Year: 1860

May 3, 1860


The House being organized in the Commit
tee of the Whole on the state Of the Union


Mr. HALE said:


Mr.. CHAIRMAN: | think the republican par
ty has been more misrepresented than any
one that ever existed in this country or any
other. | propose to say few words in re-
gard to what understand to be the principles
of that party, to see whether they hold any
doctrines that are inconsistent with the rights
of any portion of country; any doctrines not
held by the fathers Of the Republic, from the
beginning down TO the last very few years.


The doctrines of the republican party, as l
understand them. Mr.. Chairman, are, oppo-
siton to the extension Of human slavery
and protection to American industry. These
| believe to be the two cardinal principles Of
that party. This is the only one we hold on
the subject of slavery, except those other in
cidental measures that grow out Of the Oppo-
siton to its extension. We are opposed to tn
king 100000, 600 from the people for the
purchase Of Cuba, and to the acquisition of
territory from Mexico, for the extension Of
the area of human bondage.


We are also opposed to the reOpening of
the African slave trade. Have not these prin-
ciples been held at all times, by all parties of
the country, up almost to 1854? The north
with one voice did so. They we're also held
by the founders Of this republic not alone
by those who belonged to the free states,
but by those who belonged to the slave states;
by the Shareholders Of the country; patriotic
men, who knew and admitted slavery to be an
evil, which they were willing to do and did
all in their power to prevent extending, and
expected and hoped finally to accomplish its
overthrow. We hold no other principle on
that subject than they held. We stand just
where they stood where Washington, J Jef'er-
son, Madison, Clay, Pinckney, and other
slaveholding fathers and founders of the Re
public, stood Is not this true? The history
Of the country shows that beyond any sort Of
doubt.


Who were the founders Of the Missouri
compromise line in l820-that great and be-
nefcent act Of patriotism? Were they the
fanatics of the North? No, SIR they were
shareholders Of the South, with Henry Clay
at their head This measure, which gave
peace and repose to the country, never was
attempted to be disturbed, either by the North
or by the South. On the contrary, up to 1854,
the South in good faith regarded that COM
promise as one to be observed and kept by
them. ltis a remarkable fact, Mr.. Chairman,
that our southern brethren never understood
that they were SO degraded and cheated by
that measure, as they now say they were, and
never regarded it as a badge Of inferiority,
as they now claim it to have been. Itremaln-
ed sir, for Yankee to discover that the South
had been so wronged and cheated and insult
ed by that compromise measure of 1920. 4
gentleman from the green hills Of Vermont
goes to Illinois, studies law, comes back to
Congress in due time-as he had right to
do-and instructs our southern brethren as to
their rights and duties, informing them that
they have been most egregiously wronged by
that act of 1920 that the men who framed
and established it did not know what they
were about-did not know that they were de-
grading the power and sacrificing the rights
of the South. 1t seems to me that this is an
imputation on the patriotism and wisdom of
the men Of the South who framed that com
promise measure, who sustained it, who were
willing to abide by it for all time to come,
and who did stand by it for so many years.
Mr.. Clay, that illustrious man, who was for
long time favorite of the shareholders Of the
South for the Presidency, always sustained it.
Do you think that if he had been living it
would have been repealed? Never. If Mr..
Clay had been in the Senate in 1854, in my
judgment, the South never would and never
could have repealed that bill. Like Rhoderic
Dhu-


Zone blast upon his bugle horn