Chapter CXXXV: Slavery Agitation (1)

"It is painful to see the unceasing efforts to alarm the South by imputations against the North of unconstitutional designs on the subject of slavery. You are right, I have no doubt, in believing that no such intermeddling disposition exists in the body of our Northern brethren. Their good faith is sufficiently guaranteed by the interest they have as merchants, as ship owners, and as manufacturers, in preserving a Union with the slaveholding States. On the other hand what madness in the South to look for greater safety in disunion. It would be worse than jumping into the fire for fear of the frying pan. The danger from the alarms is, that the pride and resentment exerted by them may be an overmatch for the dictates of prudence; and favor the project of a Southern convention, insidiously revived, as promising by its councils, the best securities against grievances of every sort from the North."--So wrote Mr. Madison to Mr. Clay, in June 1833. It is a writing every word of which is matter for grave reflection, and the date at the head of all. It is dated just three months after the tariff "compromise" of 1833, which, in arranging the tariff question for nine years, was supposed to have quieted the South--put an end to agitation, and to the idea of a Southern convention--and given peace and harmony to the whole Union. Not so the fact--at least not so the fact in South Carolina. Agitation did not cease there on one point, before it began on another: the idea of a Southern convention for one cause, was hardly abandoned before it was "insidiously revived" upon another. I use the language of Mr. Madison in qualifying this revival with a term of odious import: for no man was a better master of our language than he was--no one more scrupulously just in all his judgments upon men and things--and no one occupying a position either personally, politically, or locally, to speak more advisedly on the subject of which he spoke. He was pained to see the efforts to alarm the South on the subject of slavery, and the revival of the project for a Southern convention; and he feared the effect which these alarms should have on the pride and resentment of Southern people. His letter was not to a neighbor, or to a citizen in private life, but to a public man on the theatre of national action, and one who had acted a part in composing national difficulties. It was evidently written for a purpose. It was in answer to Mr. Clay's expressed belief, that no design hostile to Southern slavery existed in the body of the Northern people--to concur with him in that belief--and to give him warning that the danger was in another quarter--in the South itself: and that it looked to a dissolution of the Union. It was to warn an eminent public man of a new source of national danger, more alarming than the one he had just been composing.

About the same time, and to an old and confidential friend (Edward Coles, Esq., who had been his private secretary when President), Mr. Madison also wrote: "On the other hand what more dangerous than nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues to make, either in its original shape or in the disguises it assumes? Nullification has the effect of putting powder under the constitution and the Union, and a match in the hand of every party to blow them up at pleasure. And for its progress, hearken to the tone in which it is now preached: cast your eyes on its increasing minorities in the most of the Southern States, without a decrease in any of them. Look at Virginia herself, and read in the gazettes, and in the proceedings of popular meetings, the figure which the anarchical principle now makes, in contrast with the scouting reception given to it but a short time ago. It is not probable that this offspring of the discontents of South Carolina will ever approach success in a majority of the States: but a susceptibility of the contagion in the Southern States is visible: and the danger not to be concealed, that the sympathy arising from known causes, and the inculcated impression of a permanent incompatibility of interests between the South and the North, may put it in the power of popular leaders, aspiring to the highest stations, to unite the South on some critical occasion, in a course that will end in creating a new theatre of great though inferior interest. In pursuing this course, the first and most obvious step is nullification, the next secession, and the last a farewell separation."

In this view of the dangers of nullification in its new "disguise"--the susceptibility of the South to its contagious influence--its fatal action upon an "inculcated incompatibility of interests" between the North and the South--its increase in the slave States--its progress, first to secession, and then to "farewell separation:" in this view of the old danger under its new disguise, Mr. Madison, then eighty-four years old, writes with the wisdom of age, the foresight of experience; the spirit of patriotism, and the "pain" of heart which a contemplation of the division of those States excited which it had been the pride, the glory, and the labor of his life to unite. The slavery turn which was given to the Southern agitation was the aspect of the danger which filled his mind with sorrow and misgiving:--and not without reason. A paper published in Washington City, and in the interest of Mr. Calhoun, was incessant in propagating the slavery alarm--in denouncing the North--in exhorting the Southern States to unity of feeling and concert of action as the only means of saving their domestic institutions. The language had become current in some parts of the South, that it was impossible to unite the Southern States upon the tariff question: that the sugar interest in Louisiana would prevent her from joining: that it was a mistake to have made that issue: that the slavery question was the right one. And coincident with this current language were many publications, urging a Southern convention, and concert of action. Passing by all these, which might be deemed mere newspaper articles, there was one which bore the impress of thought and authenticity--which assumed the convention to be a certainty, the time only remaining to be fixed, and the cause for it to be in full operation in the Northern States. It was published in the Charleston Mercury in 1835,--was entitled the "Crisis"--and had the formality of a manifesto; and after dilating upon the aggressions and encroachments of the North, proceeded thus:

"The proper time for a convention of the slaveholding States
will be when the legislatures of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts
and New-York shall have adjourned without passing laws for the
suppression of the abolition societies. Should either of these
States pass such laws, it would be well to wait till their
efficacy should be tested. The adjournment of the legislatures
of the Northern States without adopting any measures effectually
to put down Garrison, Tappan and their associates, will present
an issue which must be met by the South, or it will be vain for
us ever after to attempt any thing further than for the State
to provide for her own safety by defensive measures of her own.
If the issue presented is to be met, it can only be done by a
convention of the aggrieved States; the proceedings of which,
to be of any value, must embody and make known the sentiments
of the whole South, and contain the distinct annunciation of
our fixed and unaltered determination to obtain the redress of
our grievances, be the consequences what they may. We must have
it clearly understood that, in framing a constitutional union
with our Northern brethren, the slaveholding States consider
themselves as no more liable to any more interference with their
domestic concerns than if they had remained entirely independent
of the other States, and that, as such interference would, among
independent nations, be a just cause of war, so among members of
such a confederacy as ours, it must place the several States in
the relation towards each other of open enemies. To sum up in a
few words the whole argument on this subject, we would say that
the abolitionists can only be put down by legislation in the
States in which they exist, and this can only be brought about
by the embodied opinion of the whole South, acting upon public
opinion at the North, which can only be effected through the
instrumentality of a condition of the slaveholding States."

It is impossible to read this paragraph from the "Crisis," without seeing that it is identical with Mr. Calhoun's report and speech upon incendiary publications transmitted through the mail. The same complaint against the North; the same exaction of the suppression of abolition societies; the same penalty for omitting to suppress them; that penalty always the same--a Southern convention, and secession--and the same idea of the contingent foreign relation to each other of the respective States, always treated as a confederacy, under a compact. Upon his arrival at Washington at the commencement of the session 1835-'36, all his conduct was conformable to the programme laid down in the "Crisis," and the whole of it calculated to produce the event therein hypothetically announced; and, unfortunately, a double set of movements was then in the process of being carried on by the abolitionists, which favored his purposes. One of these was the mail transmission into the slave States of incendiary publications; and it has been seen in what manner he availed himself of that wickedness to predicate upon it a right of Southern secession; the other was the annoyance of Congress with a profusion of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia; and his conduct with respect to these petitions, remains to be shown. Mr. Morris, of Ohio, presented two from that State, himself opposed to touching the subject of slavery in the States, but deeming it his duty to present those which applied to the District of Columbia. Mr. Calhoun demanded that they be read; which being done,--

"He demanded the question on receiving them, which, he said, was
a preliminary question, which any member had a right to make.
He demanded it on behalf of the State which he represented;
he demanded it, because the petitions were in themselves a
foul slander on nearly one half of the States of the Union; he
demanded it, because the question involved was one over which
neither this nor the House had any power whatever; and a stop
might be put to that agitation which prevailed in so large
a section of the country, and which, unless checked, would
endanger the existence of the Union. That the petitions just
read contained a gross, false, and malicious slander, on eleven
States represented on this floor, there was no man who in his
heart could deny. This was, in itself, not only good, but the
highest cause why these petitions should not be received. Had
it not been the practice of the Senate to reject petitions
which reflected on any individual member of their body; and
should they who were the representatives of sovereign States
permit petitions to be brought there, wilfully, maliciously,
almost wickedly, slandering so many sovereign States of this
Union? Were the States to be less protected than individual
members on that floor? He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because they asked for what was a violation of
the constitution. The question of emancipation exclusively
belonged to the several States. Congress had no jurisdiction
on the subject, no more in this District than the State of
South Carolina: it was a question for the individual State to
determine, and not to be touched by Congress. He himself well
understood, and the people of his State should understand, that
this was an emancipation movement. Those who have moved in it
regard this District as the weak point through which the first
movement should be made upon the States. We (said Mr. C.), of
the South, are bound to resist it. We will meet this question
as firmly as if it were the direct question of emancipation in
the States. It is a movement which ought to, which must be,
arrested, _in limine_, or the guards of the constitution will
give way and be destroyed. He demanded the question on receiving
the petitions, because of the agitation which would result from
discussing the subject. The danger to be apprehended was from
the agitation of the question on that floor. He did not fear
those incendiary publications which were circulated abroad,
and which could easily be counteracted. But he dreaded the
agitation which would rise out of the discussion in Congress on
the subject. Every man knew that there existed a body of men in
the Northern States who were ready to second any insurrectionary
movement of the blacks; and that these men would be on the alert
to turn these discussions to their advantage. He dreaded the
discussion in another sense. It would have a tendency to break
asunder this Union. What effect could be brought about by the
interference of these petitioners? Could they expect to produce
a change of mind in the Southern people? No; the effect would
be directly the opposite. The more they were assailed on this
point, the more closely would they cling to their institutions.
And what would be the effect on the rising generation, but to
inspire it with odium against those whose mistaken views and
misdirected zeal menaced the peace and security of the Southern
States. The effect must be to bring our institutions into odium.
As a lover of the Union, he dreaded this discussion; and asked
for some decided measure to arrest the course of the evil. There
must, there shall be some decided step, or the Southern people
never will submit. And how are we to treat the subject? By
receiving these petitions one after another, and thus tampering,
trifling, sporting with the feelings of the South? No, no, no!
The abolitionists well understand the effect of such a course
of proceeding. It will give importance to their movements, and
accelerate the ends they propose. Nothing can, nothing will stop
these petitions but a prompt and stern rejection of them. We
must turn them away from our doors, regardless of what may be
done or said. If the issue must be, let it come, and let us meet
it, as, I hope, we shall be prepared to do."

This was new and extreme ground taken by Mr. Calhoun. To put the District of Columbia and the States on the same footing with respect to slavery legislation, was entirely contrary to the constitution itself, and to the whole doctrine of Congress upon it. The constitution gave to Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, without limitation of subjects; but it had always refused, though often petitioned, to interfere with the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia so long as it existed in the two States (Maryland and Virginia) which ceded that District to the federal government. The doctrine of Mr. Calhoun was, therefore, new; his inference that slavery was to be attacked in the States through the opening in the District, was gratuitous; his "demand" (for that was the word he constantly used), that these petitions should be refused a reception, was a harsh motion, made in a harsh manner; his assumption that the existence of the Union was at stake, was without evidence and contrary to evidence; his remedy, in State resistance, was disunion; his eagerness to catch at an "issue," showed that he was on the watch for "issues," and ready to seize any one that would get up a contest; his language was all inflammatory, and calculated to rouse an alarm in the slaveholding States:--for the whole of which he constantly assumed to speak. Mr. Morris thus replied to him:

"In presenting these petitions he would say, on the part of
the State of Ohio, that she went to the entire extent of the
opinions of the senator from South Carolina on one point. We
deny, said he, the power of Congress to legislate concerning
local institutions, or to meddle in any way with slavery in
any of the States; but we have always entertained the opinion
that Congress has primary and exclusive legislation over this
District; under this impression, these petitioners have come
to the Senate to present their petitions. The doctrine that
Congress have no power over the subject of slavery in this
District is to me a new one; and it is one that will not meet
with credence in the State in which I reside. I believe these
petitioners have the right to present themselves here, placing
their feet on the constitution of their country, when they come
to ask of Congress to exercise those powers which they can
legitimately exercise. I believe they have a right to be heard
in their petitions, and that Congress may afterwards dispose
of these petitions as in their wisdom they may think proper.
Under these impressions, these petitioners come to be heard,
and they have a right to be heard. Is not the right of petition
a fundamental right? I believe it is a sacred and fundamental
right, belonging to the people, to petition Congress for the
redress of their grievances. While this right is secured by
the constitution, it is incompetent to any legislative body to
prescribe how the right is to be exercised, or when, or on what
subject; or else this right becomes a mere mockery. If you are
to tell the people that they are only to petition on this or
that subject, or in this or that manner, the right of petition
is but a mockery. It is true we have a right to say that no
petition which is couched in disrespectful language shall be
received; but I presume there is a sufficient check provided
against this in the responsibility under which every senator
presents a petition. Any petition conveyed in such language
would always meet with his decided disapprobation. But if we
deny the right of the people to petition in this instance, I
would ask how far they have the right. While they believe they
possess the right, no denial of it by Congress will prevent them
from exercising it."

Mr. Bedford Brown, of North Carolina, entirely dissented from the views presented by Mr. Calhoun, and considered the course he proposed, and the language which he used, exactly calculated to produce the agitation which he professed to deprecate. He said:

"He felt himself constrained, by a sense of duty to the State
from which he came, deeply and vitally interested as she was
in every thing connected with the agitating question which had
unexpectedly been brought into discussion that morning, to
present, in a few words, his views as to the proper direction
which should be given to that and all other petitions relating
to slavery in the District of Columbia. He felt himself more
especially called on to do so from the aspect which the question
had assumed, in consequence of the motion of the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN], to refuse to receive the
petition. He had believed from the first time he had reflected
on this subject, and subsequent events had but strengthened
that conviction, that the most proper disposition of all such
petitions was to lay them on the table, without printing. This
course, while it indicated to the fanatics that Congress will
yield no countenance to their designs, at the same time marks
them with decided reprobation by a refusal to print. But, in
his estimation, another reason gave to the motion to lay them
on the table a decided preference over any other proceedings by
which they should be met. The peculiar merit of this motion,
as applicable to this question, is, that it precludes all
debate, and would thus prevent the agitation of a subject in
Congress which all should deprecate as fraught with mischief
to every portion of this happy and flourishing confederacy.
Mr. B. said that honorable gentlemen who advocated this motion
had disclaimed all intention to produce agitation on this
question. He did not pretend to question the sincerity of their
declarations, and, while willing to do every justice to their
motives, he must be allowed to say that no method could be
devised better calculated, in his judgment, to produce such
a result. He (Mr. B.) most sincerely believed that the best
interests of the Southern States would be most consulted by
pursuing such a course here as would harmonize the feelings of
every section, and avoid opening for discussion so dangerous
and delicate a question. He believed all the senators who were
present a few days since, when a petition of similar character
had been presented by an honorable senator, had, by their
votes to lay it on the table, sanctioned the course which he
now suggested. [Mr. CALHOUN, in explanation, said that himself
and his colleague were absent from the Senate on the occasion
alluded to.] Mr. B. resumed his remarks, and said that he had
made no reference to the votes of any particular members of
that body, but what he had said was, that a similar petition
had been laid on the table without objection from any one,
and consequently by a unanimous vote of the senators present.
Here, then, was a most emphatic declaration, by gentlemen
representing the Northern States as well as those from other
parts of the Union, by this vote, that they will entertain
no attempt at legislation on the question of slavery in the
District of Columbia. Why, then, asked Mr. B., should we now
adopt a mode of proceeding calculated to disturb the harmonious
action of the Senate, which had been produced by the former
vote? Why (he would respectfully ask of honorable gentlemen
who press the motion to refuse to receive the petition) and
for what beneficial purpose do they press it? By persisting in
such a course it would, beyond all doubt, open a wide range of
discussion, it would not fail to call forth a great diversity of
opinion in relation to the extent of the right to petition under
the constitution. Nor would it be confined to that question
alone, judging from an expression which had fallen from an
honorable gentleman from Virginia [Mr. TYLER], in the course
of this debate. That gentleman had declared his preference for
a direct negative vote by the Senate, as to the constitutional
power of Congress to emancipate slaves in the District of
Columbia. He, for one, protested, politically speaking, against
opening this Pandora's box in the halls of Congress. For all
beneficial and practical purposes, an overwhelming majority
of the members representing the Northern States were, with
the South, in opposition to any interference with slavery in
the District of Columbia. If there was half a dozen in both
branches of Congress who did not stand in entire opposition to
any interference with slavery, in this District or elsewhere,
he had yet to learn it. Was it wise, was it prudent, was it
magnanimous, in gentlemen representing the Southern States, to
urge this matter still further, and say to our Northern friends
in Congress, 'Gentlemen, we all agree in the general conclusion,
that Congress should not interfere in this question, but we wish
to know your reasons for arriving at this conclusion; we wish
you to declare, by your votes, whether you arrive at this result
because you think it unconstitutional or not?' Mr. B. said that
he would yield to none in zeal in sustaining and supporting,
to the extent of his ability, what he believed to be the true
interest of the South; but he should take leave to say that,
when the almost united will of both branches of Congress, for
all practical purposes, was with us, against all interference on
this subject, he should not hazard the peace and quiet of the
country by going on a Quixotic expedition in pursuit of abstract
constitutional questions."

Mr. King, of Georgia, was still more pointed than Mr. Brown in deprecating the course Mr. Calhoun pursued, and charging upon it the effect of increasing the slavery agitation, and giving the abolitionists ground to stand upon in giving them the right of petition to defend. He said:

"This being among the Southern members a mere difference of form
in the manner of disposing of the subject, I regret exceedingly
that the senator from Carolina has thought it his duty (as he
doubtless has) to press the subject upon the consideration of
the Senate in such form as not only to permit, but in some
measure to create, a necessity for the continued agitation of
the subject. For he believed, with others, that nothing was
better calculated to increase agitation and excitement than
such motions as that of the senator from South Carolina. What
was the object of the motion? Senators said, and no doubt
sincerely, that their object was to quiet the agitation of the
subject. Well, (said Mr. K.,) my object is precisely the same.
We differ, then, only in the means of securing a common end;
and he could tell the Senators that the value of the motion as
a means would likely be estimated by its tendency to secure
the end desired. Would even an affirmative vote on the motion
quiet the agitation of the subject? He thought, on the contrary,
it would much increase it. How would it stop the agitation?
What would be decided? Nothing, except it be that the Senate
would not receive the particular memorial before it. Would that
prevent the presentation of others? Not at all; it would only
increase the number, by making a new issue for debate, which
was all the abolitionists wanted; or, at any rate, the most
they now expected. These petitions had been coming here without
intermission ever since the foundation of the government, and
he could tell the senator that if they were each to be honored
by a lengthy discussion on presentment, an honor not heretofore
granted to them, they would not only continue to come here, but
they would thicken upon us so long as the government remained
in existence. We may seek occasions (said Mr. K.) to rave about
our rights; we may appeal to the guaranties of the constitution,
which are denied; we may speak of the strength of the South,
and pour out unmeasured denunciations against the North; we
may threaten vengeance against the abolitionists, and menace
a dissolution of the Union, and all that; and thus exhausting
ourselves mentally and physically, and setting down to applaud
the spirit of our own efforts, Arthur Tappan and his pious
fraternity would very coolly remark: 'Well, that is precisely
what I wanted; I wanted agitation in the South; I wished to
provoke the "aristocratic slaveholder" to make extravagant
demands on the North, which the North could not consistently
surrender them. I wished them, under the pretext of securing
their own rights, to encroach upon the rights of all the
American people. In short, I wish to change the issue; upon the
present issue we are dead. Every movement, every demonstration
of feeling among our own people, shows that upon the present
issue the great body of the people is against us. The issue
must be changed, or the prospects of abolition are at an end.'
This language (Mr. K. said) was not conjectured, but there was
much evidence of its truth. Sir (said Mr. K.), if Southern
senators were actually in the pay of the abolition directory on
Nassau-street they could not more effectually co-operate in the
views and administer to the wishes of these enemies to the peace
and quiet of our country."

Mr. Calhoun was dissatisfied at the speeches of Mr. Brown and Mr. King, and considered them as dividing and distracting the South in their opposition to his motion, while his own course was to keep them united in a case where union was so important, and in which they stood but a handful in the midst of an overwhelming majority. He said:

"I have heard with deep mortification and regret the speech of
the senator from Georgia; not that I suppose that his arguments
can have much impression in the South, but because of their
tendency to divide and distract the Southern delegation on this,
to us, all-momentous question. We are here but a handful in
the midst of an overwhelming majority. It is the duty of every
member from the South, on this great and vital question, where
union is so important to those whom we represent, to avoid every
thing calculated to divide or distract our ranks. I (said Mr.
C.), the Senate will bear witness, have, in all that I have
said on this subject, been careful to respect the feelings of
Southern members who have differed from me in the policy to
be pursued. Having thus acted, on my part, I must express my
surprise at the harsh expressions, to say the least, in which
the senator from Georgia has indulged."

The declaration of this overwhelming majority against the South brought a great number of the non-slaveholding senators to their feet, to declare the concurrence of their _States_ with the South upon the subject of slavery, and to depreciate the abolitionists as few in number in any of the Northern States; and discountenanced, reprobated and repulsed wherever they were found. Among these, Mr. Isaac Hill of New Hampshire, thus spoke:

"I do not (said he) object to many of the positions taken by
senators on the abstract question of Northern interference with
slavery in the South. But I do protest against the excitement
that is attempted on the floor of Congress, to be kept up
against the North. I do protest against the array that is made
here of the acts of a few misguided fanatics as the acts of the
whole or of a large portion of the people of the North. I do
protest against the countenance that is here given to the idea
that the people of the North generally are interfering with the
rights and property of the people of the South.

"There is no course that will better suit the few Northern
fanatics than the agitation of the question of slavery in the
halls of Congress--nothing will please them better than the
discussions which are taking place, and a solemn vote of either
branch denying them the right to prefer petitions here, praying
that slavery may be abolished in the District of Columbia. A
denial of that right at once enables them, and not without color
of truth, to cry out that the contest going on is 'a struggle
between power and liberty.'

"Believing the intentions of those who have moved simultaneously
to get up these petitions at this time, to be mischief, I
was glad to see the first petition that came in here laid on
the table without discussion, and without reference to any
committee. The motion to lay on the table precludes all debate;
and, if decided affirmatively, prevents agitation. It was with
the view of preventing agitation of this subject that I moved
to lay the second set of petitions on the table. A senator from
the South (Mr. Calhoun) has chosen a different course; he has
interposed a motion which opens a debate that may be continued
for months. He has chosen to agitate this question; and he has
presented that question, the decision of which, let senators
vote as they may, will best please the agitators who are urging
the fanatics forward.

"I have said the people of the North were more united in their
opposition to the plans of the advocates of antislavery, than on
any other subject. This opposition is confined to no political
party; it pervades every class of the community. They deprecate
all interference with the subject of slavery, because they
believe such interference may involve the existence and welfare
of the Union itself, and because they understand the obligations
which the non-slaveholding States owe to the slaveholding
States by the compact of confederation. It is the strong desire
to perpetuate the Union; it is the determination which every
patriotic and virtuous citizen has made, in no event to abandon
the 'ark of our safety,' that now impels the united North to
take its stand against the agitators of the antislavery project.
So effectually has the strong public sentiment put down that
agitation in New England, that it is now kept alive only by the
power of money, which the agitators have collected, and apply in
the hiring of agents, and in issues from presses that are kept
in their employ.

"The antislavery movement, which brings in petitions from
various parts of the country asking Congress to abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia, originates with a few persons,
who have been in the habit of making charitable religious
institutions subservient to political purposes, and who have
even controlled some of those charitable associations. The
petitions are set on foot by men who have had, and who continue
to have, influence with ministers and religious teachers of
different denominations. They have issued and sent out their
circulars calling for a united effort to press on Congress the
abolition of slavery in this District. Many of the clergymen
who have been instruments of the agitators, have done so from
no bad motive. Some of them, discovering the purpose of the
agitators--discovering that their labors were calculated to
make the condition of the slave worse, and to create animosity
between the people of the North and the South, have paused in
their course, and desisted from the further application of a
mistaken philanthropy. Others, having enlisted deeply their
feelings, still pursue the unprofitable labor. They present here
the names of inconsiderate men and women, many of whom do not
know, when they subscribe their papers, what they are asking;
and others of whom, placing implicit faith in their religious
teacher, are taught to believe they are thereby doing a work of
disinterested benevolence, which will be requited by rewards in
a future life.

"Now, sir, as much as I abhor the doings of weak or wicked men
who are moving this abolition question at the North, I yet have
not as bad an opinion of them as I have of some others who are
attempting to make of these puerile proceedings an object of
alarm to the whole South.

"Of all the vehicles, tracts, pamphlets, and newspapers, printed
and circulated by the abolitionists, there is no ten or twenty
of them that have contributed so much to the excitement as a
single newspaper printed in this city. I need not name this
paper when I inform you that, for the last five years, it has
been laboring to produce a Northern and Southern party--to fan
the flame of sectional prejudice--to open wider the breach,
to drive harder the wedge, which shall divide the North from
the South. It is the newspaper which, in 1831-'2, strove to
create that state of things, in relation to the tariff, which
would produce inevitable collision between the two sections of
the country, and which urged to that crisis in South Carolina,
terminating in her deep disgrace----

"[Mr. Calhoun here interrupted Mr. Hill, and called him to
order. Mr. H. took his seat, and Mr. Hubbard (being in the
chair) decided that the remarks of Mr. H. did not impugn the
motives of any man--they were only descriptive of the effects of
certain proceedings upon the State of South Carolina, and that
he was not out of order.]

"Mr. H. resumed: It is the newspaper which condemns or ridicules
the well-meant efforts of an officer of the government to stop
the circulation of incendiary publications in the slaveholding
States, and which designedly magnifies the number and the
efforts of the Northern abolitionists. It is the newspaper
which libels the whole North by representing the almost united
people of that region to be insincere in their efforts to
prevent the mischief of a few fanatical and misguided persons
who are engaged in the abolition cause.

"I have before me a copy of this newspaper (the _United States
Telegraph_), filled to the brim with the exciting subject. It
contains, among other things, a speech of an honorable senator
(Mr. Leigh of Virginia), which I shall not be surprised soon
to learn has been issued by thousands and tens of thousands
from the abolition mint at New-York, for circulation in the
South. Surely the honorable senator's speech, containing that
part of the Channing pamphlet, is most likely to move the
Southern slaves to a servile war, at the same time the Channing
extracts and the speech itself are most admirably calculated to
awaken the fears or arouse the indignation of their masters.
The circulation of such a speech will effect the object of
the abolitionists without trenching upon their funds. Let the
agitation be kept up in Congress, and let this newspaper be
extensively circulated in the South, filled with such speeches
and such extracts as this exhibits, and little will be left for
the Northern abolitionists to do. They need do no more than
send in their petitions: the late printer of the Senate and
his friends in Congress, will create enough of excitement to
effect every object of those who direct the movements of the
abolitionists."

At the same moment that these petitions were presented in the Senate, their counterparts were presented in the House, with the same declarations from Northern representatives in favor of the rights of the South, and in depreciation of the number and importance of the abolitionists in the North. Among these, Mr. Franklin Pierce, of New Hampshire, was one of the most emphatic on both points. He said:

"This was not the last memorial of the same character which
would be sent here. It was perfectly apparent that the question
must be met now, or at some future time, fully and explicitly,
and such an expression of this House given as could leave
no possible room to doubt as to the opinions and sentiments
entertained by its members. He (Mr. P.), indeed, considered the
overwhelming vote of the House, the other day, laying a memorial
of similar tenor, and, he believed, the same in terms, upon the
table, as fixing upon it the stamp of reprobation. He supposed
that all sections of the country would be satisfied with that
expression; but gentlemen seemed now to consider the vote as
equivocal and evasive. He was unwilling that any imputation
should rest upon the North, in consequence of the misguided and
fanatical zeal of a few--comparatively very few--who, however
honest might have been their purposes, he believed had done
incalculable mischief, and whose movements, he knew, received no
more sanction among the great mass of the people of the North,
than they did at the South. For one, he (Mr. P.), while he
would be the last to infringe upon any of the sacred reserved
rights of the people, was prepared to stamp with disapprobation,
in the most express and unequivocal terms, the whole movement
upon this subject. Mr. P. said he would not resume his seat
without tendering to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Mason),
just and generous as he always was, his acknowledgments for
the admission frankly made in the opening of his remarks. He
had said that, during the period that he had occupied a seat
in this House (as Mr. P. understood him), he had never known
six men seriously disposed to interfere with the rights of the
slaveholders at the South. Sir, said Mr. P., gentlemen may be
assured there was no such disposition as a general sentiment
prevailing among the people; at least he felt confidence in
asserting that, among the people of the State which he had the
honor in part to represent, there was not one in a hundred who
did not entertain the most sacred regard for the rights of
their Southern brethren--nay, not one in five hundred who would
not have those rights protected at any and every hazard. There
was not the slightest disposition to interfere with any rights
secured by the constitution, which binds together, and which he
humbly hoped ever would bind together, this great and glorious
confederacy as one family. Mr. P. had only to say that, to some
sweeping charges of improper interference, the action of the
people of the North at home, during the last year, and the vote
of their representatives here the other day, was a sufficient
and conclusive answer."

The newspaper named by Mr. Hill was entirely in the interest of Mr. Calhoun, and the course which it followed, and upon system, and incessantly to get up a slavery quarrel between the North and the South, was undeniable--every daily number of the paper containing the proof of its incendiary work. Mr. Calhoun would not reply to Mr. Hill, but would send a paper to the Secretary's table to be read in contradiction of his statements. Mr. Calhoun then handed to the Secretary a newspaper containing an article impugning the statement made by Mr. Pierce, in the House of Representatives, as to the small number of the abolitionists in the State of New Hampshire; which was read, and which contained scurrilous reflections on Mr. Pierce, and severe strictures on the state of slavery in the South. Mr. Hill asked for the title of the newspaper; and it was given, "_The Herald of Freedom_." Mr. Hill said it was an abolition paper, printed, but not circulated, at Concord, New Hampshire. He said the same paper had been sent to him, and he saw in it one of Mr. Calhoun's speeches; which was republished as good food for the abolitionists; and said he thought the Senate was well employed in listening to the reading of disgusting extracts from an hireling abolition paper, for the purpose of impugning the statements of a member of the House of Representatives, defending the South there, and who could not be here to defend himself. It was also a breach of parliamentary law for a member in one House to attack what was said by a member in another. Mr. Pierce's statement had been heard with great satisfaction by all except Mr. Calhoun; but to him it was so repugnant, as invalidating his assertion of a great abolition party in the North, that he could not refrain from this mode of contradicting it. It was felt by all as disorderly and improper, and the presiding officer then in the chair (Mr. Hubbard, from New Hampshire) felt himself called upon to excuse his own conduct in not having checked the reading of the article. He said:

"He felt as if an apology was due from him to the Senate, for
not having checked the reading of the paragraphs from the
newspaper which had just been read by the Secretary. He was
wholly ignorant of the contents of the paper, and could not
have anticipated the purport of the article which the senator
from South Carolina had requested the Secretary to read. He
understood the senator to say that he wished the paper to be
read, to show that the statement made by the senator from New
Hampshire, as to the feelings and sentiments of the people of
that State upon the subject of the abolition of slavery, was
not correct. It certainly would have been out of order, for any
senator to have alluded to the remarks made by a member of the
House of Representatives, in debate; and, in his judgment, it
was equally out of order to permit paragraphs from a newspaper
to be read in the Senate, which went to impugn the course of any
member of the other House; and he should not have permitted the
paper to have been read, without the direction of the Senate, if
he had been aware of the character of the article."

Mr. Calhoun said he was entitled to the floor and did not like to be interrupted by the chair: he meant no disrespect to Mr. Pierce, "but wished the real state of things to be known"--as if an abolition newspaper was better authority than a statement from a member in his place in the House. It happened that Mr. Pierce was coming into the Senate Chamber as this reading scene was going on; and, being greatly surprised, and feeling much aggrieved, and having no right to speak for himself, he spoke to the author of this View to maintain the truth of his statement against the scurrilous contradiction of it which had been read. Mr. Benton, therefore, stood up--

"To say a word on the subject of Mr. Pierce, the member of the
House of Representatives, from New Hampshire, whose statements
in the House of Representatives had been contradicted in the
newspaper article read at the Secretary's table. He had the
pleasure of an intimate acquaintance with that gentleman, and
the highest respect for him, both on his own account and that
of his venerable and patriotic father, who was lately Governor
of New Hampshire. It had so happened (said Mr. B.) that, in the
very moment of the reading of this article, the member of the
House of Representatives, whose statement it contradicted, was
coming into the Senate Chamber, and his whitening countenance
showed the deep emotion excited in his bosom. The statement
which that gentleman had made in the House was in the highest
degree consolatory and agreeable to the people of the
slaveholding States. He had said that not one in five hundred
in his State was in favor of the abolitionists: an expression
understood by every body, not as an arithmetical proposition
worked out by figures, but as a strong mode of declaring that
these abolitionists were few in number. In that sense it was
understood, and was a most welcome and agreeable piece of
information to the people of the slaveholding States. The
newspaper article contradicts him, and vaunts the number of the
abolitionists, and the numerous signers to their petition. Now
(said Mr. B.), the member of the House of Representatives (Mr.
Pierce) has this moment informed me that he knows nothing of
these petitions, and knows nothing to change his opinion as to
the small number of abolitionists in his State. Mr. B. thought,
therefore, that his statement ought not to be considered as
discredited by the newspaper publication; and he, for one,
should still give faith to his opinion."

In his eagerness to invalidate the statement of Mr. Pierce, Mr. Calhoun had overlooked a solecism of action in which it involved him. His bill to suppress the mail transmission of incendiary publications was still before the Senate, not yet decided; and here was matter read in the Senate, and to go forth as part of its proceedings, the most incendiary and diabolical that had yet been seen. This oversight was perceived by the author of this View, who, after vindicating the statement of Mr. Pierce, went on to expose this solecism, and--

"Took up the bill reported by the select committee on incendiary
publications, and read the section which forbade their
transmission by mail, and subjected the postmasters to fine
and loss of office, who would put them up for transmission;
and wished to know whether this incendiary publication, which
had been read at the Secretary's table, would be included in
the prohibition, after being so read, and thus becoming a part
of our debates? As a publication in New Hampshire, it was
clearly forbid; as part of our congressional proceedings would
it still be forbid? There was a difficulty in this, he said,
take it either away. If it could still be inculcated from this
floor, then the prohibition in the bill was mere child's play;
if it could not, and all the city papers which contained it
were to be stopped, then the other congressional proceedings
in the same paper would be stopped also; and thus the people
would be prevented from knowing what their representatives were
doing. It seemed to him to be but lame work to stop incendiary
publications in the villages where they were printed, and then
to circulate them from this chamber among the proceedings of
Congress; and that, issuing from this centre, and spreading to
all the points of the circumference of this extended Union, one
reading here would give it ten thousand times more notoriety
and diffusion than the printing of it in the village could do.
He concluded with expressing his wish that the reporters would
not copy into their account of debate the paper that was read.
It was too offensive to the member of the House [Mr. Pierce],
and would be too disagreeable to the people of the slaveholding
States, to be entitled to a place in our debates, and to become
a part of our congressional history, to be diffused over the
country in gazettes, and transmitted to posterity in the volumes
of debates. He hoped they would all omit it."

The reporters complied with this request, and the Congress debates were spared the pollution of this infusion of scurrility, and the permanent record of this abusive assault upon a member of the House because he was a friend to the South. But it made a deep impression upon senators; and Mr. King, of Georgia, adverted to it a few days afterwards to show the strangeness of the scene--Southern senators attacking their Northern friends because they defended the South. He said:

"It was known that there was a talented, patriotic, and highly
influential member of the other House, from New Hampshire
[Mr. Pierce], to whose diligence and determined efforts he
had heard attributed, in a great degree, the present prostrate
condition of the abolitionists in that State. He had been the
open and active friend of the South from the beginning, and
had encountered the hostility of the abolitionists in every
form. He had made a statement of the strength and prospects of
the abolitionists in his State, near the commencement of the
session, that was very gratifying to the people of the South.
This statement was corroborated by one of the senators from that
State a few days after, and the senator from Carolina rose, and,
without due reflection, he was very sure, drew from his pocket
a dirty sheet, an abolition paper, containing a scurrilous
article against the member from New Hampshire, which pronounced
him an impostor and a liar. The same thing in effect had just
been repeated by the senator from Mississippi against one of the
best friends of the South, Governor Marcy, of New-York. [Here
Mr. Calhoun rose to explain, and said he had intended, by the
introduction of the paper, no disrespect to the member from
New Hampshire; and Mr. Black also rose to say he only wished
to show the course the abolitionists were pursuing, and their
future views.] Mr. King said he had been interrupted by the
senators, but corrected by neither of them. He was not attacking
their motives, but only exposing their mistakes. The article
read by his friend from Carolina was abusive of the member from
New Hampshire, and contradicted his statements. The article
read by his friend from Mississippi against Governor Marcy was
of a similar character. It abused, menaced, and contradicted
him. These abusive productions would seem to be credited and
adopted by those who used them as evidence, and incorporated
them in their speeches. Here, then, was a contest in the North
between the most open and avowed friends of the South and the
abolitionists; and we had the strange exhibition of Southern
gentlemen apparently espousing the cause of the latter, who were
continually furnishing them evidence with which to aid them in
the contest. Did gentlemen call this backing their friends? What
encouragement did such treatment afford to our friends at the
North to step forth in our behalf?"

Mr. King did not limit himself to the defence of Mr. Pierce, but went on to deny the increase of abolitionism at the North, and to show that it was dying out there until revived by agitation here. He said:

"A great deal had been stated in one form or other, and in
one quarter or other, as to the numbers and increase of these
disturbers of the peace; and he did not undertake to say what
was the fact. He learned, and thought it probable, that they
had increased since the commencement of the session, and had
heard also the increase attributed to the manner in which the
subject had been treated here. However this might be, what he
insisted on was, that those base productions were no evidence of
the fact, or of any fact; and especially should not be used by
Southern men, in opposition to the statements of high-minded,
honorable men at the North, who were the active and efficient
friends of the South."

As an evidence of the manner in which the English emissary, George Thompson, had been treated in the North, upon whose labors so much stress had been laid in the South, Mr. King read from an English newspaper (the Leeds Mercury), Thompson's own account of his mission as written to his English employers; thus: