The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-08-15
NUMBER 81.

~
sufferers in Kansas which was accordingl,
i done. This meeting was held at a time wheI
4 was absent at Newport, but fully approved
its doings. I ought to add that It is wei
known, that I have condemned from the out
set, and still most decidedly condemn the poll
cy of the late Administration toward Ka nsas
IePposed the Kansas Ne5raska btH ID the
Territorial Committee, Of which wasa mem
Der. upted against the amendment 10 tn
biH, By '0sih the Missouri Compromise sOGs
repealed, Iogposed the bin, to the best of my
ability, in speech delivered in the Senate, on
the 9th of February, 1854, of which / send
you copy and should have voted against
it on its passage, Gas stated in my place al
the next meeting of the Senate) had not Sc
we're illness compelled me at half past three
o'clock in the morning, to leave the Senate
chamber before the vote was taken. / in
formed my Southern political friends, when
the bill was brought in, that it ought to be
| entitled a bin to ttannihilate all conservative
ieeling IN the non-slareholding States.''
With these views of the subject, though as
trust, for reasons higher than any effect on
party politics, l Jf4lly ooncurred in the nuoi,,
tine Of argument of Mr.. Summers speech
Abstaining, however, habitually myself, from
all personalities in debate, and believing that
they always irritate, and never persuade, nor
convince l could not, of course, bestow my
unqualified appreciation" on the manner in
which he treated the subject, nor intenten-
tioually give my section to the violent and
offensive language of the subscription paper
alluded to, and inadvertently signed by me.
1t will be seen from the foregoing that upon
maturer reflection, and even now, that Mr..
Everett fully concurs in the main line of argu-
ment in Mr., Summers speech" and that it is
only the personalities in debate" he could not
bestow his unqualified appreciation on. To
this Mr.. Sneed calls attention in the conclu-
sion of his card, which is as follows:
Now the matter ofpublic National impor-
tance in the Brooks and Sumner difficulty,
was the main line of argument in Mr.. Sum-
ner's speech''-all beyond this personal, and
this Mr.. Everett approved, and even the per-
sal involvements OF that affah are by Mr..
Everett as violently denounced in his own
speech, and in the speech so acceptaby done,
in the estimation of the procuser Of signatures
to the subscription paper, that he, for that
reason, calls for Mr.. Everett's signature and
gets it inadvertently /; yet cannot see, l con-
fess, why he who spoke and approved the
week before the extract quoted from his speech
and yet approves it, can object to violence of
subscription paper. But though I admired
Brooks-Was his friend-was on the same
committee with him, and officially acted in
bearing his corpse to the tomb, yet it was the
public question so UNANIMOUSLY held and pub
hshed in ''the main line of the argument in
Mr.. Summers speech which operated upon
me. s
And now, as to Kansas, 1 had voted, SO
had the Senate of the United States, to the
loss of the Army appropriation bill ut the first
session Of '34th Congress, and had persisted,
inducing necessity for an extra session of Con-
gress, and all this rather than allow tbIack
republicanism to incorporate a proviso in it,
refusing TO pay the troops in Kansas. The
speech of Mr.. Eyerett's an extract Of which is 1
given herein-referred TO heretofore, wasia
June before, and was the frSt--the leading
publication of which had knowledge, assum
ing the ground that the use of the Army IN
Kansas was ruthless waging of civil war,
and that the troops should not be paid, and
this abolition proyiso to the army bill was
natural result therefrom. The Emigant
Aid Societies only furnished Sharp's rifles and
other necessaIes to suffering freemen in Kan
sas, and with Mr.. Everett's cordial approba-
disclaimed only. for its violence of language,
paid their money and his, to relief of the same
sufferers, andto enable them to defend them
selves in the 4fcivit acaa'' waged sgainst them,
and which abolitionism in Congress following,
if not lead by Mr.. Everett, was refusing to
pay our troops for waging. Those sufferers
in Kansas were ';Jim Lane" & Co.
This publication is distasteful to me, and
having no personal feeling whatever, dismiss
the subject as have twice before done, with
the hope that am done with it.
Respectfully, W. H. SNEED.
The readers Of the foregoing, will bear in
mind that Mr., Sneed is distinguished leader
of the Opposition party-that he was an eye
witness Of Everett's completely with the Black
Republicans-and that his publication was
made before Everett was thought Of as the
K. n. candidate for the Vice. Presidency,
his record is not less Objectionable than that
~ M, HoynJ;r, ~.