Lives of Distinguished North Carolinians, with Illustrations and Speeches

by Unknown

A Senator. Mr. Mann's.

Mr. Badger. We have heard much, Mr. President, of the violence of Southern declamation. I have most carefully avoided reading the speeches of Southern gentlemen who were supposed to be liable to that charge. I happened, however, in the early part of this session, and before the other house was organized, to be in that body when there were some bursts of feeling and denunciation from Southern gentlemen, which I heard with pain, mortification, almost with anguish of mind. But, sir, these were bursts of feeling; these were passionate and excited declarations; these had everything to plead for them as being spontaneous and fiery ebullitions of men burning at the moment under a sense of wrong. And where, among these, will you find anything equal to the cool, calm, deliberate announcement of the philosophic mind that delivered in the other house the passage which I have read: "Better disunion, better a civil or a servile war, better anything that God in His providence shall send, than an extension of the bounds of slavery?" In other words, it is the deliberate, settled, fixed opinion of the honorable gentleman who made that speech, that rather than the extension of the bounds of slavery one foot—yes, sir, there is no qualification, one foot—he would prefer a disunion of these States, he would prefer all the horrors of civil war, all the monstrous, untold, and almost inconceivable atrocities of a servile war, he would pile the earth with dead, he would light up heaven with midnight conflagrations; all this—yea, and more—all the vials of wrath which God in His providence might see fit to pour down on us he would suffer, rather than permit, not one man who is now free to be made a slave—that would be extravagant enough—but rather than permit one man who now stands upon the soil of North Carolina a slave, to stand a slave upon the soil of New Mexico!

Yes, sir, here is a sacrifice of life and happiness, and of all that is dear to the black and white races together, to a mere idealism—a sacrifice proposed by a gentleman who claims to be a philosopher, and to speak the language of calm deliberation, a sacrifice of our glorious Union proposed by a patriot, not rather than freemen should be made slaves, not rather than the condition of even one human being should be made worse than it now is, but rather than one man shall remove from one spot of the earth to another without an improvement of his condition, without passing from slavery to freedom! Sir, after that announcement thus made, which I beg to say, sir, I did not seek—for the speech I have never read—the extract I found in one of the newspapers of the day—after that announcement, talk not of Southern violence, talk not of Southern egotism, talk not of our disposition to sacrifice to our peculiar notions and our peculiar relations the peace and happiness, the growing prosperity, and the mutual concord of this great Union. Now, sir, if that announcement goes abroad into the Southern country, attended by this wanton application of the Wilmot Proviso, an irritating commentary upon that patriotic announcement, what can be expected? What but the deepest emotions of indignation in the bosoms of those born and brought up where slavery exists, and taking totally different views of the institution from those which are taken by the honorable gentleman who has placed himself in this cool and deliberate, humane, and philosophical position!

Sir, we know, with regard to two or more of the Southern States, emphatic pledges have been given, through their Legislatures, that some mode of resistance to this proviso will be adopted. Now, what is to be the result of the Nashville Convention which has been called for June next, should that body assemble and find matters in their present condition? If no bill shall have passed to do us justice by affording, as far as the law can afford it, the effectual restoration of fugitive slaves; if a bill shall have passed, or be likely to pass, with the insult of the Wilmot Proviso causelessly and wantonly inserted in it, after the announcement made in the extract of the speech which I have just read, and after that made by the Senator from New York that so far from there being an obligation to restore to us our fugitive slaves, the duty of hospitality requires that they shall be received, kept and retained from us and that the constitutional law which requires their restoration to us is contrary to the law of God, and not binding in conscience; and, still more, after the settled policy is fully realized that those who visit our shores, coming under the protection of the American flag within our jurisdiction, and, in violation of our laws, seduce our slaves from us, and carry them to the North, shall not be surrendered up as fugitives from justice, because the same high and overruling law which puts the Constitution down, and makes it a nullity, has converted what we call a crime into a high and meritorious act of duty, what will be the result of this convention, meeting under such circumstances, what may be, what probably will be, the consequence? I say it not because I wish it, I do not wish it; the conviction has been forced upon my mind by evidence reluctantly received; and therefore I wish my friends around me to give, for that reason, the more credit to what I say—if that convention shall meet under such circumstances, in my judgment the Union is from that day dissolved. I do not say that dissolution will follow instantly; I do not say but that a connection, an external Union, may not be maintained, and linger on for a few years longer: but the meeting of that convention will be to our institutions, in the language of Napoleon, "the beginning of the end"; it will be the initiative step in such a course of measures, North and South, as will result in convulsing us so far that the ills to which we fly, cannot, in our judgment, exceed those we bear; and thus will be put upon the people of the South the necessity, the painful, hard necessity, of a dissolution, a final separation. Now, sir, why do I take this view? In the first place, the meeting of the Nashville Convention is, upon its face, a step towards a separate and distinct organization of the Southern States. The very movement separates them for a time, in purposes and intent, from the great mass of the population of the country. They meet there for what purpose? To consider, to deliberate, to debate—what? What course of action shall, by mutual agreement, be taken by the States whom this convention will represent, what manner of resistance, what mode of redress? Now, sir, in all matters of this kind, in all revolutions, in all dissolutions of the ties which bind us together, the first step is the great difficulty. It is so even in social and private life; it is so in the married state. The first wanton and public outrage on the part of one towards the other of the parties is easily followed by such steps as end in total and thorough estrangement. Well, then, suppose no measures are proposed which look to a separation of the Union, as I have no reason to suppose that any will be proposed looking to that as an object, I fully believe that that convention in Mississippi which terminated its session in the call for this convention was influenced by high and patriotic motives, seeking to preserve and not to destroy the Union. If I wanted anything to satisfy me of that (besides other reasons which I have), the very fact that the convention was presided over by the venerable and venerated Chief Justice Sharkey, a most learned jurist and patriotic gentleman, would be sufficient for me. But when we have ascertained what people design by any particular movement, we are far, very far, from having ascertained what they may accomplish by it. Now, suppose this meeting should resolve that, by a common concurrence of the States represented, laws should be passed, police regulations be adopted, in those States, of the most irritating and offensive kind towards the Northern portion of the Union: such a course will not appear surprising, if we bear in mind the fact that slaves are constantly taken from our ports by vessels that visit them for the purpose of commerce; that, thus taken, they are withheld from us, and their seducers are neither discountenanced at home, nor restored to us for punishment; and that a flagrant wrong on one side naturally provokes to measures at once of protection and retaliation from the other. But, Mr. President, the moment these States, by mutual compact and agreement, have come to a resolution to adopt a particular course of measures upon this subject, they have left the platform of the Constitution; they are no longer upon it, because the Constitution expressly forbids a State to enter into any compact or agreement with another State without the consent of Congress. When this first step is taken, the process is easy and need not be traced to a final dissolution of our present Union: and, therefore, in the event of the meeting of this convention, with the slavery question in the situation I have mentioned, I have, I repeat, gloomy apprehensions of what may be, and most probably will be the result upon the destinies of our country. Force, Mr. President, cannot keep the States of this Union together, cannot preserve the constitutional Union. I distinctly admit what has been said by the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster], that no State has a right to secede from this Union. I distinctly admit that the Constitution, looking to perpetuity, makes no provision directly or indirectly, for the separation of its parts. But, in point of fact, from the very nature of our institutions, the States cannot be kept in union by force. The majority, or the most powerful portion, may conquer and reduce to subjection the other; but when this is done, the States are not in union, the constitutional connection is not restored. It is but the spectacle of a conquered people submitting to superior power; and no ties of affection, no cooperation in a common government, no American Union can reasonably be hoped between the conquerors and the conquered. Believe me, sir, if ever the unhappy hour should arrive when American blood is shed in a contest between the States—some desiring to secede, and the others endeavoring to compel them by force of arms to remain in the Union—whenever that hour comes, our connection is immediately broken, to all beneficial purposes, for the happiness or prosperity of the country.

Now, Mr. President, with regard to my own State. Should this proviso be adopted, and should satisfaction not be given in the other particulars which I have mentioned, will North Carolina join in resisting, in any mode, the action of this government? Will she unite in measures for secession, for revolution, or for retaliatory legislation? I am so far, sir, from undertaking to speak upon this subject for the South, which I wish to be understood now and always as disavowing, that I do not feel myself even empowered to speak what will be the judgment and conduct of my own State. As was well said the other day by my friend and colleague [Mr. Mangum], in presenting some resolutions to the Senate, disunion is a question which we cannot discuss here as one for Senatorial action. We are sent here to represent the State under the Constitution, and to discharge ordinary legislative and executive duties, which presuppose the Constitution to be entire and in full force. We of course have no delegated authority to speak the views of North Carolina upon any such question as that which I have just stated. Last year the Legislature of my State passed a series of resolutions, in which, after expressing in very strong and decided terms the sense felt by the people of that State of the wrong of the Wilmot Proviso, and other kindred measures, they nevertheless adopted an extract from the Farewell Address of Washington, embodying the sentiment that we were not to look upon the Union as in any event to be abandoned. Making all proper modifications of that large and most comprehensive expression, "in any event," it could have no less interpretation than this, that none of the events alluded to by the preceding resolutions would furnish ground for the abandonment of the Union. Since that time this matter has been much discussed in North Carolina; primary meetings have been held; different resolutions have been passed by those meetings, some discountenancing and declining to be represented in the Nashville Convention, others approving the call, and resolving to send delegates; and one meeting, with a somewhat singular inconsistency, while protesting against a government of unlimited powers, solemnly pledged itself to adhere to, abide by, and support whatever the Nashville Convention shall determine. I hope, sir, that North Carolina will not concur on account of the passage of the Wilmot Proviso, in any measures for the dissolution of the Union or resistance to the Government. My own opinion is that it would furnish no sufficient ground for such a procedure. I say that here; I shall say it at home when the proper time arrives, if a time shall ever arrive when it shall be necessary to say it. But this I say, also, that I shall feel, if such an event as the adoption of the proviso should happen, that a serious indignity has been offered to us; not, perhaps, designed—I will not charge any with a deliberate design to insult—but yet an indignity, because such must be the wanton adoption of an objectionable and useless measure, after distinct notice that it will be considered in that light. And rely upon it, sir, that whatever may be the result in regard to any external action of the people of the Southern States, if something satisfactory is not done respecting fugitive slaves, and if the application of this Wilmot Proviso is insisted upon, there will be left in the hearts of our people a rankling sense of injustice and offense. They will have less of hope in the future operation of the Constitution. They will feel, to a certain extent, a painful conviction that the large majority of the inhabitants of the free States have not that sympathy with their feelings and regard for their rights, that justice and moderation in the exercise of the known powers, and that abstinence from the needless exercise of doubtful and questionable ones which are so essential to keep the mind of the country united; and, unless our minds are united, the forced association of reluctant communities, who stay together, not to obtain good from their connection, but to avoid evils of separation, does not deserve the name of Union.

Mr. President, I am sorry that I have occupied the Senate so long. I will endeavor to draw the few remaining remarks I have to make to a speedy close. I have submitted with entire frankness the views which I entertain. I believe, conscientiously believe, that there is in the Northern States of the Union a sincere attachment to the Constitution, a firm adherence to the compromises of the Constitution, and a just consideration for the rights and feelings of their Southern brethren. And I have a strong hope, an abiding confidence, that these sentiments will, on every proper occasion, be manifested by the great body of inhabitants in the free States. If I thought otherwise, I should be without hope, and should be inclined to consider my birth an event to be deplored, as imposing upon me the necessity of witnessing the utter destruction of my country. But, sir, let a proper bill for the recapture of fugitive slaves be passed, let this Wilmot Proviso be dropped (and, if possible, sink into insignificancy and oblivion), and I will be willing to deal with every question before the Senate in the utmost liberality of compromise. Yes, sir, I have no objections to compromise. The Union sprung out of compromise. The Union is supported by legislative compromise, a compromise incorporated in the fundamental law, the Constitution. Springing out of compromise, this Union can only be preserved and made to promote the great and good ends designed by and hoped from it, by our carrying on the government habitually in the spirit of compromise. In that view, sir, I am willing to withdraw all objection to the admission of California, with or without an alteration of her limits as settled by her constitution. And when I say that, Mr. President, permit me to say that I make a great sacrifice. Sir, I occupy the same position with regard to California now as I did at the last session. The honorable Senator from Mississippi, now in his seat [Mr. Davis], knows that I was with him upon a committee charged with the subject of admitting those Territories as States. I announced to him at once that I was totally and absolutely opposed to their admission in any form, and with any subdivision of territory. I have heard nothing to remove the objections I then entertained; but, in the manner of the organization of the government there, I find additional objections, strong in themselves, and giving additional force to those which I had before. And if I could believe that the views expressed by the Senator from New York [Mr. Seward], the other day, upon this subject, are the views entertained by the people of California, or by the gentlemen who are sent here to represent them, my objections would rise almost to an insurmountable repugnance, to a perpetual opposition; for that Senator has not hesitated to tell us, in substance, that we have no choice about admitting California; that she is a State, and a State she will continue, irrespective of any act of Congress; that she comes here and demands admission into this Union, and, if not admitted here, our authority will be cast aside, and she will be an independent republic upon the Pacific. But, sir, I cannot believe, and do not believe, that such an insolent dictation to us is designed by the people of California. And I personally know the two gentlemen whom she has selected as Senators, and am sure they would be the first to disown and renounce the position assumed by their patron upon this floor.

The honorable Senator from New York [Mr. Seward], seems to consider the admission of California as a matter beyond all price and all value, to be attained at every hazard and every sacrifice, and therefore, notwithstanding the opinion he has expressed with regard to slavery, though he considers it a high, hospitable duty to entertain the fugitive slaves from the South, and to keep them from their masters, though he has a holy horror of the extension of slavery into the Territories now free, and considers every obligation imposed by the Constitution in reference to slavery overborne and annulled by the supreme law of God—he tells us, that so all-important is the admission of California, under the circumstances, that he would have voted for her admission with an express recognition by her constitution of the right to carry slaves into her territory. An allusion to this subject seems to have a strange effect upon the Senator from New York. He is carried back at once to the last session, when certain measures were pending here for the purpose of organizing some temporary government for California and New Mexico; and alluding to the gentleman who is now the source of power and patronage in this Government, he thus expresses himself:

"May this republic never have a President commit a more serious or more dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present eminent Chief Magistrate, in endeavoring to induce the legislative authorities to relieve him from the exercise of military power, by establishing civil institutions, regulated by law, in a distant province. Rome would have been standing this day if she had had such generals and such tribunes."