be admitted, they may be extended to morals and religion. I do not feel bound to admit or deny the truth of this assertion; but if the senator will show me a case in which a state has passed laws under its unquestionable reserved powers, in protection of its morality or religion, I would hold it to be the duty of the General Government to respect the laws of the states, in conformity to the principles which I maintain.

His next objection is, that the bill is a manifest violation of the liberty of the press. He has not thought proper to specify wherein the violation consists. Does he mean to say that the laws of the states prohibiting the introduction and circulation of papers calculated to excite insurrection, are in violation of the liberty of the press? Does he mean that the slaveholding states have no right to pass such laws? I cannot suppose such to be his meaning; for I understood him, throughout his remarks, to admit the right of the states-a right which they have always exercised, without restriction or limitation, before and since the adoption of the Constitution, without ever having been questioned. But if this be not his meaning, he must mean that this bill, in making it the duty of the officers and agents of the government to respect the laws of the states, violates the liberty of the press, and thus involves the old misconception that the states are the agents of this government, which pervades the whole argument of the senator, and to which I have already replied.

The senator next objects that the bill makes it penal on deputy postmasters to receive the papers and publications which it embraces. I must say, that my friend from Massachusetts (for such I consider him, though we differ in politics) has not expressed himself with his usual accuracy on the present occasion. If he will turn to the provisions of the bill, he will find that the penalty attaches only in cases of knowingly receiving and delivering out the papers and publications in question. All the consequences which the senator drew from the view which he took of the bill of course fall, and relieves me from the necessity of showing that the deputy postmasters will not be compelled to resort to the espionage into letters and packages, in order to exonerate themselves from the penalty of the bill, which he supposed.

The last objection of the senator is, that, under the provision of the bill, everything touching on the subject of slavery will be prohibited from passing through the mail. I again must repeat, that the senator has not expressed himself with sufficient accuracy. The provisions of the bill are limited to the transmission of such papers in reference to slavery as are prohibited by the laws of the slaveholding states-that is, by eleven states of the Union-leaving the circulation through the mail without restriction or qualification as to all other papers, and wholly so as to the remaining thirteen states. But the senator seems to think that even this restriction, as limited as it is, would be a very great inconvenience. It may, indeed, prove so to the lawless Abolitionists, who, without regard to the obligations of the Constitution, are attempting to scatter their firebrands throughout the Union. But is their convenience the only thing to be taken into the estimate? Are the peace, security, and safety of the slaveholding states nothing? or are these to be sacrificed for the accommodation of the Abolitionists?

I have now replied directly, fully, and, I trust, successfully to the objections to the bill, and shall close what I intended to say by a few general and brief remarks.

We have arrived at a new and important point in reference to the abolition question. It is no longer in the hands of quiet and peaceful, but I cannot add, harmless Quakers. It is now under the control of ferocious zealots, blinded by fanaticism, and, in pursuit of their object, regardless of the obligations of religion or morality. They are organized throughout every section of the non-slaveholding states; they have the disposition of almost unlimited funds, and are in possession of a powerful press, which, for the first time, is enlisted in the cause

ot abolition, and turned against the domestic institutions, and the peace and security of the South. To guard against the danger in this new and more menacing form, the slaveholding states will be compelled to revise their laws against the introduction and circulation of publications calculated to disturb their peace and endanger their security, and to render them far more full and efficient than they have heretofore been. In this new state of things, the probable conflict between the laws which those states may think proper to adopt, and those of the General Government regulating the mail, becomes far more important than in any former state of the controversy; and Congress is now called upon to say what part it will take in reference to this deeply-interesting subject. We of the slaveholding states ask nothing of the government but that it should abstain from violating laws passed within our acknowledged constitutional competency, and conceded to be essential to our peace and security. I am anxious to see how this question will be decided. I am desirous that my constituents should know what they have to expect, either from this government or from the non-slaveholding states. Much that I have said and done during the session has been with the view of affording them correct information on this point, in order that they might know to what extent they might rely upon others, and how far they must depend on themselves.

Thus far (I say it with regret) our just hopes have not been realized. The Legislatures of the South, backed by the voice of their constituents, expressed through innumerable meetings, have called upon the non-slaveholding states to repress the movements made within the jurisdiction of those states against their peace and security. Not a step has been taken; not a law has been passed, or even proposed; and I venture to assert that none will be: not but what there is a favourable disposition towards us in the North, but I clearly see the state of political parties there presents insuperable impediments to any legislation on the subject. I rest my opinion on the fact that the non-slaveholding states, from the elements of their population, are, and will continue to be, divided and distracted by parties of nearly equal strength; and that each will always be ready to seize on every movement of the other which may give them the superiority, without much regard to consequences as affecting their own states, and much less remote and distant sections.

Nor have we been less disappointed as to the proceedings of Congress. Believing that the General Government has no right or authority over the subject of slavery, we had just grounds to hope Congress would refuse all jurisdiction. in reference to it, in whatever form it might be presented. The very opposite course has been pursued. Abolition petitions have not only been received in both houses, but received on the most obnoxious and dangerous of all groundsthat we are bound to receive them; that is, to take jurisdiction of the question of slavery whenever the Abolitionists may think proper to petition for its abolition, either here or in the states.

Thus far, then, we of the slaveholding states have been grievously disappointed. One question still remains to be decided-that presented by this bill. To refuse to pass this bill would be virtually to co-operate with the Abolitionistswould be to make the officers and agents of the postoffice department in effect their agents and abettors in the circulation of their incendiary publications in violation of the laws of the states. It is your unquestionable duty, as I have demonstrably proved, to abstain from their violation; and, by refusing or neglecting to discharge that duty, you would clearly enlist in the existing controversy, on the side of the Abolitionists, against the Southern States. Should such be your decision by refusing to pass this bill, I shall say to the people of the South, look to yourselves-you have nothing to hope from others. But I must tell the Senate, be your decision what it may, the South will never abandon the principles of this bill. If you refuse co-operation with our laws, and conflict should ensue between your and our law, the Southern States will never yield

to the superiority of yours. We have a remedy in our hands, which, in such event, we shall not fail to apply. We have high authority for asserting, that in such cases "state interposition is the rightful remedy"—a doctrine first announced by Jefferson-adopted by the patriotic and Republican State of Kentucky, by a solemn resolution in '98, and finally carried out into successful practice on a recent occasion, ever to be remembered by the gallant state which I, in part, have the honour to represent. In this well-tested and efficient remedy, sustained by the principles developed in the report, and asserted in this bill, the slaveholding states have an ample protection. Let it be fixed-let it be riveted in every Southern mind, that the laws of the slaveholding states for the protection of their domestic institutions are paramount to the laws of the General Government in the regulation of commerce and the mail, and that the latter must yield to the former in the event of conflict; and that, if the government should refuse to yield, the states have a right to interpose, and we are safe. With these principles, nothing but concert would be wanting to bid defiance to the movements of the Abolitionists, whether at home or abroad; and to place our domestic institutions, and, with them, our security and peace, under our own protection, and beyond the reach of danger.

XIV.

SPEECH ON THE RECEPTION OF ABOLITION PETITIONS, FEBRUARY, 1837.

IF the time of the Senate permitted, I should feel it to be my duty to call for the reading of the mass of petitions on the table, in order that we might know what language they hold towards the slaveholding states and their institutions; but as it will not, I have selected indiscriminately from the pile, two: one from those in manuscript, and the other from the printed; and, without knowing their contents, will call for the reading of them, so that we may judge, by them, of the character of the whole.

(Here the secretary, on the call of Mr. Calhoun, read the two petitions.) Such, resumed Mr. C., is the language held towards us and ours; the peculiar institutions of the South, that on the maintenance of which the very existence of the slaveholding states depends, is pronounced to be sinful and odious, in the sight of God and man; and this with a systematic design of rendering us hateful in the eyes of the world, with a view to a general crusade against us and our institutions. This, too, in the legislative halls of the Union; created by these confederated states for the better protection of their peace, their safety, and their respective institutions; and yet we, the representatives of twelve of these sovereign states against whom this deadly war is waged, are expected to sit here in silence, hearing ourselves and our constituents day after day denounced, without uttering a word; if we but open our lips, the charge of agitation is resounded on all sides, and we are held up as seeking to aggravate the evil which we resist. Every reflecting mind must see in all this a state of things deeply and dangerously diseased.

I do not belong, said Mr. C., to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine is the opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular, I hold concession or compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession-compromise would follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a

fixed determination of maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next demand will be that they be referred to a committee, in order that they may be deliberated and acted upon. At the last session, we were modestly asked to receive them simply to lay them on the table, without any view of ulterior action. I then told the senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan), who strongly urged that course in the Senate, that it was a position that could not be maintained; as the argument in favour of acting on the petitions, if we were bound to receive, could not be resisted. I then said that the next step would be to refer the petition to a committee, and I already see indications that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed by another, and we would thus proceed, step by step, to the final consummation of the object of these petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of arresting the progress of abolition is to reason it down, and with this view, it is urged that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee. That is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other house; but, instead of arresting its progress, it has since advanced more rapidly than ever. The most unquestionable right may be rendered doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in the present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress-they have no right to touch it in any shape or form, or to make it the subject of deliberation or discussion.

In opposition to this view, it is urged that Congress is bound by the Constitution to receive petitions in every case and on every subject, whether within its constitutional competency or not. I hold the doctrine to be absurd, and do solemnly believe that it would be as easy to prove that it has the right to abolish slavery, as that it is bound to receive petitions for that purpose. The very existence of the rule that requires a question to be put on the reception of petitions, is conclusive to show that there is no such obligation. It has been a standing rule from the commencement of the government, and clearly shows the sense of those who formed the Constitution on this point. The question on the reception would be absurd, if, as is contended, we are bound to receive; but I do not intend to argue the question; I discussed it fully at the last session, and the arguments then advanced neither have nor can be answered. As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work upward till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new impression with me. Several years since, in a discussion with one of the senators from Massachusetts (Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that the doctrine of the proclamation and the force bill-that this government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the extent of its own powers, and enforce it at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly maintained by that senator-would at no distant day arouse the dormant spirit of Abolitionism; I told him that the doctrine was tantamount to the assumption of unlimited power on the part of the government, and that such would be the impression on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The consequence would be inevitable-a large portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin, and would believe it to be an obligation of conscience to abolish it, if they should feel themselves in any degree responsible for its continuance, and that his doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence, as it has, with this fanatical portion of society; and that they would begin their operation on the ignorant, the weak, the

1850

young, and the thoughtless, and would gradually extend upward till they became strong enough to obtain political control, when he, and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however reluctant, be compelled to yield to their doctrine, or be driven into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and all this is already in a course of regular fulfilment.

Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will not be more difficult to trace the course of future events now than it was then. Those who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the North will die away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate conception of its real character; it will continue to rise and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its progress be adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable extent, of the press; those great instruments by which the mind of the rising generation will be formed.

However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding states are at present, in the course of a few years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of nearly one half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we must become, finally, two people. It is impossible, under the deadly hatred which must spring up between the two great sections, if the present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we should continue under the same political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union asunder, as powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union, I openly proclaim it, and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of the South will not, cannot surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the two races inhabiting that section of the Union is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. It cannot be subverted without drenching the country in blood, and extirpating one or the other of the races. Be it good or bad, it has grown up with our society and institutions, and is so interwoven with them that to destroy it would be to destroy us as a people. But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the two races, in the slaveholding states, is an evil: far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far proved itself to be, to both, and will continue to prove so, if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually. It came among us in a low, degraded, and savage condition, and, in the course of a few generations, it has grown up under the fostering care of our institutions, as reviled as they have been, to its present comparative civilized condition. This, with the rapid increase of numbers, is conclusive proof of the general happiness of the race, in spite of all the exaggerated tales to the contrary.

In the mean time, the white or European race has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness, and all the high qualities which adorn our naI ask whether we have not contributed our full share of talents and political wisdom in forming and sustaining this political fabric; and

ture.