammond entered the Senate with the reputation of a southern "Fire-eater," but before a year had passed by, he had taken ground with the most conservative northern Democrat, on Cuba, the African slave trade, and the general question of the annexation of foreign territory to this Union. Here was an apparent change which very naturally excited the criticisms of the ultra southern politicians.

Gov. Hammond is a native of Newberg District, South Carolina, where he was born, November 15, 1807. His parents were natives of the State of New York. He graduated at Columbia College, S.C., practised law from 1828 to 1830, afterward became editor of the "Southern Times," came to Congress a single term in 1835 and when the two years were over, made the trip of Europe. In 1841, he was made a militia general—yet something of an honor in South Carolina—and a year later was elected Governor of the Palmetto State. After a single term he retired to his extensive estate upon the Savannah River, where he remained in quiet, raising cotton and reading books till in 1857 he was elected by the State legislature to represent, in part, South Carolina in the United States Senate.

In his personal appearance Senator Hammond is prepossessing. He is of medium height, has a fine, open face, sparkling black eyes, and black hair—what there is left—a broad forehead and the manners of a pleasant gentleman.

Back to Index Next