The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-03-11
GOOD N-sLAvEHoLDERs- SLAVE
HOLDERS

the Kansas Question, did not altogether please
his slaveholding associates-not that its senti-
ments were adverse to theirs, but the unre-
served expression Of them was calculated TO
give offence to some of their Northern asso-
ciates.
The subject of Kansas he disposed OF quite
summarily, and for a good reason-he knew
little about it. "Its whole history" he said,
I" is disgusting one. have avoided reading
it as much as could. Had been Sena-
tor before, should have felt it my duty, per-
haps, to have done so; but, not expecting
to be one, am ignorant fortunately in great
measure, of detail" And the Senator is as origi
nal in his speculations, as he is frank in his
confession of ignorance. eff this (Lecompton)
was minority Constitution, l do not know
that that would be an objection to it. Consti-
tutions are made for minorities. Perhaps mi
norities ought to have the right to make Con-
stitutions, for they are administered by MAORI
ties" And pray, Mr.. Hammond, why should
maiorities administer Constitutions, any more
than make them? Why should not minoritics
possess all power? But Mr.. Hammond, with
his olgarchical theories, is warm supporter of
the 4" Northern Democracy" and apprehends
that the great object of this Kansas imlbrog-
lio is to destroy it.
In passing from the discussion Of q subject
of which he knows so little, the Senator indul-
ges in remarks betraying an extraordinary OBJ
livion of the facts of history.
yesterday the Senator Mr.. Seward said,
suppose we admit Kansas with the Lecompton
Constitution, what guarantees are there that
Congress will not again interfere with the affairs
of Kansas ?-meaning, l suppose, that if she
abolished Slavery, what guaranty there was
that Congress would not force it upon her again.
Sir, so far as we of the South are concerned,
you have at least the guaranty of good faith,
that neuer has been violated. But what guar
anty have we, when you have this Government
in your possession, in all It's departments, even
if we submit qnietly to what the Senator ex-
horts US to submit to-the concentration of
Slavery in its present territory, and even to
the reconstruction of the Supreme Court, that
you will not plumber US with tariffs; that you will
not bankrupt us with internal improvements
and bounties on fish ;that you will not restrain
US with navigation laws and other laws, impe-
ding the facilities of transportation 70 Southern
produce I? What guaranty have we that you
will not create a new bank, and concentrate all
the finances of this country at the North, where,
already, for the want of direct trade and
proper system of banking in the South, they
are ruinously concentrated Nay, sir, what
guaranty have we that you will not emspcipate
our slaves, or at least make the attempt? We
cannot rely upon your faith when you have the
power. II has been aLa0ays broken, acheneUer
pledged"
Mr cd no
chair of his State he is now a member of tie
Senate, but does not seem to understand the
courtesies which should mark the deliberations
Of that body. To charge man with habitual
bad faith, is to charge him with being habitu-
ally false to the obligations of Truth and Hon.
or. A grosser insult could not be inflicted
Suppose in the Congress of ministers at Wen
ma, called to settle the Russian Question, Lord
John Russell had said to the representative of
France" Sir, on the part of Great Britain
you have the guaranty of good faith that has
never been violated; but we cannot rely upon
the faith of France, when she has the power.
1t has always been broken whenever pledged"
Such language would have broken up the Con-
gress, and eugendered deadly feud between
the two nations; nor would it have been utter
ed bat for the purpose of provoking rupture
But, leaving the insulting imputation of Mr.
Hammond to be noticed as it deserves by those
specially concerned, let us inquire something
about this matter Of broken faith. When has
the North violated its faith towards you? What
pledge has it everbrokeu ? It's faith, like yours,
was pledged to the Constitution. In what act
has it violated it? In re euactiug the Ordi.
nance of 1877 for the Northwest territory ?
That was done by Northern and Southern votes
alike. In prohibiting the African Slave trade
That was done under a right conferred, and in
pursuance of duty implied, by the Constitu-
ton, by Northern and Southern votes. In in
terdicting the importation of Slaves into the
Territories of the Southwest? That was done
by Northern and SoutherG votes. In the ac-
QUESTION Of the Louisiana and Florida Terrific
res That was the work of a Slaveholding
Executive, and was sanctioned by the North as
well as the South, without the slightest refer
ence by the former to the subject Of Slavery.
In the passage of the law prohibiting Slavery
north of go 302 That was but a partial car
rying out of the policy of Slavery Restriction
adopted by the trainers of the Constitution, and
was the joint work Of the South ard the North,
the good faith of both being pledged to main
tain it. The Constitution provides that the people
whom you call slaves shall be included in the
basis Of Federal representation has the North
ever sought to interfere with the provision It |
prohibits the release from servitude of fuqi |
tive from service, by the laws of any State into
which he may have escaped Can you point to
q single law of that character in any State Of
the North Was not the rigorous, unconstitu
tional Fugitive act passed by a Congress in
which the North had decided majority? God
forgive it 1t did break its faith then, but it
was to Justice and Humanity and the Constitu |
ton.
How stands the account with you, Slavehold. |
ers of the South Is it good faith in YOU 10 |
imprisOn free citizens Of the North, Grading in
your ports,) in violation of the constitutional |
provision, that "the citizens of each State shall
be entitled to all the privil ges and mmunities |
of citizens, in the several States ?" Is it good
faith in you to drive out Of your jurisdiction by
violence, American citizens authorized by tie |
States sggrieved to bring suit in the Federal |
Courts to try peacefully the question whether
that provision have any force, and what obliga. |
tons it imposes? Is it good faith in you, frat
to acquire vast Territory to be used for slave
holding purposes, by an alliance with the pre-.
dominant political party at the North, stipula-
lating, as the price of its assistance, that the
NJ II 4 IT.