Newspaper Page Text
Huestion upon this topic for their satis-
Bction? Taking his abhorrence of
Ha very, his location, the manner he
His been placed before the people, the
Hiumphant feelings exhibited by those
|Hho have made speeches in favor ol
He abolitionists, their joy at his nomi-
and prospect of success; take
■Hl'sc circumstances in connexion with
Kts declining to answer questions U{)on
He subject, and I ask any dispassion
■ae man if bis Vincennes speech alone
Entitles him to the suffrages of the
Kouth ? Ought not I *eorgia to have as
surances that the man she supports for
president would veto any hill inter
fering with slavery in the District of
■Columbia or the States? For me, the
f veil-authenticated fact that he is a
■’ederalist, that lie is their candidate.
Ind supported by them, and that, if
■•'-‘'•’ed, it will be a Federal adminis-
H'ation, would be sufficient to prevent
We from yielding him nnv support,
ond his position, by affdiating with
he abolitionists, as 1 have shown, I
Vould be of itself a sufficient barrier, j
It is not my purpose to abuse General
Uarrison; far from it. Nor will 1
ibusc Federalists or Abolitionists. It
s enough that 1 am not willing to trust
he (lovernment in the hands of either ;
Ind J shall be mistaken if the people
>f Georgia are.
Again : most of you have long
mown that 1 am opposed to the char
oring a National or United Slates
hank. I do not believe either in its
ionstitutionality or expediency. This
• pinion was expressed to the people of
1 corgi a before my election ; I have
•hanged no opinion, but, having devot
more time to the examination of
he subject, prcparatoiy to giving a
I'ote upon the bill, which has for its o!>
cct the separation of the Government j
rom all banks, 1 am the more confirm- i
*d in my opposition to the bank, and j
udieve it alike dangerous to our form :
>f govenmeot, and the happiness of
the people.
Jtis said that General Harrison is
against the Bank, and indeed he has de
clared his belief of its unconstitulion
alilv; hut he has said and done
* ,
enough to satisfy ilie friends oft he bank |
upon this subject. Indeed, in our own
State. we have only to look to the men i
who are giving most aid to the pros
pects of General Harrison, to know
that at least seven-tenths are m favor of
a bank; and that this influence prompts
their action. The leading measure of
the Administration is the one which
proposes an Independent Treasury.
The strength of the Opposition is based j
upon their friendship to a hank. ?\ r or I
is it dealing fair with the country to de
nv this. An attempt to win the votes 1
of such persons as are unfriendly to;
such an institution, by saying General
Garrison is opposed to the bank.is com-;
milting a fraud upon their suffrage. '
Fight tenths of liis supporters are bank
men,and if they believed he would veto
i bill for its charter, lie would unques-1
sonably hs • their support, The bank
pen .-it the South forget another tiling— I
;hat, by placing the Government in the j
bands of Harrison, Clay, Adams,
Webster <?z Co., they must take with
the bank its legitimate concomitants— j
a protective tariff, internal improve
ments, and every Federal scheme that
Webster, *‘the eloquent and satisfacto
ry’’ expositor of constitutional law, ■
shall propose. In the mighty efforts
now making upon the subject of the
Presidential election, it requires no far- j
fetched discernment to perceive sweep- i
ing over the troubled mirror of the time
the shadow of the giant bank. While
I retain one mite of consistency I must
pronounce it unconstitutional to incor
porate a bank. And while I retain a sa
cred regard for the rights, virtue, and
happiness, of this republic, I must pro
nounce such a charter inexpedient and
dangerous. I will not argue tbc bank
question now, 1 hope to do it hereafter
if my health permits; but I may be per
’mitted to say to the farmers of my much
loved State that much has been said
and done to make them believe that !
the present low price of cotton is for
-4he want of a bank, and that the hard
times are attributable to the Govern
ment. When I speak to you and of
your interest, nothing shall stand be
tween me and a candid expression of
truth. Nothing is more uncandid than
the attempt to impose upon you such a
belief; if every merchant in Savannah,
Augusta, Macon, and Columbus, were
free from embarrassment,and had thou
sands of dollars at their command, it
could not affect the price of cotton one
k cent. The merchants that buy pur-
I chase to sell again, and they are regu
■ lated by the price of the article where
they sell. The prices at Liverpool
mainly regulate the price of this impor
tant staple of the South; and there they
ought to have plenty of money, as they
have the Bank of England, with its im
mense capital. But the truth is just
the reverse; the laboring classes are in
a much worse condition than our peo
ple, as there is abundant evidence to
prove.
Having given these reasons why I
cannot consent to support General
Harrison, 1 will now assign those which
induce me to prefer his opponent. In
doing so, none will likely charge me
with coming to the task influenced by
any feeling of partiality. My greatest
difficulty will bo to grant justice; which,
however, I will endeavor to do. I ask
all who love truth and honor, and hate
defamation, to divest themselves of pas
sion and prejudice, and weigh the ar
guments I oiler witli mature and deli
berate consideration. To he freed from
prejudice is at all times necessary in
order to arrive at just conclusions; but
now. v hen too many presses are pros
tituted to the vile purposes of slander;
when the most spotless characters in
society are torn and lacerated, to ac
complish party views; and when public
taste is so corrupted and vitiated, that
nothing but calumny is palatable, I may
properly ask a calm and dispassionate
hearing.
I have already had occasion of re
ference to the memorable year 1824.
At that time I was a tyro in politics, |
and ardent in the support of the Craw- i
ford and Troup party of the State: I
shall never forget, and very many with ;
whom I came in contact will not for
get., the conflicts of that time. William
M. C raw ford was the Republican no- I
mi nee for President of the United States; j
and I wish every candid State Rights j
man in Georgia to refresh his recoflec- j
tion ns to the candidate we ran for Vice !
President in that election. Is there one |
who does not remember that our can-1
didatc fur Vice President was Martin
Van Bufen, the present Chief Magis
trate? Is there one who does not re
collect, that the Crawford electoral |
ticket succeeded; and that we gave the i
vote of Georgia to Crawford for Pre- i
sident, and Van Buren for Vice Prcsi- |
dent? 1 think these facts will not be
denied by any, and if they should.lhere I
are plenty of living witnesses of their i
truth. Cosam Emar Bartlett, the then
editor ol the Georgia Patriot, charged
Van Buren with being a Missouri ro
striclionist; this paper, you will re
member, opposed Mr. Crawford and
Van Buren at that time. This hap
pened but a few years after he had
given the vote of instructions to Rufus 1
K ing, in the Legislature of New York. |
Mow did this charge affect him with j
the Troup and Crawford party? Did j
they abandon his support? So far from I
it a reference to the leading party jour- !
nalsof the day will find the vote pal
liated and explained. The Georgia Pa- J
triot, likewise rung the various charges |
upon the public ear, of his vote for free- !
negro suffrage. This charge was like
wise make by the Patriot, a few years
after the constitution of New York was I
altered, at. which time the vote was said
to have been given. How did this
charge affect him with the Troup and i
Crawford party? Did it drive them
from his support? By no means. They j
defended and sustained him. And, in
1824, a few years after these votes
were given, when the manner and cir
cumstances of their having been given |
were fresh and well understood, we j
recommended Mr. Van Buren to the,
support of our friends; and gave him a !
triumphant vindication from the char-1
ges, bv giving him the support of the
State for the second office in the gift of
the American people.
Let it be remembered, too, that as
Mr. Crawford was the regular nominee
of the Republican party, that Mr. Van
Buren supported him, notwithstanding
there were then running Adams, Clay,
and Jackson. The vote ot New York
tells on this subject. The vole given
for the tariff of 1828 is now trumpeted
abroad as an objection to Van Buren.
For this both the candidates for Presi
dent voted. But here again lam
slopped. In the year 1832, the party
of which I am a member, gave again
their support to Mr. Van Buren for
Vice President of the United States.
Hi s vote, and the circumstances under
which it was given, were no secret —
were well known to the public, and at
a time of great excitement upon the
subject of the tariff. It is not my wish
to censure others, but to assign the rea
sons which govern my own conduct.
Acting with my parly, I gave a cordial
support to Mr. Van Buren at both
those periods (1824 and 1®32.) With
out going into a vindication of those
votes now, I think you will agree with
I me that I should present them with
| bad grace as reasons why he could not
j get my vote. They were reasons
j which should have operated upon our
suffrage with much more force then
than now. It has been near twenty
years since the Constitution of New
York was revised, and the vote of in
struction to Ilufus King and the re-
I strictive vote on Florida given. With
every apology that could be ottered for
Mr. Van Jsuren, it we had heard or
known nothing of him since, in these
times of abolition excitement, these
votes would be sufficient to deprive him
of southern votes. Bui how stands
the case. We supported him then
without a call for his opinions upon the
subject of slavery—since which we
have had h«s published opinions and re
solves upon this vital subject, to which
1 will call your attention. 7/e was in
terrogated by the Jackson and Shocco
committees before his election to tiic
Presidency, his answers to winch show
how far his votes, twenty years ago,
ought to alarm the South upon the sub
ject of slavery. i/e says, if elected,
“I must go into the Presidential chair
the inflexible and uncompromising op
ponent of any attempt, upon the part
of Congress, to abolish slavery in the
.District of Columbia against the wish
es of the slaveholding States; and also
with a determination, equally decided,
to resist the slightest interference with
the subject in the States where it ex
ists ” Are not these declarations, made !
before his election in the face of the
world, strong enough to satisfy the
South upon this subject? i/e avers his
inflexible and uncompromising opposi
tion to any interference with our rights.
But I am aware that many declared
then he was insincere, and could not lie
trusted. Yet after his election, when,
if he had any desire to betray our
rights and falsify his declarations, when
there was no actual call or necessity, in
his inaugural address he repeats them.
I ask any candid man whether he would
have said any thing upon the subject if
he had not intended faithfully to exe
cute iiis promises? i/e gives us in his
inaugural address, first a reference to j
what, lie had previously said, and part ;
of which is the above extract, and then
says. “It now only remains to add, that j
no bill conflicting with these views can
ever receive my constitutional sanc
tion.”
What more. Fellow citizens, can we
ask, in order to satisfy us that, during
his administration, there will be no in
terference with this domestic institution
But nearly four years have passed,and ,
you may wish to know whether he is
still inflexible upon this subject, and
whether the growing rage of fanati
cism has not driven him from his po
sition. This is right; you should know j
and without a distinct confirmation, |
you might prudently withhold your;
votes from any candidate. On the i
I Oth of Feb. of the present year, a ve
ry respectful letter was addressed to
Gen. Harrison, from some gentlemen
in Virginia, in which they propound,
among others, these questions.
“Is it constitutional, and if so, would
it be expedient to abolish slavery in the j
District of Columbia?”
“Iu the event of your election, should
a bill to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia pass Congress, would it
receive your sanction?”
Now, these were very plain ques- j
tions,easily anwered by an honest man
who intends no imposition, and yet
General Harrison refuses to answer.
His friends in the South may say one
thing, and appeal to his speech made j
at Vincennes, while his friends in the
non slaveholding states hww another.
How different has Mr. Van Buren ac- j
ted. On the 2lst March of the pres
ent year, a letter from Virginia was
addressed to him upon this subject, to
which he replies on the 26th of the
same : “/ have received your letter of
the 21 st inst. and can have no objection
to say in reply, that the sentiments ex
pressed in my letter to Junius Amis,
and others, on the tith March, 1836,
and substantially repeated in my inau
gural address, are not only still enter
tained by me, but have been greatly
i strengthened by subsequent experience
' and reflection.” By this, we have re-
I newed assurances of his determination
to preserve inviolate this species of our
property. There is no concealment —
there is no equivocation—but a senti
ment candidly and fully expressed and
published to the world. I should feel
myself exceedingly humbled, if I were
now to say to the people of my state,
that I opposed Mr. Fan Buren for the
vote instructing Ilufus King, or the
vote changing the Constitution of N.
York, or the vote ot restriction upon
Florida. No matter how objectiona
ble these votes, I and the party with
i which I acted, to say the least of it,
| excused them then, without anv favo
rable pledge from Mr. Van Buren.—
Not an objectionable expression has
fallen from his lips or pen since, upon
this subject, and those repeated assu
rances in our favor; and how could I,
with anv sort of consistency, assign
these votes as reasons for denouncing
him now? But there is other public
evidence of bis sincerity upon this sub
ject. My fellow-citizens will remem
ber, that a bill was introduced in the
Senate to prevent the transportation
by mail of anti-slavery pamphlets,
books, newspapers. vVc. This bill
came before the Senate on the question
“Shall this hill bo engrossed and read
a third time?” while Mr. Van Buren
was Vice President. Upon tills ques
tion the Senate tied. ISand 18, and the
dicision had to be made by Mr. Van
Buren. He met it promptly, and vo
ted for its passage. We arc treating
gentlemen from non slaveholding states
with great unfairness, when we abuse
them, alter every demonstration they
can make in our favor. 1 shall have j
to lose mv regard for virtue and con
sistency before J enlist in the crusade.
But strong as are my expressions, and
as decisive as has been the conduct of
Mr. Van Buren, 1 would not feel that
the South would be just to herself to
yield him her support, if lie was cour
ting Abolition votes at the expense of
our rights, and if his supporters were j
affiliating with these fanatics. For I
this reason, the candidates for Presi
dent are the representatives of great |
principles, which principles I must of- |
ten understand from the zeal and char-I
acter of their supporters. On many,!
the testimony 1 may offer may have !
but slight effect, and with some, none
at all; but situated where I have been
enabled to weigh every circumstance
with reasonable impartiality, 1 feel
its force. In all the attempts to prove
Harrison no Abolitionist, and that be |
would not get the support of these fa- I
natics, no one pretends to charge the 1
fact that Mr. Van Buren stands any |
chance to get them. They denounce!
him in every print as the slave of the
South; that his son lias married the
daughter of an extensive slaveholder;
and that lie is a “northern man with i
southern principles.” But I propose j
to go further, and show a prepondera-1
ting difference in favor of the Northern
Democrats, the supporters of Mr. Van
Buren.
In the last Congress there were pre
served 4,071) abolition petitions, each
petition varying as to the number of
petitioners they contained. Os this
large amount of petitions brought into
Congress, will it not be of some conse
quence for you to know in what pro
portion they were presented by Whigs
and Democrats? It seems to me that
by it you may at least learn this fact,
who arc the most zealous in their cause.
I have taken the pains to inform myself
and the result is, that 3,786 of that
number were presented by Whigs and
the remaining 263 by Democrats.—
Will it not strike the mind of every
man, at once, the immense disparity
between them? Another singular fact
is worthy of notice, that in some of the
States, and 1 mention especially New
Hampshire, whore the Democratic
party is strong, and where the whole
representation of the state is of that
party, the Representatives refuse to
present these petitions ; and the Abo- i
litionist from those places send them |
to their friends who come from other!
States. Os the 4,079 petitions present-1
ed last Congress, the Whigs presented
from states in which they did not re
side, 1,317, the Democrats 7. These
are facts which I can show from the
journals, and give the names of all who
presented, the slates from which they
presented, and the number presented
by each. Such circumstances as these
are met by saying that they are Abo
litionists among the Democrats, which
is no doubt true, but they are not fa
vored by the Democratic party while
they are courted by the Whigs. lam
not content to make declarations and
endeavor to force ytur judgments by
clamour. This is a matter of too much
consequence to you for me to favor
this or that party, while by so doing I
shall be giving strength to an interest
wholly adverse to your rights. But I
will continue to state Gets, and vou
m
may draw your own conclusions, and
act upon the responsibility of your own
judgments. I will not enumerate the
many votes given during several pre
ceding sessions, all of which will show
the same preponderating influence of
the Whigs in favor of the Abolitionists.
I will submit a few direct Votes only.
By relerence to the resolutions intro
duced upon this subject by Mr. Pinck
ney, ot JSouth Caraolina, one of them
will be found to read thus: “That, in
j the opinion of this House, Congress
; ought not to interfere, in any way, with
slavery in the district of Columbia.”
This resolution passed by a vote of
103 yens to 47 nays. I suppose vou
would consider this vote in the nega
tive some evidence that there were
men in Congress who fell that Con
gress ought to interfere with slavery
in the District? Who were they?
And how stood the parties upon this
vote? Ot the 47 who voted in the ne
gative, 42 were W lugs, the remaining
j live Democrats. Mr. Patton, of Vir
| ginia, under the instructions, it is said,
1 ot a meeting ot southern members at
the succeeding Congress offered this
resolution, viz:
’•'Resolved, That utl petitions, memorials and pa
pers touching the abolition of Slavery, or buying,
selling or transferring slaves in any State, District
or territory of the United States, be laid upon the
table without being debated, printed, road or refer
red; and that no further action shall be had thereon."
Upon the adoption of this resolu
tion, ihc vote stands recorded: yeas
122 nays 74. Among those voting in
the affirmative, from non-slaveholding
States, there were fifty-one Demorats,
and but one Whig. Mr. Atherton*
(Democrat,) of N. Hampshire, intro-'
duced resolutions, otie of which was
this:
“if esolccd, That petitions for the abolition of sla
very in the District of Columbia, and the Territories
of the United States, and against the removal of
slaves from one state to another, are part of a plan of
operations set on foot to affect the institutions of sla
very in the several States, and indirectly, to destroy
that institution within their limits.”
This resolution was offbrei bv a
Democrat from a non-slaveholding
State. Upon its passage, there stand
recorded—l 36 yeas, and 65 nays. Os
the 05 who voted in the negative, 62
were Whigs, 61 northern Whigs. His
third resolution upon the subject was
this:
“ Resolved , That Congress has no right to do that
indirectly, which it cannot do directly.”
In favor of this, the yeas are 170,
any nays 30. Every man who voted
in the negative was a Whig. The
fifth and last resolution was divided,
and the vole demanded upon the first
branch, which reads thus :
“ Resolved , That attempts on the part ol Congress
to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, or the
Territories, or to prohibit the removal of slaves from
State to State, or to discriminate between the insti
tuiionsof one portion of the Confederacy and anoth
er, with the views aforesaid, are iu violation of the
Constitution, destructive ofthe fundamental princi
ples on which the union of these states rest, and be
yond thejurisdiction of Congress.”
This branch of this resolution is as
strong as any man from the South can
ask; and let it not be forgotten that it
was introduced by a northern Demo
crat. This passed by a vote of 149
yeas to 52 nays. You will be glad to
know, doubtless, who voted in the ne
gative; J have their names. Os the
52, there were 47 Whigs, and but 5
democrats. During the same session,
the journals show that Mr. Slade, a
zealous Whig, and an equally zealous
Abolitionist, made a motion, “that the
rules in relation to the order of busi
ness be suspended, for him to move a.
resolution, which was read at the
Clerk’s table, as follows:
“Whereas, there exists, and is carried on, betwoeir
the ports in the District of Columbia and other ports
ofthe United States, and under the sanction of the
laws thereof, a trade in human beings, whereby thou
sands of them are annually sold and transported
from said district to distant parts of the country, in
vessels belonging to the citizens of the United States,
therefore, to the end that all obstacles to the consid
eration of this subject be removed, and remedy for
the evil he speedily provided,
“Resolved , That so much of the fifth section of
the resolutions on the subject of slavery, passed by
this house on the 11th and 12th of the present month
as relates to the removal of slaves from State to
State, and prohibits the acts of this House, and eve
ry petition, memorial, resolution or paper, touching
the same, be, and hereby is rescinded.”
The effort to repeal this part of the
resolution, I deem another question,
calculated to show which party leans
to, and is sustained by the Abolition
ists. Upon this motion there stand
recorded 56 yeas and 147 nays. Os
the 56 who voted in favor of Mr.
Slade’s motion 53 were Whigs, and
but 3 Democrats. I would desist from
exhibiting further evidence, but I feel
it rny duty to exhibit facts that cannot
be contradicted or denied; that the
people of Georgia may at least act
derstandingly. God knows that I have
no such sympathy for either party as
would induce me to betray your rights.
I desire your dispassionate judgment.
The first motion made to introduce
a petition this Congress, upon the sub
ject, was made by Mr. Lincoln, a
Whig member from Massachusetts.—•
This was met by southern gentlemen,
among others, Mr. Cave Johnson who
[Cojituojed o.x 4th Page.]