The Washington union., 1857-10-03
SPEECH OF THE HON. ABIJAH MANN, JR., IN
THE NEW YORK BLACK REPUBLICAN, CoNvEN-
TION

TION.
This gentleman, in his pithy showing up of SEN
ator Seward Governor King, and sundry other
black-republicans with whom he is now associated,
at one time acquired considerable distinction for
talent and democratic independence, while his pri
vate character was above reproach. Recently he
has left his former associates and many suppose
because certain democratic Presidents have failed to
appreciate his estimate of himself For that some
other cause he has become most violent and un-
compromising enemy of the democratic party, and is
substantially an abolitonis We have just read his
speech as president of the late black-republcan con-
vention in New York. 1t is difficult to account for
some portions of it without attributing to him nten
tional or that unsettled state of
intellect which induces men to believe what never
existed lie devotes column of his address to the
misrepresentation Of matters in Kansas and perver-
sons of the Presidents reply to Professor Siliman
and Others and the denunciaton of sentiments which
he never uttered He charges it as crime that
heretofore the electors in Kansas not protected
by the strong of the government at the polls,
and denounces former election as invalid on that
account and declares therefore that laws enacted by
friend Governor Reeder gave certificates of election
to a large majority of the persons then elected.
He charges it as crime that the President
has not himself turned vioator of laws, and refused
to execute those in force after the objection
able parts have been repealed. Now, when the
President proposes to use the power Of the govern
ment to protect voters at the coming election, MIR.
Mann denounces him for it. If the electors are not
protected he deems it criminal and if they pro-
tected, it is an equally high offence. 1t is publicly
known that his friend Lane is raising and armng
large force in Kansas for the professed purpose of
protecting the electors. This he fails to condemn
even notice, while he applies harsh epithes to the
President for doing the same thing when required by
law and his oath of Office. Such Inconsistencies
show that Mr.. Mann either has lost the power of
soning or has designedy failed to apply that power
to the case before him. He makes the following
taordinary statement 'The constitution, says the
it goes, and wherever property is protected under
it, No such allegation was ever made by the Pres
ident and those abolition papers who have informed
Mr.. Mann that he did make it deceived him, as they
did all their other readers. If Mr.. Mann had read
the Presidentsletter instead of abolition prints, which
in former times he vehemently denounced he would
not have made this absurd charge against him.
In commenting upon the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States Mr.. Mann has fallen into
read the decision of the court, but has confdingly
relied upon the abolition press in this country and
in Great Britain for his knowledge of it. He alleges
that the court expressed sentiments that not found
in their opinions, and had purposes in view that
not affirmed but are disavowed by its members. He
neither states truly the questions involved nor the
conclusions of the court He conveys the idea that
the question was whether the court for against
slavery? when no such question was before them
considered. Two questions only were involved
and SO the record shows--frst, if a lawful slave
went to free State and returned to slave State,
was he slave or freeman his return? and, sec
ondly if he ceased to be slave whether he became
a citizen of the United States, though he might be
citizen of some of the States? The court held
that on returning to State where he had been
slave his former character reattached to him, and
he could not become citizen of the United States,
though he might of particular State, and therefore
could not institute suit in the circuit court of the
United States The court did not hold that the laws
of slave State in force and could be executed
in free State except to the extent specified in the
constitution. They acted upon the ground that
Scott did not carry the laws of Missouri with him
into Illinois, and that returning to the former State
he did not bring those of the latter State with him.
Instead of stating these principles Mr.. Mann puts
forward those of the abolition journals who have
cheated all who trusted them in communicating that
decision.
He states that, in form, the Supreme Court deter
mined "that slaves property in the same sense as
any chattel so that slave-owner may carry his ne
groes to any State in the Union and settle them there
as slaves notwithstanding any State laws to the con-
trary." Mr.. Mann never found this sentence in the
opinion of the Supreme Court in that of either of
the Judges II is evident that he has not read, or
does not understand the decision of the court he
Intentionally misrepresents it. The court made no
such decision and gave no such opinion. Mr.. Mann
found this sentence the Seth page of the reprint
of the July number Of the Westminster Review, in
an article, whether written by him or Mr.. Sumner
(but certainly by American abolitionst) we do not
know. headed " Manifest Destiny of the American
Union" which is devoted to abolition and abuse of
our countrymen, and strongly favoring destruction
of our Union Several paragraphs following the