H. OF R.] ing. holding States. And I state, further, that I am utterly opposed to the object of the prayer of those who have petitioned Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; for although I am inclined to the opinion that Congress has a right to legislate on this subject, I am utterly and wholly opposed to any effort to touch it, for many of the most obvious reasons; one of which, paramount to all others, is the feeling of the Southern slaveholding States; for gentlemen from the South have assumed an unbroken front in assuring us that the first effort to legislate on this subject will produce an instantaneous dissolution of the Union, to which I am, in the sincerity of my soul, attached above all other political considerations. But, sir, I cannot go with those honorable gentlemen the lengths proposed. I cannot consent to pass a vote of censure on any honorable member, whether from the North or the South, the East or the West, for rising in his place and orderly asking a question, or independently expressing an opinion, as much soever as I may believe them to be erroneous, or as mon strous soever as all may admit them to be. which may Heaven in mercy avert!-when, howeverer as it may be, with the subject of slavery in the slaveinstigated, the hand of the slave shall be raised against his lawful master, and the tocsin of alarm shall be sound ed from our Southern borders, then shall it be known that the cords of affection, of a common kindred, and of ancient friendships with our Southern brethren, are closely knit in every Northern bosom, and that the hour of trial with them cannot pass, without our sympathy and generous participation in their service and sufferMr. Speaker, I represent, with my colleagues, the people of a State who were early taught the value of civil lib. erty. They know of no freedom without the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the right of petition. They derive not these enjoyments from any parchment charter of Government, but claim them as the absolute, unqualified inheritance of freemen, the prerogative of civilized, social man. The constitution of Massachusetts was adopted in the midst of the great struggle for Amer. ican liberty; and there is written, in letters of gold, in her glorious Bill of Rights, that the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition is an inalienable right, and cannot be impaired; that the liberty of speech and of the press is essential to freedom in a State, and ought not to be restrained. It is upon these fundamental principles, first proclaimed by themselves, and afterwards ingrafted into the frame of the Federal Government, mainly by the action of the convention of Massachusetts, that the people of Massachusetts claim the right to speak, and write, and petition. Having this right, they send their petitions here; and all they ask or hope is, that their requests may be considered, and such disposition made of them as best comports with the honor, peace, and welfare of the nation. They mean no offence; they meditate no wrong; and, in vindicating them, I do but vindicate and assert those great principles of civil liberty, to enforce and carry out which this Government was founded, and the subversion of which this republic cannot survive. Mr. Speaker, I have risen and made these unpremeditated remarks, not knowing that I shall even be sustain. ed by a single member from my own State, or the North, in protesting against the passage of the resolu tions upon your table. But, whether I stand alone or am supported, I can never consent that my venerable colleague shall be brought to your bar, to be censured for a conscientious discharge of duty. What he has done he has manfully, rightfully, nobly done, in defence of the inestimable right of petition and the freedom of speech in this House. Mr. BYNUM then addressed the House at some length, and concluded by submitting the following proposition: Strike out all after the word "Resolved," and insert, "That an attempt to present any petition or memorial from any slave or slaves, or free negro, from any part of the Union, is a contempt of the House, and calculated to embroil it in a strife and confusion incompatible with the dignity of the body; and that any member guilty of the sime justly subjects himself to the censure of the House. "Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the fact whether any such attempt has been mude by any member of this House, and report the same to the House as soon as practicable." Mr. GRAVES addressed the Chair as follows: I have arisen to submit a few remarks in support of the vote I shall feel myself constrained to give on this subject. Sir, I am from a slave hold ng State, myself a slavehold. er, and am not ashamed to acknowledge it. And I do enter my most solemn protest against the abolitionists, or any other portion of the population of the non-slaveholding States, to interfere in any degres, as remotely soev Sir, I calmly ask this House to take a dispassionate, common-sense view of what it seems we are about to do, under the influence of heated imagination and excitement, almost by acclamation; the facts in the case are few and easily understood. They are simply that the honorable gentleman arose in his place and asked of the Chair Mr. ADAMS stated that he had in his possession a paper upon which he wished to have the decision of the Speaker. It purported to be a petition from twentytwo slaves, declaring themselves such, and he was requested to present it. He wished to know whether the Speaker would consider the paper as embraced by the resolution of the House of the 18th of January last. The SPEAKER answered that the gentleman having the paper in his possession was the best judge of the matter; but if the gentleman would send the paper to the Chair, he would then decide. Mr. ADAMS said if he sent it to the Chair it would then be in possession of the House, whereas he wished to know of the Speaker whether it came within the resolution of the House of the 18th of January, before he presented it. The paper purported to come from slaves; and this, like the other petition which he had last presented, was one of the cases to which he had alluded, in before stating to the House that, when he received them, a doubt had arisen in his mind whether the paper was genuine, or whether it was spurious and an imposition. The paper appeared to be signed partly by persons who could not write, but made their marks, and partly by persons, judging from the handwriting, of little education. He would send the paper to the table. Mr. LAWLER objected to its going to the table. The SPEAKER said, as this was a novel case, he would leave it to the House, and take its advice and couns 1. For this supposed crime (said Mr. GRAVES) the honorable gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. THOMPSON] has submitted a resolution to have him brought to the bar of the House and reprimanded by the Chair. Now, sir, whilst I wholly differ with the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts in supposing, as he says he does, that slaves have a right to petition this House, and whilst I suppose that not a member on this floor concurs with that gentleman in this most extraordinary opinion, yet he has asserted to this House that every human being, whether bond or free, has a right to petition this body. He says that such are the conclusions of his best reflections, and as such intended, if he had found it not disagreeable to the House, to have discharged what he considered his duty, by presenting it. And for this expres sion of what I feel myself constrained to believe to be an honest but a most absurd opinion, we, the members of this House, are called on to pass a vote of censure on one who has filled with honor to himself and his country what I consider the highest station on earth; one whose history is identified with that of our common country. I, sir, supported, with all the humble influence which I possessed, the administration of that honorable gentleman. But I regret to say his course since I have met him on this floor has most generally met with my most decided disapprobation and condemnation. But, sir, in the vote I am about to give, I am not to regard any opinions I may have or now do entertain of that honorable gentleman's course on other subjects. But I look only to the abstract question of the operation of the proposed movement upon a member of this House. Believing that the obvious tendency of this movement is calculated, though no doubt unintentional on the part of the mover, to abridge the freedom of speech here, I will never, as long as I maintain the stand of an American Congressman, consent to take this or any other step which is calculated to restrict the liberty of speech in any member of this body, or any other American citizen. Sir, it is insisted, notwithstanding the gentleman from Massachusetts disavows any such intention, that the question which he has asked the House was calculated and designed to ridicule and bring into contempt the resolution adopted by this House, by which all petitions and papers of every description, in relation to the subject of slavery, should be received and laid on the table, without reading. Now, sir, if it was the intention of the honorable gentleman from Massachusetts to bring contempt and ridicule on this or any other measure of this House, he has only done that from which such a design might be inferred: he intended a reflection on that resolution, and to show what he says is the absurd operation of such a rule, whilst a gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. PICKENS] has openly and boldly announced, in his speech upon this subject, that he denounced this resolution, adopted by the overwhelming vote of this House, with but 16 members from slaveholding States voting against it, as both contemptible and ridiculous, without offend. ing the sensibility of this body. Shall we pass a vote of censure on the venerable member from Massachusetts for doing that which has been done with impunity by another? I am not one of the number to take this step by joining in this vote of censure. I am not for censuring either of those gentlemen, for I am for allowing the greatest possible latitude to debaters, to the entire freedom of speech, and will resist to the last moment any encroachment on either. But, sir, allow me to take another view of this subject. We are not authorized to infer, from the question which the gentleman has asked, that he designed to bring into ridicule and contempt this House, or any of its acts. Though I confess I thought differently at first, now that the gentleman has asserted, in his place, that he had a definite and practical object in asking this question; that it was his object, if it should be approba ted by the House, to proceed to present the petition: now, sir, I believe it was the object of that honorable gentleman to learn, through the Speaker, whether it would be agreeable to the House for him to present this petition. Sir, if, then, a member desires to take a step in this House which his conscience approves, and he feels it his duty to do, and still, from respect to the House, shall ask their opinion on the subject, shall we, who profess to stand up against any encroachment on the liberty of the citizen, vote a resolution to censure a free citizen, a representative of freemen, for thus daring to ask the pleasure of the House as to a step which he thinks right? Sir, I have witnessed many things in this House which [H. of R. I thought very much out of order, and language from which a great disrespect to the opinions of the House might much more readily be inferred, than from the language of the gentleman from Massachusetts. Yet I have never felt disposed to pass a vote of censure on an honorable member for this course. Sir, there are, to my mind, numberless objections to this resolution of censure. Once establish it as a principle that a member may be degraded, by a vote of censure, for expressing an opinion which a majority thinks is not orthodox, which they may suppose is disrespectful to some measure which they have adopted, and where is it to stop? Sir, there is no telling. Once set a precedent to the exercise of this extraordinary power, and how soon may gentlemen of the minority of this House find it operating with the greatest possible severity upon them with whom I glory in being numbered? Sir, I have stood breast to breast with gentlemen from slaveholding States, and other sections of this Union, in battling against what we all profess to think to be encroachments upon the liberty of the citizen. But, sir, I must be excused for pausing to take this step, which I regard at all times as an extreme remedy, and which, under the present circumstances, is unnecessary. What, then, are the facts of this case? The gentleman from Massachusetts bas, in his argu ments on this floor, asserted heretofore that the right of petition ought not to be restricted, but that it should be held open to every human being. That, entertaining the opinions he does on the subject, he should feel himself unauthorized to refuse to present the petition of any human being that might be sent to him. These arguments of the gentleman were delivered when advocating and defending the petitioners of the North, on the subject of abolishing slavery in this District. And, I suppose, to try his faith in this opinion, and to ridicule its absurdity, this petition from twenty-two slaves, in reference to the presentation of which he asked the offensive question, was sent to him. And, further, to show it was intended to ridicule him and his opinions, I understand they pray that the gentleman himself, and all such as entertain abolition principles, shall be expelled from this House. Does not the fact that this came from slaves in a slaveholding State, praying to have the honorable gentleman expelled, show, to the satisfaction of all, that it was designed to ridicule him, and test the sincerity of his professions? This, I have no doubt, was done by persons who abominate the gentleman and his opinions. Sir, if the gentleman from Massachusetts is to be censured for this language of his, may not a majority of this House, who disagree with me on national politics, as well undertake to punish me for contempt or disrespect, for uttering an opinion which, in the presence of my God and my country, is true-that, in effect, our Government has been revolutionized under this administration; that all power is concentered in your Presi dent; that he has asserted prerogative after prerogative, usurped power after power, until he now has more power, and governs with infinitely less restraint, than either the King of England or France? Sir, I will now, and as long as I may remain here, battle against every inch of such grounds. I do not know that I shall have a single member from a slaveholding State with me in voting against this resolution, except the honorable gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. ROBERT soN;] but, sir, if I stood alone, I should think the stand the more glorious. I know of no criterion by which to govern my course on this or any other subject, other than the dictates of my own judgment; that, sir, I will follow, lead me where it may. Sir, I am perfectly satisfied that the fanaticism in the North upon the subject of slavery in the slaveholding States proceeds mainly from a misapprehension on the condition of the slaves. They sup H. of R.] Censure of Mr. Adams. [FEB. 7, 1837. Mr. PATTON obtained the floor, and made some few remarks-invoked gentlemen of the South not longer to discuss this subject, but to take the vote as soon as Northern men were disposed to do so. Mr. P. concluded by moving the following resolutions, as an amendment to the amendment: Resolved, That the right of petition does not belong to slaves of this Union; that no petition from them can be presented to this House without derogating from the rights of the slaveholding States, and endangering the integrity of the Union. pose that slaveholders treat their slaves like brutes; that they are not supplied with the necessaries of life, with necessary food and raiment. In this they are greatly mistaken. Sir, the population of the slaveholding States are as kind, benevolent, and as beneficent a people as live on earth, and treat their slaves not as brutes but as human beings, entitled to all the indulgences which are consistent with their condition. But if the people of the slaveholding States were insensible to every feeling of humanity, and were only capable of being operated on by the most sordid and selfish considerations, they would perceive it to be their most obvious policy both to clothe Resolved, That every member who shall hereafter preand feed the slave well, for by it his health is promoted sent any such petition to this House ought to be conand his life prolonged. Sir, I profess to understand per-sidered as regardless of the feelings of this House, the fectly well the relations subsisting between master and rights of the South, and an enemy to the Union. slave, and I hesitate not to say that the condition of the Resolved, That the Hon. JOHN Q. ADAMS having slave, particularly in Kentucky, the State I have the solemnly disclaimed a design of doing any thing disrehonor in part to represent, is better than the condition of spectful to the House in the inquiry he made of the the poor portion of the population of any nation on earth; Speaker as to the petition purporting to be from for there the necessaries of life are so cheap that the slaves, and having avowed his intention not to offer to food and clothing of a slave are but small considerations present the petition if the House was of opinion that it with the owner. ought not to be presented-therefore, all further proceedings as to his conduct now cease. The adoption of a resolution of censure on the venerable gentleman from Massachusetts, taken in connexion with the severe and acrimonious censure which Southern gentlemen, in this debate, have cast on these deluded citizens of the North, who have sent their petitions to us for the abolition of slavery in this District, would, in my estimation, be the most unwise step which could be taken by this body, desirous as it must be to allay the unfortunate excitement which is now prevailing on the subject of the petitions sent here. It is inconsistent with the freedom of the age to expect to drive a community from opinions which they have adopted, except by showing them to be erroneous. You cannot by denunciation drive them from making efforts to accomplish favorite objects, except by convincing them of their impracticability. But let them once see the utter inutility of further efforts, of the obvious folly of perseverance, and they will probably desist; but no individual or community was ever convinced of an erroneous opinion by denunciation. Let them see that they may petition, and Congress will disregard their prayers, and lay their petitions on the table without reading, and it would be worse than folly in them to persevere in their useles course. Whilst I am prepared to admit that many honest persons in the North, believing slavery to be opposed to and possibly inconsistent with religion, have become fanat ics, and are seen sending their petitions for its abolition in this District, let me tell them their course is fraught with the worst of consequences; it is not only welding more strongly the fetters of slavery, but it is now verging on producing that state of parties in this Union which Mr. Jefferson so much deprecated, which every lover of this Union must deprecate above all other curses that can befall our country-a state of parties divided by geographical lines, which, when formed, will, yea, must, inevitably burst asunder the bonds of this blessed Union. Mr. PHILLIPS then inquired whether the resolution of the gentleman from North Carolin, which was proposed as an amendment, was in order. He made this inquiry because he considered that, if this resolution was in order, the subject lost its character of a question of privilege. The CHAIR decided that it was in order. Mr. PHILLIPS appealed from this decision, and went on briefly to discuss his point of order. The CHAIR then stated the grounds of his decision, and read the parliamentary law on the subject; when Mr. PHILLIPS said, to save the time of the House, he would withdraw the appeal. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair as follows: Mr. Speaker: I am reluctant, sir, to throw myself again upon the indulgence of the House. The original resolution which I submitted upon this subject, and which seems so much to have shocked the delicate sens bilities of some gentlemen, was dictated by the irrepressible feelings which the conduct of the honorable member from Massachusetts was so well calculated to excite. More calm reflection has only served to confirm me in the opinion that the course which I adopted was that which duty demanded; and although I should not be sustained by a single vote, it would not in the slightest degree shake my purpose. No, sir; in this, as in every other contest of duty, honor, and right, there is consolation, if in nothing else, in the glorious sentiment of Henry at Agincourt: "The fewer men, the greater share of honor." It is not the first time that, in the moment of conflict, I have found myself abandoned by some of those who had urged me into it. I am somewhat in the condition of Richard before the fatal day of Bosworth: my allies dropping off one by one. Like him, I hope in nothing else. Gentlemen who yesterday reproved my flagging zeal, and urged a resolution for the expulsion of the member from Massachusetts, to-day find my resolution too strong by half. All I desire is, the formal and unequivocal expression of the House, that to present a petition from slaves is unauthorized by the constitution, a disrespect to the House, and a violation of the rights and feelings of a portion of its members. I have no personal feelings of vengeance against the honorable member [Mr. ADAMS] to gratify, although his habitually harassing the House, and irritating conduct on this subject of abolition, have been well calculated to rouse such feelings. How great have been his trespasses during this session upon your patience, and that of the House, is in the knowledge of every member. My honorable friend from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] admits that the conduct of the member from Massachusetts was "a wanton trifling with the House, and unjustifiable torturing of the feelings of its members; and that the subsequent explanations of the gentleman nothing extenuate the offence." Now, sir, I beg to be informed, if a wanton trifling with the House and torturing the feelings of its members is not a disrespect deserving censure, what is? The honorable member from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] has urged with much zeal and force that there Was no offence in the question which was asked; that there can be no violation of the decorum of the House in asking a question-a question which may or may not be answered. Is this true, sir? No offence in a question! Can greater offence be offered than by asking some questions? There are some questions not to be asked, and this is one of them. Is it no disrespect to ask a member if he is not destitute of honor or truth? None whatever, according to the argument, because the question may be answered or not. Slaves have no right to petition. They are property, not persons; they have no political rights; and even their civil rights must be claimed through their masters. Having no political rights, Congress has no power in re gard to them, and therefore no right to receive their petitions. They are property, not persons, under the constitution. The constitution is the paramount rule of the House; and any attempt, however made, to present petitions from them is a violation of that constitution, and a flagrant disrespect and insult to a portion of its members. Does any man dare to claim that the House of which I am a member is a tribunal to which appeals from my slaves are to be addressed, and in which their denunciations of me are to be received? This is a question that I will not argue. From the position that slaves have a right to petition, to that which should assert their right to vote, "the step is short and natural." They can have no such right, unless they have political rights. If they have, to refuse them an agency in making the laws by which those rights are guarded is to violate the great fundamental principle of our Revolution. If they have the right to petition, the principle must be carried out to that extent. I repeat, sir, I will not argue such a question for any other purpose than to show the enormity of the act of offering such a petition. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] objects that the charge is indefinite, intangible. How, says he, did the member trifle with the House? I will tell you, sir. After presenting various abolition petitions, the member [Mr. ADAMS] stated that he had a petition from twenty-two slaves, and asked if it came within the resolution of the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr. HAWES;] thus giving to the House an additional reason to believe that the prayer of the petition was for the abolition of slavery. I inquired if it was an abolition petition, and requested that it might be read. The honorable member from Massachusetts declined to answer. My friend from Alabama [Mr. Lewis] inquired of the Chair whether the petition did pray for the abolition of slavery. He was informed by the Chair that it did. The honorable member was silent, and permitted the misapprehension of the Chair, into which he had led both you, sir, and the whole House, to remain uncorrected, when he alone had it in his power to set the House right. One word from him would have sufficed. He refused to give that one word. He allowed more than one resolution to be sub. mitted and speeches to be made on that supposition; and not until he supposed the House sufficiently embarrassed and entrapped did he condescend to state what was the nature of the petition. Is not this trifling with the House? Let every member honestly answer the question. But, sir, I take broader ground. To present any petition, for any object, (and it is perfectly indifferent what that object is,) from slaves, is without authority or right, and an unjustifiable and insolent trifling with the House. The honorable member from Kentucky [Mr. GRAVES] has replied to an argument which no one has used. I certainly have not. He seems to suppose that the act of the honorable member from Massachusetts is regarded as offensive, because it is calculated to bring into contempt the resolutions of his honorable colleague, [Mr. HAWES.] I have not heard any such ground assumed. I shall certainly be one of the last to break a lance in defence of those resolutions. The same honorable member has also argued that it could be no disrespect, as the VOL. XIII.-103 [H. OF R. member from Massachusetts disclaims any such intention. Does not every one see this would excuse any the greatest violation of decorum? A member may ask another if he is not guilty of falsehood, and is not a knave, and in his defence say he meant no offence: is he to pass without censure? The honorable member is a slaveholder, and represents slaveholders, and on that account I must say that I have heard no speech on this floor which has grated so harshly on my ear. I regretted it, deeply regretted i', as coming from a slaveholder. It concedes, in my judg ment, the most vital principles for which the abolitionists contend. Look at their petitions. They say that slavery is an evil, a national sin, and a disgrace. Will these be cured by abolition in this miserable ten miles square' Does any man believe that their purposes are confined to that? You might as well tell me that you would set fire to ten feet square in a dry prairie, and that you designed and expected that it would extend no further. No, sir; these men, fanatics as they are, understand their game. They know that this is our weakest point—that upon which their strongest show of plausible argument can be made; and, like a skilful commander, they first assail the weakest point of the enemy, as diseases settle upon the weakest part of the system; and a more pestilent disease than this does not exist. It is a foul and blasting malaria, which is prostrating the justice, virtue, and independence, of a portion of the country. Is there not at least one member on this floor, who last session was opposed to these wretches, but who, at the last election, was obliged to give in his adhesion or give up his seat here-a painful alternative to any but a patriotto a patriot a proud occasion of sacrificing the poor honor of a seat in this body to his sense of justice and right-to the peace and harmony of the Union. They regard abolition in the District as a first but decisive step to abolition in the States. So do I. So does the whole slaveholding country. The gentleman concedes them the power here, and we are only tenants at sufferance, at will-and at the will of those who we know will strike the blow whenever they dare do it. They are adders fanged and coiled, and only do not strike because they dare not. Is this the aid which slaveholders in this body give to each other? "Call ye this backing your friends? A plague of such backing, say I." I think, Mr. Speaker, I may say that I am not responsible for the erratic and discursive course of this debate. I have endeavored to confine myself to the subject before the House, and I now reluctantly advert to some topics not strictly pertinent, but which have not been first involved by me. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. LINCOLN] has complained of severe denunciations of his State. Not by me, sir. I am guiltless on this, as on all former occasions. I would not wantonly assail the character of any State, and especially of that ancient, enlightened, and renowned Commonwealth. But when these vile assassins are exciting our slaves to revolt-to murder-infanticide; when their poisoned shafts are daily aimed at our lives, and, what is of infinitely more value, at our characters, when I strike back, and gentlemen choose to interpose their State to receive the blows aimed at them, they must take the consequenI shall bate no jot of the force of my blows on that ces. account. The gentleman has given us another eulogy upon these amiable fiends-these most respectable assassins. Now, sir, allow me to say that I have read a work on the subject of slavery, written by a man than whom none is more honored at the North, and one whom the South, too, once delighted to honor, and who, I doubt not, is the best of the infamous brotherhood; and I venture to say that no book of the same number of pages, in any language, contains libels more foul and false. As a class, they are fools or knaves, and there is no escape from the alternative. If they do not know how worse than vain are their efforts, and that they only tend to make worse the condition of those whose friends they profess to be, they are entitled to the former-if, knowing it, they persist in their vile purposes, with no hope of good, but at the risk of tearing down the proudest temple which human wisdom has reared to human liberty, none will deny their right to the latter appellation. War. [FEB. 7, 1837. have taken American honor exclusively under their keeping; to remind them of the part which their States bore in the late war-that second struggle for independence-for we should have ceased to have had the most essential attributes of a nation if we had not waged that Northern commerce was assailed, and Northern seamen impressed. The North counted the cost, and was opposed to war. The national honor was assailed, and the rest of the nation counted not the cost, but rushed into the conflict, and came out of it triumphantly, with the North all the while hanging upon their skirts. I know, sir, that there were illustrious exceptions. I speak not of individuals, but of the conduct of States. The gentleman from Massachusetts, as if entirely unconscious of the offensiveness of such topics, speaks of the right of the people of the North to sympathize with human suffering-with the oppressed-with those improperly held in bondage. Now, sir, what does all this When the gentleman [Mr. LINCOLN] speaks of the mean, when translated? It means this: that we of the sympathies of the North for human suffering, for the South are oppressors; holding men in bondage so cruel oppressed and those held in unlawful bondage, I cannot and unlawful as to enlist the sympathies of the generous, forbear to congratulate him upon the return of those the warm-hearted people of the North-sympathies of feelings—for, if "aught that's true in history be," it was which we must be destitute, or we would cease from not always so. There would seem to have been a time such wickedness. Now, sir, gentlemen must expect when these honorable feelings had fled from their land. these charges to be repelled. Rosseau, I believe it was, And even now it seems to be a most modified benevoregretted that he had not been born a Roman. I am lence, a most restricted philanthropy, which demands, thankful and proud that I was born an American, a as indispensable, that their objects should have a red or slaveholder, and a South Carolinian. I regard African a black skin; for their own color and race, their hearts slavery, in all it bearings, as a blessing-as a blessing to are as cold as they ever were. How, Mr. Speaker, if the slave himself; and I challenge a denial of the propo- it should turn out that slavery has been brought upon sition, that nowhere on the earth, in his native land or the country by this most tender-hearted people? How, any other, is the African so elevated in the scale of if I shall show that the blackest and the bloodiest pages being, or in the enjoyment of as much comfort-so vir- in the history of this country, or of man, are to be found tuous, enlightened, or happy-as those who are slaves in the treatment of the aborigines by New England? in this country. I am satisfied that in no country where That, as long as the slave trade was profitable and toldomestic slavery does not exist has the character of man erated, it had no horrors in their sight? That they had ever been, or ever will be, found in its highest develop- no sympathies with the poor Indians until they had litment. I believe it essential to the maintenance of liber-erally exterminated all the tribes by whom their fathers, ty. Where, let me ask, when the liberties and honor of flying from another land, were kindly and hospitably this country have been assailed by enemies, foreign or received-ere yet the untutored savage had learned the domestic, have they flown for refuge? I feel that I am arts, the frauds, the rapacity, of the white man, which treading on delicate ground. It may be invidious in they first taught him? Now, when they are no longer these times, when the whole North is so clamorous incommoded by the vicinity of the savage, their sympa. about the freedom of speech and the press, to remind thies are not with their brethren, circumstanced as their gentlemen of the sedition law; and when they seem to fathers were. Their philanthropy and their selfish interests are never opposed, however there may be such opposition to the interests of others. I like not your courtezan turned prude, after ability to be vicious has ceased, and trust her nothing the more that she claims to be of the "unco' guid, the rigidly righteous," and is seen at church meetings and christeni gs, sanctified and demure to a proverb. *Note by Mr. T.-Freedom of opinion and of speech, and sympathies with the Indian and African, are the three great topics of New England cant of the present day. How long has it been thus, vide the following extracts from Neal's History of New England; to say nothing of that glorious act for securing the freedom of opinion and the press, the sedition law, which had the united support of New England. The New Englanders petition their magistrates to take speedy measures against the Anabaptists.—Neal's History of New England, vol. 1, 279. Three were punished shortly after for religious opinions, viz: John Clarks, fined £20 or to be whipped; John Crandall, £5 or whipped; Obadiah Holmes, £30. Vol. 1, 280-1. Holmes received thirty lashes at the whipping-post.— Vol. 1, 283. And John Stone and John Hazwell were each fined 40s. or to be whipped, for shaking hands with him, and praising God for his courage and constancy.-Vol. 1, 283. The Government of New England proceeded against the Quakers as it had done against the Anabaptists, by fines, imprisonment, and whipping; and, these proving ineffectual, they put three or four to death.-Vol. 1, 291. They imprison and banish Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, for being Quakers.-Vol. 1, 292-3. Laws against Quakers.-Vol. 1, 293-4. Nicholas Upshall, aged sixty years, was fined £30 and banished, for speaking against that law. Mary Clarke whipped twenty stripes for being a Qua Are gentlemen ignorant that mainly on New England rests the responsibility of the great importation of slaves to this country? that the Colonial Legislature of Virginia passed twenty-two acts against it? and that it was through the power and influence of the New England colonies that the trade was not stopped? It was a business in which they could turn a penny, and their humanity ker and coming into New England, 1657.-Vol. 1, 295. Ch. Holder and John Copeland each received thirty lashes and nine weeks imprisonment for the same.-295. Leave passed to cut off the ears of Quaker men, and whip the women, and for boring their tongues with hot irons.-296-7. Holder, Copeland, and Roane, lost their ears.-297. Several others whipped and imprisoned.--Vol. 1, 301. Law to ship them to Barba and Virginia, and sell them as slaves.--304. Families ruined by fines.--305. Law to put them to death.--306-7. ed.--309. Mary Dyer also banged.--309. |