The Placer herald., 1858-05-29
From the San Francisco Herald.
Mr.. Hammond's Speech.

| AAA' AAdWAOuU OpccCu.
The recent speech of Mr.. Hammond, U.
S. Senator from South Carolina, has attrac-
ted great deal of attention. 1t has been
republished for party effect in some of the
California newspapers. The speech itself is
scarcely worthy of notice, further than as the
eccentric view Of political theorist for
whose dogmas or statements the Democratic
party OF the South are no more responsible
than the entire North is responsible for the
rawlings of Joshua Giddings or the fierce
sectional denunciations of Charles Summer.
The truth is, Mr. Hammond is sui generis.
He keeps his own school of politics, and,
probably, out of South Carolina has no pu-
pills; anG it is certain that in Maryland or
Texas, these views are as unpopular as in
California 1t may be worth while to say
something in respect to the doctrines of this
curious essay, not SO much to vindicate the
National Democracy-for that is wholly un-
necessary-from any participation in such
notions, as to show how utterly repugnant
they are to all American ideas and our whole
scheme of civil rule.
In truth, these vagaries are as false in their
philosophy as Mr.. Hammond's mode of ex-
pressing them is insulting and arrogant. 1t
is difficult to see what the object of their au-
thor could be, unless to startle, by their nov
city, or else to arouse the animosties of the
North, and thereby to engender feud and
acrimony between the Northern and South
ern sections of the Union. We think this
last was the main purpose of the Senator--a
purpose which, if less contemplate than the
puerile vanity of displaying his own ingenu-
ity in defending a foolish paradox, is more to
be reprehended for the mischief it seeks to
create.
1t is almost useless tc refute so bold a
theory. 1t is not even stated with plausbil-
iiy. The substance of it seems to be about
this:-"A Republican form of Government
can only he maintained chen a particular
class or caste of the population hold the po-
litical power: this class are composed of the
few, who have leisure and education, which
alone can qualify them for a participation in
political affairs; they can then rule the State
wisely and inteIigently. In Slave State
political power is denied to negroes,-who
form a large portion of the population - and
to whom Lclone the 'menial duties;' and,
consequently, the Government is necessarily
in tie hands of the upper classes'-hence
Republican Government can be carried on
successfully and safely by those States in
which slavery exists. In the Northern States,
however, there are no negro slaves; there is
a large portion Of the population entitled TO
political privileges, who perform menial SER
vices, :,nd stand in subordinate relations to
others-who, in fact, are servants: these are
the 'mud,sIls, > therefore, the Northern
States are or will be unable to carry on Re
publican Governments" Tbs AS we phara-
phrascd, is the theory Of the Hon. Senator,
aboundirg, as the statement shows, in the
grossest Inconsistencies aud the most illogi-
cal reasol ing. In the first place, it is not
! clearly defined who compose the so-ca'led
"mud- sill class" Unless the limits of this
class be largely extended, the theory wants
support for the numbers are sufficient to en-
danger the State. If extended, it would be
an argument as we'll against the Slave States
as the Free States: if it embraces only house
servants and the like, it would comprehend
only small portion Of the population of the
Free Statesmen whose political influence
never could te very injurious to any State,
even if mischeviously eXerted.
If the "mudsils" comprise not only house
servants but mechanics and laborers, clerks,
attaches to mercantile houses, and men, gen
orally, who have to labor for their daily
livelihood, the ''mud slls' would take Mary
land as we'll as New York or Massachusetts
The radical error of the theory is in suppos-
ing, first that all these individuals and class
es are paupers; and, secondly, that if they
we're, they would be disposed and able so to
combine as to rob the rich. In the first
place, it is wholly untrue, as fact, that this
large number of people, though but few of
them have competency, have nothing of
value. The laborer who has 500, the me-
chanic who is in possession of his little home
stead, or even of his tools Of trade thinks
as much of his small acquisitions as the mer-
chant does of his argosies, and is just as un-
willing to to divide out among those poorer
than himself In the aggregate, there is not
only property, but great wealth-indee1,
perhaps the major part of the wealth Of a
country,-is in the hands of men, individually
of moderate means. Agrarian ideas are not
apt to prevail with such people. Even
those who have no property have their cap
ital in their energies, trades, industry and
regulations. Those who have not acquired
anything, hope to acquire it. They know
that with prudence, thrift and economy, es-
pecially in this country, where trade is free
ard competition open, every man can accu-
mulate property; and easily earn a comtor-
table and honest living
The sense of property and the sense of
justice are as strong in the poor as in the
rich. No man is such fool as not to know
that if the rights of property were stricken
down, there would be no security for lawful
or unlawful acquisitions, and, therefore, no
encouragement or protection to labor.
What was got by spoiation to-day, would
be taken by spoliation tomorrow, and the