Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1852-03-25
THE DAILY TIMES.
SPEECH OF
Hon. Humphrey Marshall, of Ky.,
CoNCLUDED. |

|
nca0 topic of discussion before his questions are
answered. [ desired to follow his specifications
against the President, and to run out the parallel
| between Mr.. Fillmore and General Butler as to
| the slavery question. But see that the gentle
man tires OF that, and would carry this examine
| ton into my own political opinions. These arc
well known. They have been expressed fire.
| quently, and are in my legislative course
IheY cannot throw light upon the parallel be-
| tween General Butler and Mr.. Fillmore; and |
Will proceed, therefore, to look to the next spec-
ication made by my colleague against the Presi-
dent He says
AFTERWARDS sir, at the same session. the IA
nous twenty-fr rule was adopted, wholly ex-
GLIDING abolition petitions, whether they referred
to the States, Territories, the District of Co.
lumbia. Here, again, the name of General But
Ter recorded in the affirmative; and Adams,
Giddings, Fillmore and others, and, regret to
add, some Southern Wings, in the negative.''
Now, sir, this collocation Of names is not ex-
pected to do Mr.. Fillmore injury here among po-
liticians and statesmen, but in the farm-houses
and cabins of Kentucky and the South. There,
as is well known, the name Of the member from
Ohio, Mr.. Giddings,) is not popular His prin
ciples do not suit US, and his sentiments are not
| according to the feelings of our people. 1t may
be supposed that the association of Mr.. Filmore's
name with that of Mr.. Giddings, of Ohio may
produce prejudice against Mr.. Fillmore, and
operate upon his political prospects injuriously.-
l mean to send the antidote with the poison. I
mean to examine the principle of this vote, and
OF whatever other votes gentlemen produce.
Now to the second specification. The twenty
first rule did no more than present the principle
OF the Wise resolution Mr.. Wise's resolution
raised the question of reception the ground
that there power in Congress to entertain
the subject. The twenty-frst rule absolutely
excluded the petition, instead of making the dis
position OF it on the question of reception. The
| multiplication of examples, therefore, on this
point has no further force than to indicate the
matured AMI fixed conclusions arrived at by
Messrs. Fillmore and Butler, respectively upon
the principle of the rule. But, sir, this illustra-
ton equally unfortunate for my colleague as the
other.
The twenty frst-rule was right or wrong IF
the House did right to adopt it, the House did
wrong to repeal it; because it asserted princi-
pie and contained an exposition of limitation
upon the constitutional power of Congress-
Adopted by the twentysixth Congress, it was re-
pealed by the twentyeighth Congress. Adopted
by House containing Democratic majority, it
was repealed by a House with yet larger De-
mocratic majority, and the latter discussion was
confirmed at the opening of the twenty ninth
Congress by another overwhelming Democratic
majority. Who did right! His party has &C
guessed in the lasdecison, as that of 'sits sober
second thought" | must presume, from the APP
probation OF Mr.. Fillmores sanction to the bill to
suppress the slave trade in this District, which
General Butler has given in his letter, that he,
too, would now vote against the adoption of the
twenty-frst rule; for if he is not now with Mr..
Fillmore upon the principle of the rule, then are
his words empty and unmeaning. If such rule
should exist, where have been the Democrats
since the twenty-ninth Congress- that they have
not attempted to revive it? Where has been the
voice ofmy colleague Mr.. BREcKEN RIDGE) during
this whole Congress- while questions upon the sub
ject of the Fugitive Slave Law, and slavery in a
variety of forms. have been pouring through this
House, that he has not attempted to revive it,
In assailing Mr. Fillnore's vote for the adoption
of that rule, he will that he arraigns the vote
OF his own party in repeating it: and the action
OF that party in repeating the rule present to the
country vindication of the President for the
vote selected for his condemnation.
The course of the Democratic party in con-
nexon with the twenty first rule offers an instruc-
tive lesson, by which the people of this country
may we'll study and better appreciate the philos-
| ophy of passing events. That rule was adopted
at the session of Congress Immediately preceding
the Presidential election Of 1910. The compet-
itors for the Chief Magistracy were Harrison and
| Van Buren,, that ''northern with southern
principles whom the Democracy so delighted to
honor. The agitation of the slavery questions,
| the presentation of abolition petitions and memo
rails concerning slavery, had goaded the southern
| people to degree of excitement which rendered
| them easy prey to whatever faction might
choose artfuly to play upon their sensitiveness
in regard to ''the peculiar institution" The dis
cussion OF Thompson's resolution, which imme-
diately succeeded the rejection of Wise's propo-
sltlon, offered the opportunity to drag the whole
subject of slavery, it exists in the South into
the arena of party politics. Pressed in the con-
test for power, and wei ghed down by the thousand
evidences of Van Buren's mal-administration,
which were being developed to popular observa-
ton, the Democracy, in their desperation, seized
the slavery question, with the intent to manufac-
ture therefrom eectioneering capital for the &C.
casion. A Southern Democrat-now no more
opened the war upon the Wings of the country,
by the general accusation that they were allied to
the Abotionists. Comparing, with elaboration
and apparent accuracy, the votes OF parties, he
deduced, from selected instances, sufficient mate
rails to authorize, in his opinion, general concu-
sion-which his party adopted-that Harrison
was an Abolitionist; that his supporters were the
allies of the Abolitonists; that Martin Van Buren,
was the man with southern principles, upon whom
the South mightlean with unhesitating confidence,
and that the Van Buren, Democracy of the North
alone could be relied upon for the protection and
maintenance of the constitutional rights of the
South. Sir, do not mean to recur to the Incl
dents of that canvass. Some there are here who
| imagine that the people were msled by the cry
of clog cabins, hard cider, and coon-s skins" This
is a sad mistake. The regret with which the De-
mocrats still look back to Van Buren's defeat, and
the insufciency of the causes to which they attri-
buteit argue little appreciation of the difficulty we
escapedby avoiding one whose views of the slavery
questions have since been so distinctly developed,
and less respect for the popular intelligence
The people, sir saw through Mr.. Van Barren be-
fore the politicians did. / will do the Southern
Democrats of 1910 the justice to say that they
were particular, at least in the arrangement of the
terms upon which they brought the abolition ques-
ton within the range of partisan politics. IHey