duties, to perform the drudgery of life--that is, a class
requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its
requisites are vigor, docility, fidelity. Such a class you must
have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress,
civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of
society and of political government; and you might as well attempt
to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the
other, except on this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she
found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand--a race inferior
to her own, but eminently qualified, in temper, in vigor, in
docility, in capacity, to stand the climate to answer all her
purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We
found them slaves, by the 'common consent of mankind,' which,
according to Cicero, '_lex naturae est_'--the highest proof of what
is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; it is a
word discarded now by 'ears polite;' I will not characterize that
class at the North with that term; but you have it; it is there;
it is everywhere; it is eternal."
Upon going home to his South Carolina plantation, a change seems
to have come over the mind of the senator--or he was greatly
misunderstood while at Washington. In a speech, delivered at Brownwell
Court House, South Carolina, October 27, 1858, he astonished some of
his neighbors as well as distant friends and enemies, by the
enunciation of peculiarly moderate views for a South Carolina
Democrat. Let us quote a few paragraphs. First upon Disunion. Says
Senator Hammond:
"But I will not detain you longer with what belongs to the past.
The present and the future are what concern us most. You desire to
know my opinion of the course the South should pursue under
existing circumstances. I will give you, frankly and fully, the
results of my observations and reflections on this all-important
point. The first question is, Do the people of the South consider
the present Union of these States as an evil in itself, and a
thing that it is desirable we should get rid of under all
circumstances? There are some, I know, who do; but I am satisfied
that an overwhelming majority of the South would, if assured that
this government was hereafter to be conducted on the true
principles and construction of the Constitution, decidedly prefer
to remain in the Union rather than incur the unknown costs and
hazards of setting up a separate government. I think I say what is
true when I say that, after all the bitterness that has
characterized our long warfare, the great body of the southern
people do not seek disunion, and will not seek it as a primary
object, however promptly they may accept it as an alternative,
rather than submit to unconstitutional abridgments of their
rights. I confess that for many years of my life I believed that
our only safety was in the dissolution of the Union, and I openly
avowed it. I should entertain and without hesitation express the
same sentiments now, but that the victories we have achieved, and
those I think we are about to achieve, have inspired me with hope,
I may say the belief, that we can fully sustain ourselves in the
Union, and control its action in all great affairs."
Upon the African Slave Trade thus speaks the senator:
"We have it proposed to reopen the African slave trade and bring
in hordes of slaves from that prolific region to restore the
balance. I once entertained that idea myself; but, on further
investigation, I abandoned it. I will not now go into the
discussion of it further than to say that the South is itself
divided on that policy, and, from appearances, opposed to it by a
vast majority, while the North is unanimously against it. It would
be impossible to get Congress to reopen the trade. If it could be
done, then it would be unnecessary, for that result could only be
brought about by such an entire abandonment by the North and the
world of all opposition to our slave system that we might safely
cease to erect any defences for it. But if we could introduce
slaves, where could we find suitable territory for new slave
States? The Indian Reserve, west of Arkansas, might make one; but
we have solemnly guaranteed that to the remnants of the red race.
Everywhere else, I believe, the borders of our States have reached
the great desert which separates the Atlantic from the Pacific
States of this Confederacy. Nowhere is African slavery likely to
flourish in the little oasis of that Sahara of America. It is much
more likely, I think, to get the Pacific slope and to the north in
the great valley than anywhere else outside of its present limits.
Shall we, as some suggest, take Mexico and Central America to make
slave States? African slavery appears to have failed there.
Perhaps, and most probably, it will never succeed in those
regions. If it might, what are we to do with the seven or eight
millions of hardly semi-civilized Indians and the two or three
millions of Creole Spaniards and Mongrels who now hold those
countries? We would not enslave the Indians! Experience has proved
that they are incapable of steady labor, and are therefore unfit
for slavery. We would not exterminate them, even if that inhuman
achievement would not cost ages of murder and incalculable sums of
money. We could hardly think of attempting to plant the black race
there, superior for labor, though inferior, perhaps, in intellect,
and expect to maintain a permanent and peaceful industry, such as
slave labor must be to be profitable, amid those idle, restless,
demoralized children of Montezuma, scarcely more civilized,
perhaps more sunk in superstition, than in his age, and now
trained to civil war by half a century of incessant revolution.
What, I say, could we do with these people or these countries to
add to southern strength? Nothing. Could we degrade ourselves so
far as to annex them on equal terms, they would be sure to come
into this Union free States all. To touch them in any way is to be
contaminated. England and France, I have no doubt, would gladly
see us take this burden on our back if we would secure for them
their debts and a neutral route across the Isthmus. Such a route
we must have for ourselves, and that is all we have to do with
them. If we can not get it by negotiation or by purchase, we must
seize and hold it by force of arms. The law of nations would
justify it, and it is absolutely necessary for our Pacific
relations. The present condition of those unhappy States is
certainly deplorable, but the good God holds them in the hollow of
his hand and will work out their proper destinies."
Upon the Cuban question:
"We might expand the area of slavery by acquiring Cuba, where
African slavery is already established. Mr. Calhoun, from whose
matured opinions, whether on constitutional principles or southern
policy, it will rarely be found safe to depart, said that Cuba was
'forbidden fruit' to us unless plucked in an exigency of war.
There is no reasonable grounds to suppose that we can acquire it
in any other way; and the war that will open to us such an
occasion will be great and general, and bring about results that
the keenest intellect cannot now anticipate. But if we had Cuba,
we could not make more than two or three slave States there, which
would not restore the equilibrium of the North and South; while,
with the African slave trade closed, and her only resort for
slaves to this continent, she would, besides crushing our whole
sugar culture by her competition, afford in a few years a market
for all the slaves in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland. She is,
notwithstanding the exorbitant taxes imposed on her, capable now
of absorbing the annual increase of all the slaves on this
continent, and consumes, it is said, twenty to thirty thousand a
year by her system of labor. Slaves decrease there largely. In
time, under the system practised, every slave in America might be
exterminated in Cuba as were the Indians. However the idle African
may procreate in the tropics, it yet remains to be proven, and the
facts are against the conclusion, that he can in those regions
work and thrive. It is said Cuba is to be 'Africanized' rather
than that the United States should take her. That threat, which at
one time was somewhat alarming, is no longer any cause of
disquietude to the South, after our experience of the Africanizing
of St. Domingo and Jamaica. What have we lost by that?"
And finally upon his own position as a National Democrat:
"And this leads me to say that having never been a mere party
politician, intriguing and wire-pulling to advance myself or
others, I am not learned in the rubric of the thousand slang,
unmeaning and usually false party names to which our age gives
birth. But I have been given to understand that there are two
parties in the South, called 'National' and 'State Rights'
Democrats. The word 'national' having been carefully excluded from
the Constitution by those who framed it, I never supposed it
applicable to any principle of our government; and having been
surrendered to the almost exclusive use in this country of the
federal consolidationists, I have myself repudiated it. But if a
southern 'National Democrat' means one who is ready to welcome
into our ranks with open arms, and cordially embrace and promote
according to his merits every honest free State man who reads the
Constitution as we do, and will cooperate with us in its
maintenance, then I belong to that party, call it as you may, and
I should grieve to find a southern man who does not.
"But, on the other hand, having been all my life, and being still,
an ardent 'State Rights' man--believing 'State Rights' to be an
essential, nay, the essential, element of the Constitution, and
that no one who thinks otherwise can stand on the same
constitutional platform that I do, it seems to me that I am, and
all those with whom I act habitually are, if Democrats at all,
true 'State Rights Democrats.' Nothing in public affairs so
perplexes and annoys me as these absurd party names, and I never
could be interested in them. I could easily comprehend two great
parties, standing on two great antagonistic principles which are
inherent in all things human; the right and the wrong, the good
and the evil, according to the peculiar views of each individual;
and was never at a loss to find my side, as now, in what are known
as the Democratic and Republican parties of this country. But the
minor distinctions have, for the most part, seemed to me to be
factitious and factious, gotten up by cunning men for selfish
purposes, to which the true patriot and honest man should be slow
to lend himself. For myself and for you, while I represent you, I
shall go for the Constitution strictly construed and faithfully
carried out. I will make my fight, such as it may be, by the side
of any man, whether from the North, South, East or West, who will
do the same; and I will do homage to his virtue, his ability, his
courage, and, so far as I can, make just compensation for his
toils, and hazards, and sacrifices. As to the precise mode and
manner of conducting this contest, that must necessarily, to a
great extent, depend upon the exigencies that arise; but, of
course, I could be compelled by no exigency, by no party ties or
arrangements, to give up my principles, or the least of those
principles which constitute our great cause."
Senator Hammond entered the Senate with the reputation of a southern
"Fire-eater," but before a year had passed by, he had taken ground
with the most conservative northern Democrat, on Cuba, the African
slave trade, and the general question of the annexation of foreign
territory to this Union. Here was an apparent change which very
naturally excited the criticisms of the ultra southern politicians.
Gov. Hammond is a native of Newberg District, South Carolina, where he
was born, November 15, 1807. His parents were natives of the State of
New York. He graduated at Columbia College, S.C., practised law from
1828 to 1830, afterward became editor of the "Southern Times," came to
Congress a single term in 1835 and when the two years were over, made
the trip of Europe. In 1841, he was made a militia general--yet
something of an honor in South Carolina--and a year later was elected
Governor of the Palmetto State. After a single term he retired to his
extensive estate upon the Savannah River, where he remained in quiet,
raising cotton and reading books till in 1857 he was elected by the
State legislature to represent, in part, South Carolina in the United
States Senate.
In his personal appearance Senator Hammond is prepossessing. He is of
medium height, has a fine, open face, sparkling black eyes, and black
hair--what there is left--a broad forehead and the manners of a
pleasant gentleman.
HOWELL COBB.
Mr. Cobb is a native of Cherry Hill, Georgia, where he was born, in
September, 1815. His father was in affluent circumstances, and the
family one of distinction. He was educated at Franklin College,
Georgia, where he graduated at the age of nineteen, in the year 1834.
His uncle, Howell Cobb, after whom he was named, was in Congress
during the war of 1812, and still later a cousin was U.S. senator. So
the young man had examples in his own family of political distinction
which were calculated to fire his ambition.
In 1834, Mr. Cobb was married, which was set down, we dare say, by his
elderly friends as a very imprudent step, for he was but nineteen and
had no profession; nevertheless, he established his household gods at
that time, and two years after was admitted to the bar. The very next
year he was made solicitor general of the western part of Georgia, so
finely had he succeeded in his profession. For the next three years he
applied himself very closely to the duties of his profession, and
being naturally shrewd and quick-witted, he at once attained unusual
success. To this day, in Upper Georgia, Mr. Cobb has a reputation
unsurpassed by no local favorite.
Early in life, Mr. Cobb was known as a Jackson or Union man, in the
thick of the nullification agitation. Either from education or nature,
he seems from the first to have had a repugnance for ultraism, and has
therefore never agreed with that class of southern politicians usually
termed Fire-eaters.
In 1842, Mr. Cobb was elected to Congress, where he, in a short time,
rose to a prominent position as one of the party leaders among the
Democratic members. He was especially great on parliamentary
questions, and was in his way a party oracle in these matters. Though
he never sympathized with the disunionists of the South, he has been a
consistent as well as an ardent supporter of the institution of negro
slavery. His entire course in Congress showed his strong and
persistent opposition to any of the movements of the friends of
freedom. He voted against the right of petition on the 3d of May,
1844, and made a strong speech in favor of utter free trade. Mr. Cobb
also favored the Mexican war. In 1849, he underwent a severe contest
in Georgia. While in Congress he supported the famous compromise
measures, which secured to him the opposition and enmity of the
southern fire-eaters. The greatest contest of his life ensued. The
Union Democrats put him in nomination for Governor of Georgia, and he
took the stump and was elected by a tremendous majority. In 1855, he
was reelected to Congress and was soon known as a Buchanan man. He
labored for Mr. Buchanan's nomination, and when he was nominated
canvassed the county in favor of his election. This secured, Mr. Cobb
was rewarded for his services by a seat in the Cabinet, and as he was
thought to be peculiarly fitted for the Treasury Department, he was
made Secretary of the Treasury.
As a member of the Cabinet, Mr. Cobb used his influence in favor of
the Lecompton bill and made war upon Mr. Douglas. During the winter of
1858-9 his recommendations on the tariff question were thought to
indicate a change of opinion. Formerly he was in favor of free trade,
and lacking that, he was in favor of the nearest possible approach to
it. But in his communications to Congress as Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. Cobb admitted that the revenues of the country were not
sufficient for its expenses, and he recommended a revision of the
tariff to meet the emergency. It is not probable, however, under
present circumstances, that he would favor any change in the tariff.
As a man--socially speaking, we mean--Mr. Cobb is a favorite. Good
natured and intelligent, he is surrounded by scores of friends, who
like him all the better for the fact that he has been independent
enough in his political career to make enemies.
JOHN C. BRECKINRIDGE.
Perhaps no public man has more friends or fewer enemies than Mr.
Breckinridge; but his modesty, or caution, is so great, that but few
particulars of his history have ever got into print. His high position
has attracted the eyes of the nation as well as the Senate to him, and
he has been unanimously pronounced, both by political friend and foe,
to be an impartial presiding officer, and a pleasant and upright man.
His personal appearance is unusually prepossessing, and his social
bearing is such as to win him scores of friends.
Mr. Breckinridge was born near Lexington, Kentucky, January 21, 1821,
and is the grandson of John Breckinridge, who was United States
Senator and Attorney General. He was educated at Central College,
Danville, and studied law at Transylvania Institute. After his
professional education was complete, he emigrated to Iowa, but the
frontier life did not suit him, and he returned to Kentucky, where
there was a better field for the display of his talents. Soon after
his return, he married Miss Birch of Georgetown, Kentucky, and settled
down in Lexington in the practice of his profession. When the Mexican
war broke out, he volunteered at once to take a part in it, and was
elected Major of the Third Regiment of Kentucky volunteers. The
regiment came to the scene of strife so late that they did not see
much active service.
Upon Mr. Breckinridge's return from Mexico, he was elected to the
State legislature, and in 1851, after an exciting contest with General
Leslie Coomb, he was elected to Congress. In 1853, a still fiercer
canvass ensued; but he was reelected to the House by a heavy majority.
One of his first acts was to deliver a eulogy upon Henry Clay, a
political opponent.
In the Thirty-third Congress, an unpleasant scene occurred between Mr.
Breckinridge and Mr. Cutting of New York, upon the Kansas and Nebraska
act. Mr. Cutting, though a Democrat, refused to support that measure,
while Mr. Breckinridge supported it with considerable zeal.
The debate occurred March 27, 1854, and we quote from a report of it:
"The House of Representatives, Monday, resolved itself into
committee of the whole on the Custom House bill, Mr. Hamilton in
the chair; but the chairman decided that before that bill could be
taken up, all those preceding it must first be set aside; and that
the first business in order was the consideration of the bill
making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the
Government for the year ending June 30, 1855. Mr. Houston moved
that the committee take up the bill named by the Chair, which was
agreed to.
"Mr. Cutting then arose and replied to the remarks made by Mr.
Breckinridge on Thursday last. He adverted to his course in moving
that the Senate Nebraska bill be committed to the committee of the
whole on the state of the Union, and said that at that time he
gave his reasons for the act, and declared that there was no
gentleman on this floor who was to be regarded as a stronger and
more zealous advocate of the great principle which the measure was
said to contain--that of non-intervention--than he was. But the
bill required amendment and discussion before it could receive
that support to which, in his opinion, it was entitled. After this
subject had been disposed of, and after the elapse of some two
days, a gentleman from a slaveholding State, who had had no lot or
parcel in its discussion, as a volunteer merely, came into the
House, and thought it not incompatible with his character as a
leading member to undertake to assail his motives; though it was
true that he disclaimed any intention of attacking them. The
gentleman [Mr. Breckinridge] came into the House, with
concentrated wrath and bitterness, to assail him for having, in
his place, and under his responsibility as a member, stated his
views frankly as to the direction this bill ought to take.
"The gentleman had charged him with being a secret enemy of the
bill, and, while professing friendship for it, as having taken a
course which would end in its destruction. When did the gentleman
from Kentucky ever hear him say he was friendly to the bill? The
gentleman was present, and heard him declare his opposition to it
in the shape in which it came from the Senate, and the belief that
not only himself, but a majority of the House, would be found
against it. Had not the gentleman sufficient perspicuity of
understanding to know the difference between the principles
involved in a measure and a bill which professed to carry them
out? And when he [Mr. C.] declared in this House frankly and
openly, before the question on the motion to commit was put, that
he was against the bill, but in favor of the principles which it
professed to enact, how came the gentleman to undertake to declare
that he [Mr. C.] had declared himself a friend of the bill,
against the record, against the reports that appeared everywhere?
"The gentleman had complained that by the motion to commit he [Mr.
C.] had consigned this measure to the tomb of the Capulets. If
this were so, and this bill could never again be brought before
the House, why did the gentleman submit to an hour's argument to
prove that it ought to pass? It was time wasted, time thrown away.
No gentleman acquainted with the orders of the calendar could for
a moment believe that sending this bill to the committee of the
whole would prevent action on it this session. The gentleman had
said that there were scores and scores of bills before it on the
calendar. Now, what was the fact? There were some eighteen or
nineteen bills and resolutions, all told, large and small, of
great and little degree, ahead of it on the calendar, including
appropriation bills, which were subject to the control of the
committee of ways and means. Then why, with this fact staring the
gentleman in the face, did the gentleman undertake, for the
purpose of making an assault on him, to declare that there were
scores upon scores of bills before this measure on the calendar?
By what authority did the gentleman, who had a supposed connection
with the Administration, complain of him, a friend of the measure,
of undertaking to send it to a tomb, where there was a mountain
piled upon it, for the purpose of creating a false impression in
the public mind?
"For the course he had seen proper to pursue he had been assailed
in papers of this city (one of them, the "Union," it was said,
conducted by the clerk of this House), and by other presses. How
was it that he, a friend of the measure, had been selected as a
victim to drive off those who had given the principle their
support? Was it to assassinate the friends who had stood with him
on this subject?
"MR. BRECKINRIDGE.--Does the gentleman intend to apply that remark
to me?
"MR. CUTTING.--Not unless you consider yourself a portion of the
Union newspaper.
"MR. BRECKINRIDGE.--I was at that moment taking a note, and heard
the word. I would ask whether the gentleman applied the remark to
me?
"MR. CUTTING.--I did not. I am the only one charged with being an
assassin.
"He had been subject to the continual attacks of New York papers,
which, while opposing this measure, were enjoying the patronage of
the Administration.
"In the course of his remarks, he said that there was but one
single ground upon which the Democracy of the North could stand,
and that was the principle of non-intervention. If this was found
in the bill, he should vote for it; and the reason why he wished
it referred was for the purpose of examining into the matter, that
there might be a distinct and plain understanding between the
different sections of the country, as to the character of the act,
so that there might be no misunderstanding upon the subject of the
principles contained in it.