and stubbornly refuse to fraternize with her, and all the balance
of our southern sisters? Who doubts that all the South will be
represented there? and can it be said, truthfully, that our voice
can be of no avail or weight, when the ultimatum shall be laid
down? If we send delegates, who can say that our votes may not
secure a reliable nominee and a sound platform? Will the
instructions of Georgia to her delegates be more or less potent
with the indorsement of all or of only a portion of the South?
"If, indeed, fanaticism is in the ascendant in the North, and
cannot be overcome, then what initiative step toward a southern
Union, for the last resort, can be more effective than to unite
all the South on the Georgia platform and instructions? Our
influence in counsel and in action will be increased, whenever we
show a hearty disposition to harmonize with our sisters in the
South. Have we not heretofore kept aloof from their consultations
in every instance, save in the Nashville Convention?--and that was
a movement which did not derive any popularity in the South from
being suspected of having originated in South Carolina. Sooner or
later we must learn the important truth, that the fate and destiny
of the entire South is identical. Isolation will give neither
security nor concert. When we meet Virginia and Georgia, Alabama
and Mississippi, in consultation, as at Cincinnati, it is the
supremacy of Pharisaism to flippantly denounce such association as
either dangerous or degrading. North Carolina, Missouri, Florida,
and Texas, will be there represented; and are we too exalted or
conceited to meet them at the same council board?
"We shall meet there many liberal men from the North; those who in
their section have done good service against political
abolitionism. When we insist upon our platform with firmness, and
they see we only make a demand of our constitutional rights, they
will concede it; and when they go home they will prosecute the
canvass in good faith, upon the principles enunciated at the
Convention. Concert among ourselves, with the aid of the
conservative men at the North, may enable us to save a
constitutional Union; if that cannot be preserved, it will enable
us to save ourselves and our institutions. Are we alone to have
unoccupied seats, when such grave matters are to be decided by the
Cincinnati Convention?
"Suppose the Democracy of this State should decide not to send
delegates, and the other States of the South should follow her
example, who would be voted for? Could the party, _even at the
South_, without some concert, which could only be secured by
meeting, rally upon the same man? No well-informed person would
venture an affirmative answer; what would be the result? The
Democratic party would certainly be defeated, and the Know
Nothing, or Black Republican party, would as certainly be
successful. Our policy, then, would inevitably bring upon us
defeat; and if we are to be saved from a free-soil President, it
is only to be done by the party in the other States assembling and
making a nomination in which we refuse to participate. Even those
who are opposing the sending of the delegates, I doubt not,
rejoice in the hope that the other States, despite our
impracticable example, will meet and nominate candidates.
* * * * *
"The northern Democrats aided us to bring into the Union Texas, a
magnificent slave-holding territory--large enough to make four
slave States, and strengthened us more in that peculiar interest
than was ever before done by any single act of the Federal
Government. Since then they have amended a very imperfect fugitive
slave law, passed in 1793, and have given us now a law for the
recovery of fugitive slaves, as stringent as the ingenuity of man
could devise. Since then they have aided us by their votes in
establishing the doctrine of non-intervention with slavery by
Congress in the territories. Since then they have reduced the
odious tariff of 1842, and fixed the principle of imposts on the
revenue, not the protective basis. Since then they have actually
repealed the Missouri restriction, opened the territories to
settlement, and enabled us, if the South will be true to herself,
and aid in peopling Kansas, to form another slave State.
"In 1843, a man would have been pronounced insane, had he
predicted that slavery would be introduced there by the removal of
congressional restrictions. Since then they have adopted the
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and Madison's report--the very
corner-stone of State rights--as a part of the Democratic
platform. They have by their votes in Congress and Convention
given all these pledges to the Constitution since 1843; and if we
could then fraternize with them, what change has transpired that
justifies the delegates in that Convention, at least, in refusing
now to fraternize with northern and southern Democrats?"
The reader will easily see Col. Orr's position from this letter. He is
a southern Democrat, and, as such, a defender of slavery and slavery
extension, a free trader, and an opponent of all homestead bills, but
he does not go with the most ultra class of Southern politicians; in
short, he is "a National Democrat." He stands by the Democratic
organization of the country, so long as it stands by the South and her
institutions as well as it has done in the past. Upon the new issues
of intervention for slavery in the territories he has not yet spoken,
but he was, of course, a rigid Lecomptonite. But during the debate on
the Kansas-Nebraska bill he spoke very decidedly. He said: "The
legislative authority of a territory is invested with no vote for or
against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory,
when the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there,
to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws, what
is the remedy? _None, sir._ If the majority of the people are opposed
to the institution, and if they do not desire it ingrafted upon their
territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in
the territorial legislature for its protection."
In Congress, Col. Orr has generally ranged himself with the
compromising democracy. He is not born of the old aristocratic stock
of South Carolina planters, but was the son of a worker--a country
merchant. This fact has never been lost sight of by a portion of the
citizens of South Carolina, and they have been, some of them at least,
his bitter enemies for years. It is not impossible but Col. Orr, for
this reason, has taken a more "national" view of politics, and has
refused to go out of the Union for the sake of the slaveholding
aristocracy.
In his personal appearance Col. Orr is not, perhaps, prepossessing;
though his great, black eye and fine open face show the force and
power of his intellect. He is large in person, and not particularly
graceful in his actions or appearance. He has a certain dignity,
however, which enforces attention if he is the orator of the occasion,
and obedience if he is the presiding officer.
JOHN MINOR BOTTS.
We have no extended sketch of Mr. Botts to present to the reader, but
a few leading facts in reference to the political man.
Mr. Botts is a native of Dumfries, Prince William County, Virginia,
and was born in September, 1802. As early as 1834, he joined the Whig
party, and in 1839, he came to Congress as a Whig. He was known in the
House as a follower of Mr. Clay, or rather a supporter of Mr. Clay and
his peculiar doctrines. Mr. Botts, in other words, was in favor of a
highly protective tariff, the distribution of the public lands, and
internal improvements. He is to-day in favor of these measures of what
he would call reform. So strong was he in his devotion to the tenets
of the Whig party, that when President Tyler disappointed his friends
by his tariff policy, Mr. Botts, though a friend of years, at once
terminated the friendship. He could not hold in respect the man who,
it seemed to him, had betrayed his friends.
Mr. Botts was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska act and to the passage of
the Lecompton bill. Nevertheless he is a slaveholder and a defender of
the institution as it now exists in Virginia. But he is not a believer
in the finality of the present system, nor is he afraid to express his
opinions of slavery. This will be seen at once by the perusal of a
letter to the "Richmond Whig," from Mr. Botts, from which we quote. It
is dated April 18, 1859:
"I have recently received many letters from different parts of the
State, asking for a copy of my Powhatan speech, delivered in 1850,
which it is impossible for me to furnish, as I have only some half
dozen copies left. As the best means of supplying the information
so earnestly sought by those friends who are anxious to ascertain
_what horrible sentiments I uttered on the subject of slavery_,
which have been recently, to a great extent, substituted for the
'free negro' misrepresentation, I have concluded to publish, for
the benefit of the Imposition party in particular, everything in
that speech that relates to the question of slavery; garbled
extracts of which have already appeared in a small portion of the
press of that party--many of them, seeming to think there was no
great amount of capital to be made out of it, have declined to
notice it. The following is the portion objected to. I said:
"'There are, sir, two parties in our country, distinct from all
the rest, of whom I wish to say a word. The one in the North,
called 'Abolitionists,' and the other, in the South, known as
'Disunionists.' I am not sure for which of the two parties I have
the least sympathy or respect; and I am not sure to which attaches
the largest share of the responsibility for the chief difficulties
with which the nation has been lately afflicted.
"The Abolitionists seem to estimate the value of this Union (and
to hold as a condition and a price for its continuance) by the
_abolition of African slavery_. While the ultra men of the South,
or disunionists, seem to regard the _perpetuation_ and _extension_
of slavery as the chief bond that can hold them and the Union
together. For neither of these parties have I any sympathy. I hold
to the Union for far different, and, I trust, higher and nobler
purposes. It is for the _perpetuation of American Freedom_, rather
than the _abolition_ or _perpetuation of African Slavery_. I am
one of those who think slavery, in the abstract, is much to be
deprecated; and whilst I think that, as at present organized in
the southern States, it is a humanizing, civilizing, and
Christianizing institution, as must all agree who will take the
pains to compare the present condition of our slaves with the
original African race, yet I regard it as a great calamity that it
should have been entailed upon us; and I should look upon that man
as the first and greatest benefactor to his country, whose wisdom
could point out to us some practical and satisfactory means by
which we could, through our own instrumentality, and without
interference from our neighbors, provide for the ultimate
emancipation and removal of all the slaves in the country. I speak
of this as a desirable thing, especially to the owners of slaves,
who, I think, are the chief sufferers, but at the same time I fear
it is perfectly Utopian to attempt it; but I have seen too much
difference between the enterprise, the industry, and the
prosperity of the free and the slave States, to doubt the
advantage we would derive from it if it could be accomplished.'
"Now, there it is; let them make the most of it. I will add, that
I said it all at mature age, after full and careful deliberation,
honestly believing and thinking all that it contains. I have seen
no reason for _modification_, _recantation_, or _equivocation_.
What I thought and said then, I think and repeat now, _in the most
emphatic terms_; and hold, that he who objects to the sentiments
conveyed, to be consistent, must not only be in favor of reopening
the African slave trade at this time, but must take the position,
that if no such thing as slavery had ever been known to or
introduced amongst us, he would now favor its introduction for the
first time; for if its original introduction is not to be
deprecated, but justified and approved, why would he not advocate
a traffic that holds so high a place in his judgment and regard? I
do not know how many there are in this State, or in the South, who
set themselves up as advocates of this revolting trade, nor do I
care; I have only to say, that I am not one of them, and that, as
a _humanized_, _civilized_ and _christianized_, member of the
community, I should be utterly _ashamed_ of myself, if I could
_entertain_ any other opinions than those I have expressed; and I
should deserve the scorn of all men, if I could permit any
condition of the public mind to induce me so far to _debase_
myself as to render me capable of expressing any other, for the
purpose of catering to a morbid, vitiated, and corrupt taste, or
to an affected and artificial sentimentality on the subject of
slavery. These were then, and are now, my honest convictions, and
I think all who have participated in the clamor that has been
attempted to be gotten up, for the opportunity afforded me of
proclaiming them from the house-tops, to the _humanized_,
_civilized_, and _christianized_ world; and I hope the Imposition
press, throughout the State, will publish them, and that their
candidates for gubernational and subordinate honors may read this
my last declaration on the subject, wherever they may speak.
"In another part of that speech I said:
"'What I would ask and _demand_ of the North, is that they shall
not interfere with slavery as it exists under the Constitution;
that they shall not touch the question of the slave trade between
the States; that they shall carry out the true intent and meaning
of the Constitution in reference to the restitution of fugitive
slaves. These are the _true issues_ between the North and the
South; and I would go as far as he who goes furthest in exacting
them, 'at all hazards, and to the last extremity." And what I
would ask of the South is, not to suffer itself to be led off,
without due consideration, upon false issues, presented by
intemperate or over-zealous politicians, many of whom delight in,
and live upon, agitation and excitement, and many more, perhaps,
who owe their ephemeral fame and position to a _pretended,
exclusive championship for southern rights_. Southern honor does
not depend upon making unreasonable and untenable demands. The
interference _with_, or abolition _of_ slavery, where it exists,
is one thing; the extension of it, where it does not exist, is a
very different thing! Let us claim no more than we are entitled to
under the Constitution; and then, what we do claim, let us stand
by, like men who "know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain
them.'"
"I have seen no reason to recant what I said here, either; these
are the sentiments I now entertain, as I did when they were
delivered before the people of Powhatan. What fault do they find
with this? Do they indorse it or repudiate it? If they indorse it,
even-handed justice requires them to say so. If they condemn it,
justice to themselves, as they are resolved to make war on me,
requires that they should point out wherein they differ from me.
"In this connection it may be proper to add, for the information
of all who feel an interest in my record, one short paragraph from
my African Church speech, in 1856, relating to the same subject;
and from the several extracts herewith furnished, I think few will
have any difficulty in ascertaining my position on the slavery
question. Here is the passage referred to:
"'My position on the question of slavery is this; and, so far from
wishing to conceal it, I desire it should be known to all. Muzzles
were made for dogs, and not for men; and no press and no party can
put a muzzle on my mouth, so long as I value my freedom. I make
bold, then, to proclaim that I am no slavery propagandist. I will
resort to all proper remedies to protect and defend slavery where
it exists, but I will neither assist in nor encourage any attempt
to force it upon a reluctant people anywhere, and still less will
I justify the use of the military power of the country to
establish it in any of the territories. If it finds its way there
by legitimate means, it is all well; but never by force, through
any instrumentality of mine. I am myself a slaveholder, and all
the property my children have in the world is slave property,
inherited from their mother; and he who undertakes to connect my
name, or my opinions, with abolitionism, is either a knave or a
fool, and not unfrequently both. And this is the only answer I
have to make to them. I have not connected myself with any
sectional party or sectional question; and so help me God, I never
will.'"
JAMES H. HAMMOND.
The moderate political views which Gov. Hammond, of South Carolina,
has within a couple of years given publicity to, has given him a
somewhat national reputation among the adherents of the Democratic
party. He came to Congress as a politician of the Southern Rights
school, and it was generally supposed that he would be found acting
with the ultra wing of the Southern party in Congress. He brought with
him the reputation of a scholar and an orator, and mingled at once in
the Lecompton fray. He took sides with the administration against Mr.
Douglas, though it was noticed at the time that the senator had very
little to say about the Lecompton Constitution and the real issue then
before Congress. His speeches were upon the general question of
slavery.
The new senator from South Carolina attracted the universal attention
of Congress and the strangers then present in Washington, and the
impression he made was generally a happy one. His manners were quiet,
unostentatious, gentlemanly. His style of speech was smooth, pleasant,
and sometimes eloquent. As a man he was liked. Genial in his nature
and pleasant in his conversation, he soon made warm friends at the
capital--even among some of the very men whom he had in his South
Carolina home regarded as little less than monsters in human shape.
Senator Hammond at first tried his lance with the Illinois Giant, but
either from personal considerations, or other, he soon desisted. To
show Gov. Hammond's position on the slavery question in the winter of
1847-8, we quote a few passages from his celebrated speech delivered
in the Senate in the Lecompton debate. We have, in the following
passage, his opinion of squatter sovereignty:
"If what I have said be correct, then the will of the people of
Kansas is to be found in the action of her Constitutional
Convention. It is immaterial whether it is the will of a majority
of the people of Kansas _now_, or not. The convention was, or
might have been, elected by a majority of the people of Kansas. A
convention, elected in April, may well frame a constitution that
would not be agreeable to a majority of the people of a new State,
rapidly filling up, in the succeeding January; and if legislatures
are to be allowed to put to vote the acts of a convention, and
have them annulled by a subsequent influx of immigrants, there is
no finality. If you were to send back the Lecompton Constitution,
and another was to be framed, in the slow way in which we do
public business in this country, before it would reach Congress
and be passed, perhaps the majority would be turned the other way.
Whenever you go outside of the regular forms of law and
constitutions to seek for the will of the people, you are
wandering in a wilderness--a wilderness of thorns.
"If this was a minority constitution, I do not know that that
would be an objection to it. Constitutions are made for
minorities. Perhaps minorities ought to have the right to make
constitutions, for they are administered by majorities. The
Constitution of this government was made by a minority, and as
late as 1840 a minority had it in their hands, and could have
altered or abolished it; for, in 1840, six out of the twenty-six
States of the Union held the numerical majority. In all countries
and in all time, it is well understood that the numerical majority
of the people could, if they chose, exercise the sovereignty of
the country; but for want of intelligence, and for want of
leaders, they have never yet been able successfully to combine and
form a stable popular government. They have often attempted it,
but it has always turned out, instead of a popular sovereignty, a
_populace_ sovereignty; and demagogues, placing themselves upon
the movement, have invariably led them into military despotism.
"I think that the popular sovereignty which the senator from
Illinois would derive from the acts of his territorial
legislature, and from the information received from partisans and
partisan presses, would lead us directly into _populace_, and not
popular sovereignty. Genuine popular sovereignty never existed on
a firm basis except in this country. The first gun of the
Revolution announced a new organization of it, which was embodied
in the Declaration of Independence, developed, elaborated, and
inaugurated forever in the Constitution of the United States. The
two pillars of it were Representation and the Ballot-box. In
distributing their sovereign powers among the various departments
of the Government, the people retained for themselves the single
power of the ballot-box; and a great power it was. Through that
they were able to control all the departments of the Government.
It was not for the people to exercise political power in detail;
it was not for them to be annoyed with the cares of government;
but, from time to time, through the ballot-box, to exert their
sovereign power and control the whole organization. This is
popular sovereignty, the popular sovereignty of a legal
constitutional ballot-box; and when spoken through that box, the
'voice of the people,' for all political purposes, 'is the voice
of God; but when it is heard outside of that, it is the voice of a
demon, the _tocsin_ of the reign of terror."
Speaking of the South and slavery, he said:
"If we never acquire another foot of territory for the South, look
at her. Eight hundred and fifty thousand square miles. As large as
Great Britain, France, Austria, Prussia, and Spain. Is not that
territory enough to make an empire that shall rule the world? With
the finest soil, the most delightful climate, whose staple
productions none of those great countries can grow, we have three
thousand miles of continental shore line, so indented with bays
and crowded with islands, that, when their shore lines are added,
we have twelve thousand miles. Through the heart of our country
runs the great Mississippi, the father of waters, into whose bosom
are poured thirty-six thousand miles of tributary streams; and
beyond we have the desert prairie wastes, to protect us in our
rear. Can you hem in such a territory as that? You talk of putting
up a wall of fire around eight hundred and fifty thousand square
miles so situated! How absurd.
"But, in this territory lies the great valley of the Mississippi,
now the real, and soon to be the acknowledged, seat of empire of
the world. The sway of that valley will be as great as ever the
Nile knew in the earlier ages of mankind. We own the most of it.
The most valuable part of it belongs to us now; and, although
those who have settled above us are now opposed to us, another
generation will tell a different tale. They are ours by all the
laws of nature; slave labor will go over every foot of this great
valley where it will be found profitable to use it; and some of
those who may not use it are soon to be united with us by such
ties as will make us one and inseparable. The iron horse will soon
be clattering over the sunny plains of the South, to bear the
products of its upper tributaries to our Atlantic ports, as it now
does through the ice-bound North. There is the great Mississippi,
a bond of union made by Nature herself. She will maintain it
forever."
* * * * *