The true Democrat., 1857-02-17
Speech of Hon. A. G. Brown,
of Miss, on the Slavery Question.

l oi INlsSss OH the SIdVeTy QueSuOns
 We have no recollection of ever having read an argument more fitly and eloquently" spo- ken, more powerful and overw helmns to the mind, than the one delivered by Senator Brown in the United States Senate on the 22d Decem- Der last. This speech embraces powerful de. fence of the south and of the doctrine of the democratic party on the slavery question, which must utterly annihilate the web-woven theories of black republicanism. We shall content our self by presenting 10 the reader few brief ex- tracts from this admirable speech, hoping that the whole will be generally circulated as do- cument of importance and merit
 Senator Brown, after his masterlv defence of President Pierce's last message against the characteristic assaults of Hale, Seward, Will son and others of the black republican school, alluding directly to the latter, said:
 "The senator denies all association with Gar rson, and politicians of that school; but when l aliude to what Garrison said, the senator is quick to spring to his feet for the purpose of putting in vindcation. am always quick, I hope, to vindicate my friends, but very slow to vlndicate my enemies If they have no sym pathlzlng friends here they can send their vim dlcatlon through some other channel than n.y. self. But ln the very act of vindicatiny his friend, Garrison, from the charges which I made, the senator admitted all that said. My declaration was that Garrison had declared lH the last canvass, that if he had a million of votes to dispose of, he would give them all to fremont-of course l meant to say in the con- test then gong on; m the contest as between Buchanan, Fillmore, and Fremont I did not say that he preferred Fremont to all other men; but that as against the other two, he would give hs million votes for Fremont My object wss to show the bond of sympathy cx- lstlng between the republican senators here, and the Garrison, Fred. Douglas, and Wendell Phillips school elsewhere. 1 think 1 made my point clear at the time; but if I failed to do so then, l trust the senator appreciates it now. It was, and is, that such was Garrison,s partatv, such the partaitv of his extreme abolition crew, that if they had millions oi votes to give, they would, in that contest give them all to the republican candidate. Garrison would give million of votes to Fremont. and in return, Fremont would no doubt give mil lion of votes to Garrison and the senator l suspect, would give his million to either of the two, or to Gcrrit Smith, or to his friend, Wen- dell Phillips; and half suspect if Fred. Doug las was on the ticket it would make lo serious difference with him. Laughter
 made the charge the other day, and to it there has been no denial from the other side of the chamber, that in the very height of the conflict for the Presidency, Fred. Douglas, the Tree negro editor and orator, took down the name of Gerrlt Smith and put up the name of John Charles Fremont. Why not that denied? !? My point, as all must have seen, was to show the tIe that binds the republicans on this floor to the extreme abolition party out of doors.- wanted to show how they were being knit to- gether-how, being drawn into close compan- lonship, they will by and by, constitute but one party-and then if the extreme abolition element prevails, as it most likely will. the party must become, por excellence, the abolition party. believe that thousands of good men, now Tn the republican ranks, will abandon them II they come to understand the designs oi the leaders. meant 10 expose these de- sgns--to show that there was plan on fcot 70 uarrlsonlze the whole party; and if have done anything towards accomplishing this end 1 am satisfied
 There are other points in the Senator's speech to which will reply briefly He and other, have denied that there was anything of section-
 
 based, If l understand them correctly, on the ground that the mere fact of their candidates for President and Vice President being from the same section of the Union, did not estab IlSh scctonallsm in the ticket. The Senator cited the fact that Mir. Calhoun was upon the same ticket with General Jackson, and vet he sald, there was no charge of sectiOnaliSm then. Let me say to the senators none but the fee Diest mlnd could ever have pretended that the mere Tact Of both candidates being from the same section afforded evidence of sectionalism l can select ticket from Vermont and Massa- chnsetts to-day--and surely it would be as hard 10 get It there as anywhere else which woud oe purely national; and so could select one from the south which would be purely section- al as against the south. Why sir suppos. CasSIus NJ. Clay, of Kentucky, were no,ninat ed for the Presidency and Francis P. Blair of Maryland, for the Vice Presidency; does any one doubt that such a ticket would De section al ticket? It would be ticket hostile to the south, although both the nominees reside iu slaveholdng States? Surely need not sav to the senator thatits the sci timent of the party and of its candidates, that constitute irs section. aIlty, and not the residence of one or both ifs nominees.
 Are your sentiments national? Were not the sediments which you avuwed in the late canvass confined exclusively to the favor of one section? Were they not uniformly hostile to the other? Does not the country so recoo- nze them? The senator himself in the lro- gfesS ot his speech, and while uttering his complaint that we of the south did not tole Tate speakers who entertain his opinion. gave us the best evidence of the scctionaIism of his party Why" said he, "did We not have advocates in the south?' "Because." he an. Swered, you would not let tue friends of our ticket speak thcre?" Why did we not let mem speakE Was 1t because they were pa. tlonal III their sentiments? Was it because they came to advocate sentiments equally acceptable to the north and to the south, equally favora ole to the one section as to the other? No sir the senator knows this was not the reason - | ne senator Knew perfectly we'll that the rea son why orators of hls party were not allowed to Speak Tn the south was simply this: that 'uey came to speak against our institutions "S""a' our doinestc peace, against our domes ,l0 qu'e'.'ne' against our domestic safetv-at least against what we believe to be our domos. Uo peace saiety, and quietude; and of this we simply clalmed to be the best judges Tbe charge that we have stned debate or attool. aI the freedom of speech is not true and ,hosa who make It know it is not true.
 but sir, the object of the senator in ;n,,o ducinS this point was to complain of the want oi morality in the south. "What." said be
 your southern people will not permit north ern men to go there and express their honest sentiment. When they do go, you get up mobs and drive them out" Let me say to the sanas tor that when he or his friends com. to the south to utter national sentiments, they will he heard with attention and listened to with de. ference But when they come to preach sucb sentiments as senator on this floor has been heard to utter within the last week they may deem It fortunate II they escape the fury of an outraged people. When any man, whether he oe senator or private citizen, comes to tell our slaves that they have right to murder thelr masters, and that he will not advise them not to do it," we considerit no breach of hosnta. llty, no violation of the freedom of speech to say that such sentiments shall no+ bo A /,