Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts

February 10, 2021

Tracing the Origins of the Political Epithet 'Copperhead', 1860-1861

Tracing the Origins of the Political Epithet 'Copperhead' 

By Lisa Mabrey. Copyright © 2021. This post contains original writing that is not to be reproduced elsewhere online or in print without the author's permission. Contact lamabrey3[a/t]gmail[d/o/t]com.

 

It is conventionally accepted that the political epithet 'copperhead' was first used in the New York Tribune on July 20, 1861.[1] However, this date is based on scholarship that predates modern newspaper archive computer databases. A search on any such database today quickly reveals several political uses of 'copperhead' that predate July 1861, including use in that very same paper, the New York Tribune, in February 1861. The term was also used by a Missouri Congressman in a widely publicized June 1, 1861 speech, which likely fueled its popularity. The epithet appears to have originated in response to widespread Southern use of rattlesnake iconography during the Secession Crisis.

In November of 1860, many Southerners demonstrated their support for secession by creating homemade banners and flags and displaying them publicly.  On November 12, the Charleston Mercury noted, "[t]here is a general demand for flags. Everybody that can make them is hard at work…"[2]  One week later, the Mercury wrote, "there are just so many different styles of handsome banners, hung out on the outer walls, that we confess we are puzzled to discriminate among them."[3]  The Columbus (Ga.) Sun commented, "[m]uch importance seems to be attached to the flag under which the seceders are to fight."[4] A Charleston correspondent for the Baltimore Sun reported, "[t]he raising of Palmetto flags in various sections of the South is becoming all the rage," and that flags were being raised "as soon as they can be manufactured."[5] By mid-November 1860, "nowhere in [South Carolina], except from the forts and the United States Arsenal, is the American flag seen to wave."[6]  A Boston Journal correspondent in Charleston reported that, "the eye is continually arrested by the numerous representations of the palmetto which wave and flutter in almost uninterrupted secession through the whole length of the street."[7] A Boston Herald correspondent likewise wrote, "I have counted one hundred and nineteen banners [in Charleston], and, judging from the number of streets I passed along, the whole number in the city must exceed two hundred."[8]

February 21, 2020

Grove Kennedy Kills Elbert Kennedy in front of Courthouse, Garrard, 1877



[February 23, 1877] -

On Tuesday afternoon, at half past four o'clock, Mr. Grove Kennedy shot and killed Mr. Elbert Kennedy in front of the Court-House. There were several shots, the first of which was instantly fatal. The murdered man was not armed. We regret to record another crime of so revolting a nature in the annals of this county. So long as "blood for blood" is the watchword, so long will danger stalk abroad, sp[r]eading desolation in its paths. The general effect of the tragedy was to be seen in the groups of excited men who congregated about the public square. The homicide was at once committed to jail, and the trial set for 2 o'clock on Wednesday. [1]




---

[February 23, 1877] -

E. D. Kennedy. -- We have again to chronicle the killing of another man in Lancaster. E. D. Kennedy, Master Commissioner of the Garrard Circuit Court, was shot in front of the Court House there, last Tuesday evening, by his cousin, Grove Kennedy. The unfortunate occurrence took place over a law suit, and there was not the remotest cause for a deed so darkly infamous. Grove Kennedy has a fearful account against him, which he will not be able to settle. Five or six men have been sent to the grave or seriously wounded by him, and yet he goes unpunished in this world. How many more are yet to be victims of his insane rage and malice? Not content with shooting the old man once, at a time when he was not expecting such a murderous assault, the fire of his anger was not quenched until he fired two more balls into the expiring victim after he was down, if not dead. We dislike to chronicle such deeds, bu men who commit them should be exposed to public gaze and held up to be loathed by all law-abiding people. The Courier-Journal of Wednesday speaks of the dead Kennedy, as a man fond of contention, and a participant in many legal and personal difficulties. Such is not the fact. He had, as a public man and officer, in Garrard county, to deal with many bold, bad men, and never killed a man in his life. He was not a "participant in many bloody and unfortunate affairs." A kinder heart than his never beat in the breast of a man of unflinching courage, is the judgment of those who knew him. He was a useful citizen, and one of the best Chancery Commissioners, it is said, who ever filled the position in Garrard county. It is the duty of the officers of the law to see that his slayer has a fair trial, but they owe it to the dead man, to themselves, to the community, and the State of Kentucky, to see that they have a just vindication also. [2]



May 23, 2017

One Regulator and Several Occupants Killed in Attack on Residence, Pulaski, 1868

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------


Updated: Sept. 2017. Added July 12, 1895 article based on information from anonymous commenter.

----------

[September 23, 1868] -

TERRIBLE AND BLOODY AFFAIR IN LINCOLN COUNTY.

Tragical Result of an Old Feud.

Two Men and One Woman Killed.

The Full Details of the Tragedy.

CRAB ORCHARD, KY., Sept. 20, 1868.

To the Editor of the Louisville Courier:

A year or two since an unfortunate difficulty occurred near this place at a meeting-house, in which men named Anderson and their friends upon one side, and the Adamses with their friends upon the other, were engaged. In this fracas a man named Simms, son-in-law of the elder Adams, was killed and several others on each side were shot or otherwise wounded. A trial at the time of each party resulted in an acquittal of all concerned. A short time after this as the elder Adams was returning home from Lancaster he was assassinated by being shot from his buggy by some one stationed in a church near the road side.

The most deadly enmity has existed ever since between the belligerents, and many men have been suspected by the Adamses ex particeps criminis to the murder of their father. Among the the number accused, or who was thought by the Adams family to have been concerned in his death, was a man named Cummins, who lived near the Lincoln and Pulaski county line, beyond this place eight or ten miles. Threats have been made, we learn, by the Adames, upon Cummins, and last night it culminated most tragically. It seems, from what we can learn, that two of the Adames, together with three or four of their friends went to the house of Mr. Cummins, at night -- demanded admission, which was refused; and thereupon Rodney Adams broke down the door and as he entered was shot dead. The [assault?]ing party then fired, killing a young lady, daughter of Mr. Cummins, and also shot and killed Cummins. They shot at Mrs. Cummins also, but missed. It is not known whether any others of the assaulting party were injured or not. It is reported that the party took young Adams away from the house, and carried him to a house on the wayside, and left him, and that one of the party told the landlord that there was a dead man, his brother, and he wanted him to stay there until morning; and after putting a pillow under his head, he stooped down and kissed him. This is thought to be young Mack Adams, the only brother of Rodney, except a small boy.

We cannot vouch for the truth of this latter statement, but give it as we heard it. It may be proper to state that the community doubt that Cummins had anything whatever to do with the killing of the elder Adams.

The story, true or false, of Cummins having a hand in the death of J. Q. Adams, certainly did not, nor does it, excuse this party in assaulting a whole family, and [striking?] down an innocent girl, who certainly was guilty of no wrong, unless they deemed it wrong to be the child of a suspected man. There is but one remedy for these multiplied evils which daily teem the press, and it is for the "halter" applied to the culprit's neck by the slow and uncertain forms and process of the law, or if need be, to quell it by the hands of an outraged community.

We know nothing of the real facts in this case beyond what we have attempted to give from hearsay; but if  it be that this midnight assaulting party perpetrated these bloody deeds without cause amply sufficient for their justification, our community owe it to themselves, to the State, to the world of law and order at large, and especially to the stricken survivors of this afflicted family, to search out to the bitter end the perpetrators of this most hideous and diabolical outrage, and see that justice, stern and inflexible, is meted out to each and every one of them.  M. [1]


[I have been unable to find newspaper articles detailing the meeting-house killing, or J. Q. Adams' death in or about February of 1866. Please email me if you have any.]


May 2, 2017

Kentucky Senate Candidate Kills Man At Poll Site, Rockcastle, 1867

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------


[August 6, 1867] -


TRAGEDY IN ROCKCASTLE COUNTY.

On Friday last, two men, brothers, named Ham, were shot in Rockcastle county by a man named Boyd, who is the Radical candidate for the Senate in the district composed of the counties of Whitley, Knox, Laurel and Rockcastle.

Two old men, respectively Bullock and Ham, got into a fight at a political meeting at Providence, in Rockcastle county. Bullock bit off Ham's ear during the scuffle, and this so enraged the two sons of old man Ham that they picked a quarrel with the sons of old man Bullock. Young Bullock fired three shots at young Ham, missing him entirely. Young Ham then opened a small pocket knife and started after young Bullock, and while he was chasing him around the meeting house, he was shot in the back by Boyd. He died instantly. Boyd also shot the brother of Ham through the body, mortally wounding him. The Sheriff succeeded in arresting all parties engaged in the affray, with the exception of Boyd, who made his escape. Young Ham had said to old man Bullock that no one but an abolitionist would vote for Boyd. This is supposed to be the only cause Boyd had for killing these two young men. [1]



December 4, 2016

Mob Raids Garrard County Jail, Hangs One Prisoner, Garrard, 1876

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------


[January 28, 1876] -

A difficulty occurred in the Barber shop of Chas. Prince, colored, of Lancaster, one night last week, between a white man, named Yeakey, and a negro, named Floyd Pierce. The negro was knocked down and shot at twice. The white man was severely cut with a razor, on the side of the neck. [1]



---

[February 4, 1876] -

The white man, Yeakey, whose neck and face were cut by a negro man in Lancaster, some days ago, is still in bed, but is some better. The negro who cut him, was tried for the offense and acquitted, after which, he left for parts unknown. Although he got off clear from the charge of guilt, he is said to be of a mean and dangerous disposition. [2]




---

[February 5, 1876] -

The Lancaster Killing.

Henry Yeakey, of Lancaster, Ky., died two days ago from the effects of a wound in the throat inflicted on the 22d ult by Floyd Pierce, a negro. At the time mentioned Yeakey took a razor from Pierce and, after cutting him with it, fired a pistol at him. Pierce succeeded in regaining the razor and with it cut the throat of Yeakey. The latter remained alive and, for some time, it was thought he would recover. He finally died, but whether Pierce, who was arrested, tried and released on the charge of maliciously wounding him, will now be tried for manslaughter, remains to be seen. [3]


May 20, 2015

Kentucky Abolitionist Cassius M. Clay in Rockcastle County, 1853

I haven't been able to find any articles that reprinted the full text of the resolutions written by the Rockcastle slaveholders. If you find one, please let me know in the comments or email. Thank you!



-----

[September 3, 1853] -

AN ABOLITION EMISSARY. -- A man named Parker having been discovered in Mt. Vernon, Rockcastle county, tampering with the slaves, he was arrested and lodged in jail. After remaining there a few days C. M. Clay came to his rescue, and notwithstanding the protestations of the citizens, who advised Mr. C. of the incendiary and illegal character of Parker's proceedings, he was bailed out. A meeting was held on the 27th of August, and resolutions were passed in resolution to the matter. We select the last:

4th. Resolved, That we condemn in the highest degree the course of C. M. Clay, who came to our county, under the pretence of Philanthropy, and rescued a man from jail, who had violated the laws of the country, and who he was assured was destitute of moral character--thus rendering the laws of our country powerless, and in effect, saying to all such men as Parker, do the same thing over again, and I will protect you, and saying to the negro, you may violate female chastity or murder the infant and make your escape to A. G. W. Parker or John G. Fee and you will find protection. [1]





---

[September 10, 1853] -

CASSIUS M. CLAY.-- The people of Rockastle, Ky., have held a meeting and passed some strong resolutions condemning the action of C. M. Clay in the case of one Parker, whom they call an "Abolitionist Emissary," and who have been imprisoned for inciting slaves to leave their masters. His offence consisted in having procured the release of Parker, he, (Clay,) entering bail. [2]



January 7, 2015

Two Men Stabbed at Election Polling Sites in Pulaski, 1876

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------


[November 10, 1876] -

SOME PULASKI COUNTY ITEMS.
-----
Somerset.

TUESDAY, Nov. 7th, 1876.
The day for which all other days were made, (as the negroes and radicals seemed to think), has at last drawn to a close. Since 5 o'clock, this morning, the ground, in front of the court house, has been swarmed with a mongrel conglomeration of humanity. At six o'clock, the spacious doors of the court house, were thrown open, and the sheriff announced that the voting would commence. But, as some enterprising individual presented himself to vote, it was ascertained that the poll-books had been left at somebody's house, so a messenger was dispatched for them, who returned to discover that the ballot-box had not put in an appearance. It was sent for and brought, but for sooth, it was then discovered that no pen and ink were present. All things at last being ready, the jam commenced; country negroes, railroad negroes, town negroes, big negroes and little negroes, took possession of every available point of egress to the polls, filling the air with their peculiar perfume, and crowding out entirely the Democrats, who felt above being jammed by such a throng. Every Radical was jubilant, and seemed to think that they would have everything their own way. But, toward noon, the Democrats began getting in their work, and wonderful to say, the polls closed with a Radical majority of less than ninety votes. This is a tremendous Democratic gain, considering that the Radicals have usually a majority in it without the two hundred and fifty railroad negroes, who fraudulently voted to-day. One thousand and seventy votes were cast in this precinct alone, a gain of about two hundred over former elections.Every means that is low, unfair and contemptible, have been resorted to by the Radical wire pullers in the county, but it has utterly failed them--and to-night they hang around with fallen crest, and looking as mean as their prototypes--sheep-killing dogs. Their secret meetings, running around railroad camps to secure negro votes, by duping them with lies, of the foulest description, taxing their officials in the district to buy votes for Bradley, and introducing social equality, have done them mighty little good. While the Democrats have, every where, gained strength and have reduced, (we have no doubt), Bradley's majority in the county, from six hundred to less than three hundred. Hurrah for Durham, the white man's candidate.

You would be surprised to what base level, some previous honorable men in this county, have descended. It has been anything to gain votes for Bradley, and the lower the means used for it, the better with them. His brothers-in-law have worked like trojans, and not content with hugging and consorting with negroes in their secret meetings, they have established social equality, and have feasted numbers of negroes at their own tables, and dealt out free whisky without stint. However much this kind of doings may suit the other brother-in-law, we are sure that it is distasteful to Col. Morrow, whom we regard as a thorough gentleman, but we are very much afraid the devilish bad company he keeps, will be his ruin socially and politically; come back, dear Col., come back.

Everybody predicted that there would be a big row here to-day, but thank God the prophecy was not fulfilled, with exception of a few small difficulties; nothing transpired worth chronicling. A sufficient guard, half white and half negroes, were stationed around the polls, which did good service in keeping order. One of the guards, in carelessly handling his gun, discharged it, a portion of the load burying itself in a couple of negroes' feet.

Robert Gibson, Judge Pettus, Judge Kendrick and Will Curd, are names worthy of honorable mention, and they deserve to be handed down to the children's children of honest men, for their untiring efforts in behalf of the Democracy, to-day. May they live forever and enjoy the fruits of their labor--an honest government.

We have not been able, as yet to here from all the precincts in the county, but from those we have heard from, the gain is on the honest man's side.

The number of illegal votes, cast at this precinct, is enormous, and but for the noble efforts of the Tilden and Hendricks Club, a great many more would have been polled. The writer of this can swear that negroes, who have not been in the State three months, shoved in their ballots, while numbers voted who had been in the State less than twelve months. All such have, however, been spotted, and will be arrested within the next few days. A law should be enacted to prevent railroad men, who have no particular home, from voting at all. It would save a great many of them a vast deal of trouble.

At Bent precinct, a difficulty sprung up between a couple of brothers by the name of Dykes, one is a Democrat the other a Radical. Knives were used, and a gentleman named Burch, in attempting to act the part of peacemaker, received a terrible stab in the abdomen. At Point Isabel, there was another stabbing affray, a man whose name we were unable to learn, getting a scalping gash across his forehead, nearly blinding him. [1]


---

[November 24, 1876] -

Mr. Dykes, who stabbed Jas. Burch, on election day, at Bent precinct, an account of which was published at the time in the Interior Journal, had his examining trial last week, and in default of $1,000 bail, has gone to take winter-quarters with the Hon. Wm. Sheppard. [2]




-------------------

[1] Excerpt from "Some Pulaski County Items." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. November 10, 1876. Page 2. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1876-11-10/ed-1/seq-2/

[2] Excerpt from "Some Pulaski County Items." The Interior Journal, Stanford, KY. November 24, 1876. Page 3. LOC. http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84038328/1876-11-24/ed-1/seq-3/

October 19, 2014

Man Killed in Political Quarrel in Somerset Square, Pulaski, 1894

Previously:

Click here for a list of my other Pulaski/Rockcastle/Laurel County KY articles

-----------

[April 21, 1894] -


Killing at Somerset.

Somerset, Ky., April 20. -- (Special.) -- Albert Davis, colored, this evening shot and killed Napoleon Hudson, also colored, on the Public Square. Hudson and Davis had quarreled over politics. Davis was arrested. Davis fired five shots, all of which took effect. [1]



---

[April 24, 1894] -

At Somerset Albert Davis, colored, shot and killed Napoleon Hudson, also colored, on the Public Square. Hudson and Davis had quarreled over politics. Davis was arrested. Davis fired five shots, all of which took effect. [2]




August 29, 2014

Man Kills Another at Campaign Rally Over Political Newspaper Article, Pulaski, 1915



[August 8, 1915] -



KILLING IN PULASKI.

J. H. Taylor Shoots Frank Summers in Election Quarrel.

Somerset, Ky., Aug 7. -- (Special.) -- The first trouble growing out of the political campaign in this county occurred last night at a public speaking at Bourbon. J. H. Taylor, a lawyer of this city, shot and killed Frank Summers, a farmer. Taylor was a supporter of Judge Bethurum, Republican candidate for Circuit Judge, and Summers was for Kennedy, Bethurum's opponent. Taylor gave himself up to the officers this morning and is in the county jail. [1]






July 4, 2014

Man Killed in Republican Primary Row, Pulaski, 1890


-----------


From Scott Parkey: "I'm a direct descendant of William Ping mentioned.... Charles Z. Jones' maternal grandmother was a Barnes, as was John L. Ping's maternal grandmother--so there was a bit of cousin killing going on there."



-----

[May 19, 1890] -

In an election difficulty which they were trying to settle Saturday near Somerset, Ky., Esquire William Ping was badly wounded and his son John was killed by Thomas and Charles Jones, two of the principals in a row. Frank Hines was also seriously wounded by the Jones boys.



---



July 31, 2013

Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

From page 3 of the Cleveland (Ohio) Leader on February 25, 1861:

The Assault upon Mr. Van Wyck.

A Washington dispatch gives the following particulars of the assault upon Representative Van Wyck:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22.


A most cowardly and brutal assault was made, about half-past 11 o'clock last night, upon Hon. Van Wyck, member of Congress from the West Point district, N. Y., by three ruffians, armed with bowie knives.  Mr. Van Wyck had just left the residence of Senator King, on Capitol Hill, and was passing down by the north wing of the Capitol to his lodgings, when a stout built man came up behind him, and struck him with a bowie knife in the breast over the heart.  The knife penetrated the outside and inside coats, passed through a folded copy of the Globe, and then nearly through a thick memorandum book, both of which were in the breast pocket of his frock coat, not quite reaching the skin.


Mr. Van Wyck struck the man a blow under the jaw which staggered him, when the second ruffian struck a blow at Mr. Van Wyck with a bowie knife, which the latter caught in his left hand, making a terrible gash across the palm.  At the same time he (Van Wyck) knocked the fellow down with his right, and instantly drew a revolver and shot the first ruffian, who dropped and was caught by his friends.

The third ruffian knocked Mr. Van Wyck with his fist.  This blow, together with the effect of the one he first received, and especially from the profuse bleeding of his hand, weakened him very much, and observing that the ruffians were making haste to escape with their wounded companion, who appeared to him quite helpless, he sank himself almost exhausted upon the sidewalk, and did not fire again.  But as soon as he gathered sufficient strength he made his way to his hotel, which he did not reach till after twelve this morning.  He said very little about the affair, except to one or two confidential friends, Dr. Lee of the House who dressed his wound, and to the police, in the hope that the parties might be discovered; but up to to-night no trace of their whereabouts has been ascertained.

Mr. Van Wyck is quite nervous this evening, and is suffering considerable pain from the wound in his hand, but is in no serious danger.

Mr. Van Wyck cannot account for this attack upon him, unless it has grown out of his speech at the last session, which created so much excitement and discussion because of its severity against the system of slavery, wherein he cited instances of slave burning.  For some time after its delivery he received letters threatening his life.  Outside of this he has no knowledge of having created the enmity of any human being.  He is a man who never visits gambling or drinking saloons, and while he is a resolute man when assailed, in his daily walk he is very quiet and gentlemanly.

The affair having become known to-night, creates intense feeling, especially in Congressional circles.

July 28, 2013

Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

From page 3 of the Alexandria (Virginia) Gazette on April 2, 1860:

BY MAGNETIC TELEGRAPH.
Another Congressional Squabble.


WASHINGTON, March 31.-- A scene between two Congressmen which occurred this morning, occasions some excitement.  Mr. Van Wyck meeting Mr. Hindman on the avenue, held out his hand in friendly recognition, when Mr. Hindman refused to take it, making use of the words, as reported: "You d---d scoundrel, you have delivered a speech not only insulting to every Southern man, but to every gentleman."  At the same time making a movement with his left hand towards Mr. Van Wyck's face as if additionally to insult him.  It is said that a duel will result.

---

From page 2 of the Albany (New York) Evening Journal on April 2, 1860:

From Washington.


CONGRESSIONAL ROW ON PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE--VAN WYCK, OF N.Y., AND HINDMAN, OF ARK.

Correspondence of the New York Express.

WASHINGTON, March 31.


This forenoon, Messrs. Van Wyck, of New York, (who charged the Southern people with deliberately burning their slaves, and the Southerners as sanctioning this cruelty) Stewart, of Pa., and Lovejoy, of Ill., stood upon the steps of the National Hotel.  Mr. Hindman, of Arkansas, approached the steps, Mr. Van Wyck offered his hand, and addressed Mr. H., who immediately struck at Mr. Van Wyck, exclaiming, in intense anger, "how dare you speak to me, you d---d son of a b---h."


Mutual friends immediately closed in and the two Members of Congress were separated.  No blow was struck, but the affray has excited great feeling.

For the last few weeks there has been an increase of feeling and excitement between Northern and Southern members, and with many only the most cold and formal recognition exists, while others do not speak at all.  Mr. Van Wyck's attack in debate upon the inhumanity of the whole South has made him especially obnoxious.





July 25, 2013

Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860

Related Posts:
Congressman Charles Van Wyck's "True Democracy--History Vindicated," 1860
Fight Between Congressmen Van Wyck and Hindman, 1860
Assassination Attempt of Congressman Charles Van Wyck, 1861

---

Charles Van Wyck was a U.S. Representative from New York (March 4, 1859-March 3, 1863) and an outspoken abolitionist.  On March 7, 1860, he gave a speech on the floor of the House entitled "True Democracy--History Vindicated," which caused quite a bit of animosity between him and his colleagues (as you can see in my next post).  In it, he argues the progress of the country is inclined toward the extinction of slavery, for both moral and constitutional reasons.  (Click here to open a PDF of the full speech.)

The opening of his speech is of particular interest because it explains the 'excitement' in Congress and public sentiment leading up to secession in a way few historians have been able to map with similar clarity.

Though I'm well aware that the extremity of Van Wyck's abolition views were not as common as some history books would have you think, Van Wyck does make some very salient points, such as this one about popular sovereignty.   He argues that Congress has repeatedly exercised power over the territories in the past, but only recent attempts are criticized as unconstitutional.  

I think it's ironic that he calls Southerners alarmist for crying that the North is hostile toward their way of life, yet the ideas in his speech are exactly what the Southerners found hostile.  As one of the articles in my next post states, "Mr. Van Wyck's attack in debate upon the inhumanity of the whole South has made him especially obnoxious."


---

(March 7, 1860)
VAN WYCK: For many weeks I was a patient listener to eloquent speeches from the leaders of the so-called Democratic party on the floor of this House.

Why do they charge the Republican as agitators, when they themselves have been sounding the notes of disunion, and preaching violence, for the only purpose of alarming the timidity of one and the weakness of another sanction of a common country; of arraying faction against faction; first, to steel the heart against all sentiments of humanity, and then nerve the arm to execute its unholy impulses; charging treason upon the North, and counselling the South to rebellion and resistance?

When you, gentlemen, came to this Capitol, the agitation occasioned by the Harper's Ferry riot was subsiding. In the discharge of what you call a patriotic duty, you gathered together the elements of that unfortunate strife, and increased the turbulence in the public mind.

The storm which gathered for a moment across a summer sky, then broke in the sunshine and dissipated in the rain drops, you call back, and by the eloquence of words and the impulse of fear, in the "chambers of your imagery" you generate a storm whereby you seek to send forth hurricane and tempest to prostrate the oaks and temples of the Republic in one common ruin.  The torch of the incendiary had been smothered, and you seize the blackened flambeau, rush forth with the madness and folly of the suicide, and essay to light up the flames of civil war and fratricidal strife.

You, gentlemen, and not John Brown, have unchained the whirlwind of angry passion and bitter invective; you have unbarred the thunder and loosened the lightning shaft, whereby you sought to rend asunder the people of a great nation, so that, in your own language on this floor, the "Union might be wrecked from turret to foundation stone," and "the Constitution torn in tatters." Then from the ruins of one, and the dismembered body of the other, you might erect a confederacy cemented by the blood, watered by the tears, and strengthened by the groans of your bondmen; which would fill the measure of your avarice and feed the cravings of your ambition.

Day after day, with the most vindictive language, have we been arraigned as guilty of arson, treason, and murder; so base was the charge, so unjust the imputation, we meet them with our weapons at rest.

The gentleman from Louisiana, [Mr. Davidson,] whose ambition at one time seemed to be that he might appear in this Hall armed with a double-barrel shot gun, in his speech on the 22d day of December, in a defiant manner, said:

"I honestly believe that if you were tried before a jury of conscientious men, a jury of men who believe in a God of all justice and mercy, and all intelligence, you would be found guilty, as accessories before the fact, to all the dreadful deeds of Brown and his associates."

You talk of God, justice, and mercy, who hold, claiming by Divine authority, four million human beings in hopeless and irretrievable bondage, and ostracize free white men who will not sing hosannas to your traffic in the bodies and souls of men, and stigmatize as murderers and felons those who will not applaud the cruelty which tramples upon all the attributes of the mind, the affections of the heart given by the Almighty to the children of His own creation!

That same gentleman desired to present to the consideration of this House one of John Brown's pikes; let me urge him to extend his cabinet of curiosities and add one of the chains and branding irons of his coffle gang, tied by the lash with which the backs of women and children are scourged, and then, to watch them, a sleek, well-fed bloodhound, with quick scent, trained to snuff in the air the track of the fleeing fugitive; let him present these as symbols, the one of Brown's folly, and the others of his own high type of civilization. 
---

.

March 22, 2012

Matthew Lyon (1749 - 1822), Part 4: Duel with Griswold on House Floor

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon
Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face
Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword
Part 4: Duel with Griswold
Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

From the book Matthew Lyon, the Hampden of Congress: A Biography by James Fairfax McLaughlin, published in 1900 (available online), comes this early political cartoon of the Lyon-Griswold duel:




There are quite a few contemporary newspaper accounts of the second altercation between Lyon and Griswold, and I read through dozens before choosing which to post.  This one is by far the most entertaining that I found. From Porcupine's Gazette of Pennsylvania, on February 16, 1798:


A Burning Shame.

The affair which took place in Congress yesterday was but imperfectly related in my Gazette of last night; I shall therefore now endeavor to give it more in detail.

After the House had decided that nothing should be done to Lyon for spitting in Mr. Griswold's face, it seems that the former had the prudence to avoid the fight of the latter, til yesterday, when he came and took his seat.  He was sitting alone, involved in deep contemplation, when Mr. Griswold first spied him.  No sooner did this happen than he catched up a thick hickory stick, made towards the man of spittle, and in the twinkling of an eye, without giving him time either to eject his saliva or say "my a--fe," began to belabour him.  Poor Lyon got out of his seat, made at his assailant, and endeavoured to grapple with him, but the supple New Englander, who is as active as he is strong, beat him from him with his left hand, while he thrashed him with the right, and thus did the member, from Vermont, receive a shower of blows, such as never fell on the devoted hide of Don Quixote or his incontinent steed Rosinante.  You must needs think the man was not very much at his ease in this situation.  He ran to the fireplace and catched up a pair of tongs just like a lady, and attempted to use them; but his antagonist presently disarmed him, and continued to beat away as regular a stroke as did the drummers of General Gates, on a former occasion.  At last Lyon made shift to close in with him, when Mr. Griswold immediately kicked him up, and made him measure his length on the floor.  Here several gentlemen came and took off the enraged New Englander, or, it is reasonable to suppose, that he would have continued to pummel away for some time longer.

The poor man of saliva was most dreadfully cut and bruized, and had not nature (foreseeing perhaps this re counter[?]) taken particular care to fortify his head, it must have been smashed to pieces.--It is said, that several connoisseurs, from the West Indies and from the Southward, have declared that never [a] negro suffered such a drubbing.

Lyon stopped an hour or two to wash and bathe, and then retired from the House, accompanied by his friend and countryman Blair McClenachan[?].  They walked down towards Fourth-street, followed by a crowd of boys; and, would you believe it, the naughty little rascals, hollowed and shouted, "there goes the Lion and Blair!" -- Whatever may be said, or thought, of the ribroasting, I am persuaded that every one will agree with me, that it is highly disgraceful to the police of Philadelphia, that these little blackguards be allowed thus to follow and mock a member of Congress, like so many small-birds at an owl that happens to change her roost by day-light.







March 12, 2012

Matthew Lyon (1749 - 1822), Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword

Part 1: Obituary of Matthew Lyon
Part 2: Spitting in Roger Griswold's Face
Part 3: History of the Wooden Sword
Part 4: Duel with Griswold
Part 5: Lyon's Kentucky Duel

Continuing with the subject from my last post, here is Matthew Lyon's explanation of the story alluded to by Roger Griswold when he asked Lyon if he would fight the people of Connecticut with his wooden sword.  From the Massachusetts Spy on February 21, 1798 (I believe this text can also be found in the Annals of Congress):

HISTORY of the WOODEN SWORD,
By Matthew Lyon, Esq.

Massachusetts Spy, Worcester Mass, February 21, 1798
[click to enlarge]
The following Narrative was given by Mr. Lyon in the course of his Defence before the Committee of Privileges, on Thursday, February 1st, 1798.


Gentlemen of the Committee,

After having heard so much about Wooden Swords, as expression, the repetition of which, in an indignant manner, has caused you this present trouble, I hope you will indulge me with a patient hearing to a short narrative of the circumstances which awakes my feelings, and utterly disables me from hearing such reflections.  After living ten years in Connecticut, from my 15th to my 25th year, I removed to a new settlement in Vermont, then called Newhampshire Grants, about 30 miles from Ticonderoga.  On the first attempts of the British government to enslave this country, I joined with about twenty other young men to form a minute company and learn military exercise; we made proficiency, and on the first news of active war we hastened to join Ethan Allen in taken Ticonderoga, Crown Point and St. John's.  I continued in that service, without pay, or prospect of it, until the Connecticut forces came on to keep the forts; when I returned home to take care of my affairs, which had suffered in my absences.  In the same summer, 1775, the military were organized, and I was appointed adjutant of my regiment.

In 1776, after the retreat from Canada, Colonel Seth Warner being out of employ, applied to the commander in chief in the Northern Department, for some defence for the frontier of the Newhampshire Grants, which became exposed by the retreat of the army.  The General recommended to the committee of the Newhampshire Grants, of which I was a member, to nominate the commission officers for six companies, and he promised to commission them, and that they should be entitled to continental pay.  In one of those companies I received a commission as a second lieutenant.  I set about enlisting my men, and immediately obtained my quota, and, at my own expense, marched them to the rendezvous at Pittsford, about 20 miles southeast from Ticonderoga, which by this time had become head quarters.  At the rendezvous I found the captain and first lieutenant of my company had raised no men, and that there were but two companies and a part of another, besides mine, raised, and that Col. Warner, who was expected to have commanded our six companies, and received a commission and orders from Congress for raising a regiment on the continental establishment during the war, and that in his endeavors to raise his regiments the raising of our companies was wholly impeded.  Finding the business falling into supineness[?] I applied to the  General to discharge me and my men in order that I might join Warner's regiment.  The General once agreed to discharge and pay me and my men, and ordered me to make up my pay roll for the purposes.  But at this juncture application was made to the General by some people who had bought the crops of the whigs, who had removed from Onion River, and he was induced to order our party to march to Jericho and take post at a certain house on the north side of Onion River, at least 60 miles in advance of the army towards Canada, from whence the army had retreated, and about the same distance from any body of inhabitants; and the General instead of discharging, ordered me to join one of the other companies.

The idea of the people and of the committee of the Newhampshire Grants was, that these six companies, if they had all been raised, would have been stationed some where near Middlebury, which is opposite to Crown Point; and about 12 miles east therefrom, and near forty miles southward of the place appointed by the General.

The commanding officer wrote to the General representing the situation of the country, and the impossibility of our being of any service at Onion River, and as all the well affected people were moved away.  This letter was either neglected or answered with a fresh order for marching.  The order was obeyed; but the soldiers considered themselves sacrificed to the interest of those persons who bought the crops for a trifle; and wanted to get our party there to eat them at the public expense.  I opposed these murmurs with all the arguments in my power.  I used frequently to urge with them, that the absolute government of the army must be with the general; he could not be omniscient, and we ought to submit with cheerfulness, and hope for the best.  In this situation our little garrison, which contained about 60 men, besides invalids, were alarmed by the Indians taking some persons from a house about a mile distant.  Consternation prevailed; I immediately called for volunteers, and went with about 20 men to the house where the prisoners had been taken; from thence took a circuit in the woods round the garrison, in order to see if there were any parties or appearances of the enemy.  Finding none, I returned and obtained leave to take about five and twenty of the best men and pursue the enemy towards the lake; where we supposed they had gone.  I had proceeded about two miles, when two runners from the commanding officer brought me positive orders to return, with intelligence that a [?] officer had returned from a scout to the lake Champlain, about twelve miles distance, where he saw five or six hundred Indians.

February 10, 2012

U.S. Federal Govt Investment in Horse Breeding, 1921

"Motive power has not killed the horse and mule industry.  Every member of the species has a valuable and important place to fill, motive power to the contrary not withstanding.  The latter and the horses will go along together, each filling an important and useful sphere."

From the Mt. Vernon Signal of Mount Vernon, Rockcastle County, Kentucky on July 22, 1921:


Congress Appropriates A Quarter Million Dollars For Horse Breeding. 

------- 

Money To Be Spent Under Supervision of Army Officers To Raise More Thoroughbred Horses for Cavalry Purposes. 

------- 

Other Governments Spend Much More. 

------- 
Realizing the necessity of government interest, supervision and participation in breeding of thoroughbred horses, if the United States is to take her rightful position with the other countries of the world, the United States Congress has made an appropriation of a quarter of a million dollars to be expended in horse breeding. 
click to enlarge
While this is a very small amount when compared with the millions of expenditure made by the governments of England, France, Italy and Spain in this work, it is being effectively used to enlarge the number of thoroughbred horses suitable for cavalry mounts. 
In explaining the plans of the United States government for the breeding of more or better horses.  Col. C. E. Hawkins, Quartermaster's Corps, United States Remount Service, says:
"The world war brought out the fact that the National Defense demands, not only thousands upon thousands of horses and mules, but horses and mules of good breeding.  Quality and breeding in the horse and mule is what gives them the staying power in danger and emergency, as well as for the less spectacular, but not less important, service in connection with our agricultural and commercial pursuits.  What is true in the man is true in the beast.  Courage in the soldier we call morale.  In either case the quality is that of the will to stay when threatened by the common instinct to falter which means failure and defeat. 
"The United States is the great horse and mule market of the world.  Our allies depended on us for the major supply of their war horses and mules.  Thousands upon thousands were sold to the British, French, Italian, Belgian, Greek and other governments.  The supply that could be sold was limited only by the ships available for their transportation abroad, and by the fact that rations were naturally of the first import. 
"The first cry from abroad was for men, then for foodstuffs to feed their millions of soldiers and our own men; next came the demand for ammunitions--the stuff that made the hellish fire that raked the enemy; his theatre of operations and his lines of communication.  On the heels of the call for theses [sic] necessities we had the one for the war horse and the war mule, in quantities never before approached. 
"Automobile vehicles were used in great numbers.  yes, that is true, and it will be true in the future.  But war and the horse and the mule continue to be inseparable.  The great military migrations of the past--those, indeed of civilization, itself--are so linked with the horse that his production and improvement may be said to have been co-incident with them.  Motive power has not killed the horse and mule industry.  Every member of the species has a valuable and important place to fill, motive power to the contrary not withstanding.  The latter and the horses will go along together, each filling an important and useful sphere. 
"The breeding of horses and mules, far from being abated, should be practiced in the spirit of the utmost optimism and confidence.  True, the horse and mule market is upset.  The demand, however, for every class will come again before the colts now bred mature.  All our best informed horsemen, breeders and farmers recognize this fact and advise doubling our attention to the work of breeding. 
"Meanwhile better horses and mules should be the aim of every breeder.  We need better blood, more quality; hence, a more valuable animal.  A well bred, sound animal, of good conformation and quality of any class, will always bring a high price and a handsome profit to the breeder.  It is the scrub or ordinary animal that loses the breeder and farmer money.  The scrub eats as much forage and takes as much care as the high class animal; and one has nothing at maturity.  The progeny of high class, pure bred stallions, that have proved their courage, endurance and speed in competition, and selected farm mares, will bring the breeder an increasing profit as time goes on. 

January 24, 2012

Pension Bill for Mexican War Veterans Stirred Sectional Emnity

In the below article, Senator Chandler states he was present at Jefferson Davis' Farewell to Congress, and accuses Davis of meticulously scheming to overthrow the U.S. government throughout his career.  So after you read this article, I encourage you to read my previous post containing Jefferson Davis' farewell speech, and think about whether you think that is a fair assessment.


"A Famous Feud." Omaha Daily Bee, Omaha, NE. July 23, 1899.

A Famous Feud.

Senator Chandler of New Hampshire, who has just had a warm controversy with his colleague, Senator Gallinger, over civil service reform, was the central figure in a famous controversy in the senate of 1879, of which ex-Senator Ingalls writes in the Saturday Evening Post of Philadelphia.  The pending question was a bill pensioning Mexican soldiers.  As this would include all southerners who fought in that war, the bill provoked a sectional debate.  Senator Hoar offered an amendment excluding Jefferson Davis from the operation of the act.  This precipitated a crisis.  Senator Garland eulogized the president of the confederacy and Senator Hoar retorted, "Two of the bravest officers of our revolutionary war were Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold."

Senator Lamar jumped into the breach with an impassioned speech, concluding with these words: "When Prometheus was bound to the rock, it was not an eagle, it was a vulture that buried his beak in the tortured vitals of the victim!"

During this eulogy and exculpation of Jefferson Davis the northern senators sat in silence; the boldness of the performance was paralyzing; such an emergency had not been anticipated.  No one was ready.  The passionate and excited spectators in the galleries wondered why no champion of the north took up the glove.

Toward the close of the debate a note fluttered over the balustrade of the northeast gallery, and, wavering in the hot air, was caught in its descent by a page, who carried it to Senator Chandler of Michigan, to whom it was addressed.  It was written on a leaf torn from a memorandum book, without signature, and begging him in God's name to say something for the union soldiers and for the north.

He read the anonymous note brought from the gallery.  The black fury of his eyes blazed from the pallor of his face.  At the first opportunity he obtained the floor and delivered a tremendous philippic against Jefferson Davis.  It was evidently wholly unpremeditated, and therefore the more effective.

He said: "Mr. President, twenty-two years ago tomorrow, in the old hall of the senate now occupied by the supreme court of the United States, I, in company with Mr. Jefferson Davis, stood up and swore before Almighty God that I would support the constitution of the United States.  Mr. Jefferson Davis came from the cabinet of Franklin Pierce into the senate of the United States and took the oath with me to be faithful to this government.  During four years I sat in this body with Mr. Jefferson Davis and saw the preparations going on from day to day for the overthrow of this government.  With treason in his heart and perjury upon his lips he took the oath to sustain the government that he meant to overthrow.

"Sir, there was method in that madness.  He, in cooperation with other men from his section and in the cabinet of Mr. Buchanan, made careful preparation for the event that was to follow.  Your armies were scattered all over this broad land, where they could not be used in an emergency; your fleets were scattered wherever the winds blew and water was found to float them, where they could not be used to put down rebellion; your treasury was depleted until your bonds, bearing 6 per cent, principal and interest payable in coin, were offered for 88 cents on the dollar for current expenses, and no buyers.  Preparations were carefully made.  Your arms were sold under an apparently innocent clause in an army bill providing that the secretary of war might, at his discretion, sell such arms as he deemed it for the interest of the government to sell.

"Sir, eighteen years ago last moth I sat in these halls and listened to Jefferson Davis delivering his farewell address, informing us what our constitutional duties to this government were, and then left and entered into the rebellion to overthrow the government that he had sworn to support!  I remained here, sir, during the whole of that terrible rebellion.  I saw our brave soldiers by thousands and hundreds of thousands, aye, I might say millions, pass through to the theater of war, and I saw their shattered ranks return.  I saw steamboat and railroad train after railroad train arrive with the maimed and the wounded; I was with my friend from Rhode Island (General Burnside) when he commanded the Army of the Potomac and saw piles of legs and arms that made humanity shudder; I saw the widow and orphan in their homes and heard the weeping and wailing of those who had lost their dearest and their best.  Mr. President, I little thought at that time that I should live to hear in the senate of the United States eulogies upon Jefferson Davis living--a living rebel eulogized on the floor of the senate of the United States!  Sir, I am amazed to hear it and I can tell the gentleman on the other side that they little know the spirit of the north when they come here at this day and with bravado on their lips utter eulogies upon a man whom every man, woman and child in the north believes to be a double-dyed traitor to his government."


.

January 20, 2012

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address to the U.S. Senate





Today's post comes from The Great Parliamentary Battle and Farewell Addresses of the Southern Senators on the Eve of the Civil War by Thomas Ricauld Martin, published in 1905.  It is available on Google Books, here


Farewell Speech of Senator Jefferson Davis, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, on the Occasion of His Withdrawal From the U.S. Senate, January 21, 1861

Mr. Davis. "I rise, Mr. President, for the purpose of announcing to the Senate that I have satisfactory evidence that the State of Mississippi, by a solemn ordinance of her people, in convention assembled, has declared her separation from the United States. Under these circumstances, of course my functions are terminated here. It has seemed to me proper, however, that I should appear in the Senate to announce that fact to my associates, and I will say but very little more. The occasion does not invite me to go into argument; and my physical condition would not permit me to do so, if it were otherwise; and yet it seems to become me to say something on the part of the State I here represent on an occasion as solemn as this.

"It is known to Senators who have served with me here, that I have for many years advocated, as an essential attribute of State sovereignty, the right of a State to secede from the Union. Therefore, if I had not believed there was justifiable cause; if I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation, or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action.  I, however, may be permitted to say that I do think she has justifiable cause, and I approve of her act. I conferred with her people before that act was taken, counseled them then that if the state of things which they apprehended should exist when the convention met, they should take the action which they have now adopted.

I hope none who hear me will confound this expression of mine with the advocacy of the right of a State to remain in the Union, and to disregard its constitutional obligations by the nullification of the law. Such is not my theory. Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but when the States themselves, and when the people of the States, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

"A great man who now reposes with his fathers, and who has often been arraigned for a want of fealty to the Union, advocated the doctrine of nullification, because it preserved the Union. It was because of his deep-seated attachment to the Union, his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States, that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgement.

"Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the States are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever.

"I, therefore, say I concur in the action of the people of Mississippi, believing it to be necessary and proper, and should have been bound by their action if my belief had been otherwise; and this brings me to the important point which I wish on this last occasion to present to the Senate. It is by this confounding of nullification and secession that the name of a great man, whose ashes now mingle with his mother earth, has been invoked to justify coercion against a seceded State. The phrase "to execute the laws," was an expression which General Jackson applied to the case of a State refusing to obey the laws while yet a member of the Union.  That is not the case which is now presented.  The laws are to be executed over the United States, and upon the people of the United States. They have no relation to any foreign country. It is a perversion of terms, at least it is a great misapprehension of the case, which cites that expression for application to a State which has withdrawn from the Union. You may make war on a foreign State.  If it be the purpose of gentlemen, they may make war against a State which has withdrawn from the Union; but there are no laws of the United States to be executed within the limits of a seceded State. A State finding herself in the condition in which Mississippi has judged she is, in which her safety requires that she should provide for the maintenance of her rights out of the Union, surrenders all the benefits (and they are known to be many), deprives herself of the advantages (and they are known to be great), severs all the ties of affection (and they are close and enduring), which have bound her to the Union; and thus divesting herself of every benefit, taking upon herself every burden, she claims to be exempt from any power to execute the laws of the United States within her limits.

"I well remember an occasion when Massachusetts was arraigned before the bar of the Senate, and when then the doctrine of coercion was rife and to be applied against her because of the rescue of a fugitive slave in Boston. My opinion then was the same that it is now. Not in a spirit of egotism, but to show that I am not influenced in my opinions because the case is my own, I refer to that time and that occasion as containing the opinion which I then entertained, and on which my present conduct is based. I then said that if Massachusetts, following her purpose through a stated line of conduct, chose to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back; but I will say to her, God speed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other States.

"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races. That Declaration of Independence is to be construed by the circumstances and purposes for which it was made. The communities were declaring their independence; the people of those communities were asserting that no man was born—-to use the language of Mr. Jefferson—-booted and spurred to ride over the rest of mankind; that men were created equal-—meaning the men of the political community; that there was no divine right to rule; that no man inherited the right to govern; that there were no classes by which power and place descended to families, but that all stations were equally within the grasp of each member of the body-politic. These were the great principles they announced; these were the purposes for which they made their declaration; these were the ends to which their enunciation was directed. They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North has been endeavoring of late to do, to stir up insurrection among our slaves?  Had the Declaration announced that the negroes were free and equal, how was the Prince to be arraigned for stirring up insurrection among them? And how was this to be enumerated among the high crimes which caused the Colonies to sever their connection with the Mother Country? When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for that very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men-—not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths.

"Then, Senators, we recur to the compact which binds us together; we recur to the principles upon which our Government was founded; and when you deny them, and when you deny us the right to withdraw from a Government which thus perverted threatens to be destructive of our rights, we but tread in the path of our fathers when we proclaim our independence and take the hazard. This is done not in hostility to others, not to injure any section of the country, not even for our own pecuniary benefit; but from the high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit unshorn to our children.

"I find in myself perhaps, a type of the general feeling of my constituents towards yours. I am sure I feel no hostility toward you, Senators from the North. I am sure there is not one of you, whatever sharp discussion there may have been between us, to whom I cannot now say, in the presence of my God, I wish you well; and such, I am sure, is the feeling of the people whom I represent toward those whom you represent. I therefore feel that I but express their desire when I say I hope, and they hope, for peaceable relations with you, though we must part. They may be mutually beneficial to us in the future, as they have been in the past, if you so will it. The reverse may bring disaster on every portion of the country; and, if you will have it thus, we will invoke the God of our fathers, who delivered them from the power of the lion, to protect us from the ravages of the bear; and thus, putting our trust in God and in our firm hearts and strong arms, we will vindicate the right as best we may.

"In the course of my service here, associated at different times with a variety of Senators, I see now around me some with whom I have served long; there have been points of collision; but whatever of offense there has been to me, I leave here; I carry with me no hostile remembrance. Whatever offense I have given which has not been redressed, or for which satisfaction has not been demanded, I have, Senators, in this hour of our parting, to offer you my apology for any pain which, in the heat of discussion, I have inflicted. I go hence unencumbered of the remembrance of any injury received, and having discharged the duty of making the only reparation in my power for any injury offered.

"Mr. President, and Senators, having made the announcement which the occasion seemed to me to require, it only remains for me to bid you a final adieu."