Newspapers / The Western Sentinel (Winston-Salem, … / July 2, 1858, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of The Western Sentinel (Winston-Salem, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
A Democratic Journal Devoted to National and State Politics, Literature, Foreign and Domestic Hews, etc. vol. m. wiisrsToisr, oxiTii-cvitoLiosrv, Friday, july 2, isos. No 4 THE PUBLISHED WEEKLY BY ALSPAUGH & BONER, Editors and Proprietors. Terms of Subscription. "The Western Sentinel" is published every Friday morning, and mailed to subscribers at two dollars a year, in ad vance; two dollars and a half after six months, or threb dollars after the close of the subscription year. To any one procuring six subscribers, and paying the cash in advance, the paper will be furnished one year, gratis. Terms of Advertising in the Sentinel. Oar regular rates of advertising are as follows: One square, (14: lines or less) first insertion, $1 00 Each subsequent insertion, - -- -- - 25 For one square three months, - - - - 8 50 For six months, - -- -- -- -- 5 50 For twelve months, - -- -- -- - 8 50 5"f Liberal deductions in favor of regular ad vertisers. Professional or Business Cards, not exceeding fiyo lines in length, tive dollars a year longer ones m proportion. Postmasters are required by law to notify publishers when papers are not taken from their offices and those failing to do so become respon sible for the subscription-money. Business letters, communications, &c, may be addressed to the Editors of the Sentinel, AVins ton, N. C. All articles intended for insertion, in cluding notices of marriages and deaths, &c, must bo accompanied by a responsible name, otherwise they cannot bo published. Office on West Street, lelow the 3f. B. Church. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. Speech of Hon, H. HE. Shaw, OF NORTH CAROLINA. In the Ilouse of Representatives May 31, 1S5S. Tho IIouso being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of tho Union Mr. SHAW said : Mr. Chairman' : I am very reluctant in obtruding myself on the attention of the committee at this late period of the ses sion, particularly on a question that is not immediately before the committee. But I feel that the provocation under which I now speak must be a sufficient apology in the estimation of every gentlemen in this . House.1--- .- . .v , - :. - -It tcilLbalreIe&Ecd; erniiion;e4 "gentlemen present, that some time since 1 j 1 addresed the commtttoon the question of the admission of Kansas under the Le compton constitution. I think I can ap peal to you,' Mr. Chairman, and to every gentleman who heard moon that occasion, in proof of the declaration I now make, that, from the beginning to the end of that speech, I treated my colleague from the fifth congressional district of North Caro lina, Me. Gilmek, to whom I then re plied, with the utmost courtesy. What, sir, has been tho course of mv colleague 2 Mr. GILMER. Will mv friend allow me to ask him a question right there ? I want to know why my colleague repre sents me in his speech as being opposed to the admission of Kansas as a slave State us mo- the- words, "otherwise as a slave State?" Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I will answer the gentleman on that point, be fore I resume my seat, as I should have done if he had not called my attention to the subject. I ask again, what has been the course of the gentleman towards myself? Why, sir, on the evening of Saturday week, my colleague came into this. Hall after I had left it, (having .been here many hours,) and announced that it. was his intention to address the committee in reply to me, bnt, with an affectation of generosity, of liberality, and of magnanimity which I believe never found a lodgment in his heart, he pretendended that he could not do so because I was not present. . Sir, if the gentleman had desired me to be pres ent when .' he made his .speech,' It would. liave been a j small tax upon him'to have indicated the fact to me. On the follow ing Monday evening, after the Ilouse had resolved tself into Committee of the Whole for general debate, it being ; understood that no bvosiness was ,tb be rdone, having 6een iny colleague take liis" hat, and .leave the Hall, and being wearied and exhaust ed by a continuous sesion of'seven or eight h T --r ii - - . i f . 1 . II jiour3, l loiiowea ms example, ana renreu to my hotel. , He returned and made the -assault upon me, to which it is now my purpose to reply. . It was not till the next morning that I saw it reported in the Globe that ho had given notice on the previous Saturday night of his intention to reply to me, and this was the first intimation I had of his design. . . I repeat, if he- had had ;a dgsire, or the least disposition, tohave nte pres ent when he made that reply, why did he not state it to me, so that I; cquld;have "been present ? But,-sir, while, professing regret on account of my absence onT that occasion, he went so far as to eay that in making theepeech which Tid-vr tho QnfK nf Anril T hnrl Rtndinnslv and intert- V 14 -Mt. A ' W w ' 9.T tionally waited till he had gone: to North Carolinaand for what ? In order that I mitrht take advantasre of bisabsence to'da Jiim Injustice., Now, sir, I fell the gentle- .man, wnat l oeneverie teeieaana -kbw?, ihlttfhere is nothinltbt hisnphygically or intellectually, that I fear, and nothing that should have caused me to desire his absence when I spoke. For a considerable time after the pub lication "of his speech, whenever the House went into Committee of the Whole, it was for tho consideration of a special order, it which, as yon are aware and as my col league, I presume, knows, excludes gener al debate, so that, as many of my friends know, I was unable to obtain the fiqor for the purpose I had in view, until the time I made my reply. But my colleague says that the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Letcher obtained the floor soon after he made his speech, and replied to a portion of it. That is, very true ; but my colleague knows it occurred before his speech was printed, and I was unwilling to reply to him until I had seen his speech in print, for, I was determined to do him no injus tice. My colleague saw fit to apply to mo in jurious terms and offensive epithets. I shall not enter into any such contest with him ; ho is proficient in an -accomplishment which my tastes never led me to cultivate. If I have personal grievance to redress I will seek a proper opportuni ty to do it, and a more appropriate arena than this Hall. Moreover, when my col league was called to account for offensive language which he applied to me, he de clared that ho did not intend to be person ally offensive ; and yet, sir, he suffered his speech to go into the Congressional Globe, the official paper of this House, without any correction or qualification of the offen sive terms ! Was that fair, was it manly, was it just ? Mr. Chairman, I will not un dertake here properly to characterize such an act; but I will undertake to say that whenever I make a speech upon this floor and pronounce another, made by any col league of mine, or any one else, to be un just and untrue, prevaricating, and unwor thy the gentleman1 who made it, I never will go out of this II all and say that I did not mean to be personally offensive. Nev er, sir! And if, in the heat of debate and the excitement of discussion, I. should use language toward a gentleman which upon cool reflection I was forced to consider un just to him, never would I be found guilty of the injustice, the gro-js injustice to him, the injustice to myself, of sending that speech abroad to the world without re traction or qualification. And yet, sir, having made the retraction to which I have alluded, and maue it m Jus own hand writing, and over his own signature ! . Sir, the gentleman has applied to me a number of anecdotes by way of disparage ment and ridicule. This, too, is a favor ite mode of warfare with my colleague. Where a lawyer or a statesman would use an .argument, my colleague applies an an ecdote ; one gentleman on the other side was so deeply impressed with his ability in that way that he declared, (as I was in- 1 formed,) during the delivery of my. col league's first speech, that he was "as good as a comic almanac" He has already ac quired for himself the soubriquet of the "funny Representative from North Caro lina," and is fairly entitled to that of "the Utile joker." Let my colleague cultivate his talent and increase his fund of anec dote, and ho may look forward with con fidence to the time when he will be able to obtain an engagement as chief buffoon in some strolling circus. But, sir, I shall not follow his example in this regard eith er; if, however, my tastes and my sense of propriety led me to do so, instead of treat ing this enlightened assemblage of the peo ple's Representatives to the stale anecdotes and coarse jokes which my colleague has indulged in, I would procure a copy of Joe Miller and read from its pages such as would be vastly more amusing, though a hundred times repeated, than any that my colleague has so far entertained the com mittee with. . . " - Now, sir, my colleague charges . against me that I took the ground in- my speech, that, ho voted in favor of the Green anicnd menf; which" -wjisattachcd to the Senate bill when it'eame to this Ilouse, while I, at the same time, was found advocating tho views of the Executive in regard to the. principle of , that amendment. He goes on further, and denies that the gen tleman -from Mississippi Mr. Quitman moved to strikokmt that amendment. He -denies that I voted to strike it out. He denies emphatically that he voted against striking it out. Now,-sir, --what' a:e the facts? First, doe the Green amendment embody the doctrine which my colleague says is contained f in the special message of the Executive 1 Does that amendment declare, as I understand the. President to have said in his message, that the people -of Kansas would lave'.at rightQ. alter and amend their constitution after they had been admitted into-the Confederacy,' with out regard to the restrictions contained in that instrument itself ' I ask the House if the Green amendment , embodies - that doctrine? I say it does; not. ,Ih.e most that can be said of th first branch, of .-tho proposition contained in!theGren amend-, mentis, that it is a negative pregnant; while the sccond-brauch absolutely land unqualifiedly asserts that tho Congress of .the United States basjpbl right 'to- declare the construction of the constitution of -a -State. - Bnt have I sustained, in. any speech which Lhavr1 nade, heror ctseVhere, the with ihi4raimgabonciairn esa ami i ns tic: mat is' viwt.i.:vC$aieaHioVaitrrait - views of the President of the United States in regard to this particular doctrine? . My colleague cannot show it in my speech.---It is true that I commended that special message, a9 it had been commended throughout the length and breadth Of the country by the conservative and patriotic throughout the land. I approved of the general principles there set forth; but I did not approve, and I take occasion to say here that I do not now approve, th6 doctrine that the people can alter or amend their constitution without regard to the re-f strictions contained in tho instrument, it- self. --"."""' But suppose the Green amendment had' contained that doctrine : how can my col league object to it? Does it lie in his mouth to get up here or elsewhere and condemn it? And here let me say that mv colleague has brought another charge of injustice against me on account of tho reference which I made to his position iu tho Legislature of North Carolina, in re lation to a similar question. Now, what was the position of my colleague as a Sen ator of the State Legislature of North Car olina? It is well known bv intelligent gentlemen here that the constitution of that State declares that no convention of the people of North Carolina shall be call ed to amend the constitution of that State, except by a two-third vote of both branch es of the State Legislature ; and yet my colleague, as a member of the North Car olina Senate, supported and voted for the proposition of Governor Graham, which was intended to provide that the question of a convention to amend the constitution should be submitted to tho people of the State by a bare majority of both branches of the Legislature ; and if a majority ot the people voted for a convention, then the people should proceed to elect dele gates to amend the constitution, although that instrument itself says that no conven tion shall be called unless it is by a vote of two thirds of both branches of the Leg islature. Mr. GILMER. Will my colleague al low me to correct him as to a matter of fac t? Mr. S II AW, of North Carol i n a. I owe the gentleman no courtesy, and will not allow him to interrupt me, especially as I am sure the Chair will have the liberality to award him the floor at the close of my remarks, when he wTill have an onnortuni- HTenfT;l'iat"iny col leagu el n n voting to Sus tain the proposition of Governor Graham in the Legislature of North Carolina, has himself sanctioned and approved the doc trine which ho now denounces, but which" I say is not set forth in the Green amend ment. But if the special message of the Presi dent does contain this doctrine, which has now become so odious to my colleague ; and if he has changed his opinion, since he was in the Legislature, why have we not heard his thunder sooner ? I have here an editorial article from the leading organ of the party to which the gentleman be-longs-r the Know7 Nothing party of North Carolina in which, in speaking of the President's message and of this verv doc trine which the gentleman so vehemently condemns, the following language is used. I quote.from the. Raleigh Register, of the 10th February, 1S53. "According to -promise wc lay before our readers to-day. the President's message recommending to the favor of Congress tho Lec'ompton constitution. AVe are not much given to paying compliments to Dem ocrats, and rarely indeed do they deserve any at our hands. We hope, however, wtc can do justice, and it is in a spirit of fair dealing that we say that Mr. Buchan an's message is a most excellent one." -f . "Resides all this, as the President very well contends, as soon as JCansas is admit ted as a State, she ccw, call another conven tion .to make another constitution, and- it can then he ascertained whether the friends or opponents of slavery are in the minori ty in the State. -This scans to its exceed ingly simple and,' plain, and the furious opposition to the Presidenf s views can ' on ly be ucconntedfor by the fact that certain politicians in Congress desire to prolong this agitation for their own purposes, and with a view likewise of asserting, if possi ble; the principle that slavery shall not spread beynd its present limits. As a citizen of the United States, then, and a lover of law and order, and as a citizen of the South, and mindful, of her rights, we do most earnestly desire to, see Kansas ad mitted .with the constitution she presents, and let her future struggles, if any shall ensue, be carried on upon her own soil as a sovereign State, and bo settled by her own citizens. Then, and not before, will her matters -cease to :be .so many ; fire brands, threatening the .destruction of tho Union."";.- ' . : There, sir, js the same (doctrine held bv the leading organ, in North Carolina, of the gentleman's own party, and- T ha vo never yet heard kny denunciation of -that article bv my colleague jor any member of his party at home.' But after the gen tleman had concluded to oppose the ad mission of .Kansas; under thes Lccompton constitution, he finds that fhls is an odious doctrine, and - one which 6ught not only to condemn theP.residenfr,Tut the Demo cratic. party, alsd, and. mo too, who never adopted it: . - ..l.,-.;- t ' Now, sir, as to my colleague's denial 'that the gentleman from Mississippi Mr. QcrriiAN moved to strike out the Green amendment. That has become a matter of history ; it is unon vour record, nnd T ,ask you, and I ask the gentleman from Mississippi whether tho effect of his mo tion was not to bring before the IIouso the Senate bill without the Green amend ment ? . Mr. QUITMAN. Certainly. Mr. SHAW, of North Carolina. I must j' say I was surprised, when I read the speech j of my colleague, to see the charge brought 'against the trentleman from Mississinni. of being guilty of duplicity in bringing for ward that amendment in the manner he did. If there is any one trait which stands oiit in bold relief in tho character of the gentleman from Mississippi, it is his di rectness, his straightforwardness, and the moral courage and boldness with which he marches up to every question which it is his duty to meet : he is not the man who would lend himself to any such course as that charged by the gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. QUITMAN. It was only yester day that I read the remarks of tho gentle man from North Carolina, Mr Gilmei:, and I have been thinking very calmly up on the question whether I should notice them or not. I will not, at any rate, take tho time to do so now. Perhaps I may notice them, and I may think them un worthy of notice. MrSIIxVW, of North Carolina. I was sayirg that the record will show that the gentleman from Mississippi moved to amend tho bill then before the Ilouse, by submitting the Senate bill without the Green amendment, as n amendment to the Crittenden bill, offered by tho gentle man from Pennsylvania,. Mr. Moxtgoh ery. The effect of that would have been to have brought before this IIouso the Senate bill with tho Green amendment, Now, sir, I voted for the proposition of the gentleman from Mississippi, and my col league voted against it ; and, I repeat, I have tione him no injustice in placing him in the position that I did. But my colleague says he voted against the motion of the gentleman from Missis sippi, Mr.. Quitman-, not because he was in favor of the Green amendment, but be cause the success of that motion would pA&ayg; deiealed. th:. Critnde4iJi 3st&titT9rM ;wanUroy i"wjt3: mlj nst towards him in not stating that fact. To show 5ow much justico there is in this charge,, I will be excused, I trust, for quot ing a brief extract from my speech, which will be-a sufficient answer to the gentle man's accusation : "Brit; the gentleman may say that, lie voted 'against the Green amendment in order fo save, if possible, the House bill. I do not by any means admit that he can thereby find a sufficient justification of his vote ; but I am willing, for the sake of the argument only, to give him tho benefit of that position ; and now let us sec whether ho is justifiable in taking the Crittenden amendment in preference- to the Senate bill." 5 My' colleague, in his speech, stated that I read'rfrom the Lccomptou constitution, to prove that that instrument prescribed a proper qualification for vorters ; for the purpose, lis ho supposed, of having it go abroad that the Crittenden bill, for which he voted, contained no such safeguard. If thegentleman read my speech careful ly, ho' must have known that I read from that constitution for no such purpose ; and the same injustice which he has improp erly, and without tho least cause, charged against rac, of perverting and misrepre senting his arguments, ho has committed against me, in this, as wrell as in numer ous other instances. I showed that by the Lecompton constitution, aliens were' pro hibited the right of suffrage. I wont on then to show that by voting down that constitution, as the gentleman endeavored to vote it down, and by passing another bill, the Crittenden bill, by which the peo ple of Kansas would have been authorized by my colleague to vote upon the Lecomp totrtionstltution, and if they saw fit to re- Iject it; (and the whole teit r of his argu ment, trom one end to the other, was to bo the effect that that constitution was not the voice of the people of Kansas, and that if submitted to them, they would vote it down ;) they would then have power .un der the Crittenden bill to make another constitution, in which they might, and in all probability would, ingraft the doctrine of alien suffrage ; yes, even free-negro suf frageand Lwas warranted in saying that ; for the Leavenworth constitution, then re cently maddand published, was said - to ; Contain, not only, the principle of alien .'suffrage, but of suffrage to free negroes al so : and thatjeonstitution thus authorized, would entitleTKausas to .admission into, the Union. ' Tliaf was the argument I.made;: and my colleague, unable to meet it, has only sought' dt? pervert it. , But the gentleman sars, J accused him of taking the position that if tje Lecomp ton constitution should be 'voted, do Wn the peoplo: of Kansas would seize upon eighty millions of the public lands. r Is there anything of that kind to bo found in my speech t'Jjf so, -I call, upon tho .gen tleman td bring it forward and present it to the IIouso. and the country. Did I. say any, such thing ? ; I said nothing of the, kind ; and. I think rn j colleague must know that that was net what I sa. He k e Knows, j it it he has carefully re; 1 my sopech. which ho has in his possession, Lsaid that in the Lecompton constitution there was an ample and sufficient guarantee to se cure to the several States their interest in the public domain within the borders of Kansas ; and that, if tho people of Kansas came in under that constitution, the rights of all the States North Carolina as well as the rest would be amply eecured. I said that if my colleague should succeed in voting down" that constitution, if he should succeed in passing-tho bill ho was advocating, he would place it in the pmc er of the 2eople of Kansas to seize upon and appropriate to their own use every single acre of tho public domain within their borders. How did I prove it? By showing that if the people should voto down tho Lectfmpton constitution, they would be authorized by thd Crittenden bill to frame another constitution ; and without any terms or conditions precedent in regard to the public domain, or any thing else, they were to be inducted into the Union by the mere ipse dixit of the President of the United States, and there would be no remedy to us if they should assert their right to the public lauds, even to every acre within their limits. The gentleman, in his speech, quotes an extract from a letter of Senator Davis, of Mississippi, written on 1-lth May, 1858, to sustain his position. In doing so, howev er, he attributes to him language which is not to be found in the extract' which my colleauge quotes. Nor is it to be found in anj- other portion of that letter. He says that Colonel Davis lays down the principle that " condition precedent " must be contained in tho " act of admission." This is an unauthorized amendment to Col onel Davis' letter, made by my colleague for a purpose which must bo obvious to every one it was absolutely necessary to make out his case. Here, fir, is tho ex tract which my colleague quotes and adopts : 'The consequence of admitting a State without a recogniton precedent of tho rights cf United States to the public do main, are in my opinion, the transfer of tho useful with the eminent domain, to tho people of the State thus admitted, without reservation. . . : . ,; As you will see, Colonel Davis does not be in the " act of admission."' IIo Bays no finch thing. But my colleague' demands,. with an air of triumph; what safeguard .there is in the Senate bill for the admission of Kansas, for tho security of the public domain m that Territory, which the Crittenden bill does not also contain ? and in this 'connection, and with a flourish of trumpets, he quotes a clause from the Crittenden bill, and with an air of complacency adds, "I shall aj pend to my speech the Minnesota bill, which contains no such guarantee and no security whatever." Now sir, if my col league was able to meet the argument. I made, why did he resort to the artful dodge of drawing his parallel between the Sen ale bill or the Crittenden bill, and the Minnesota bill, instead of meeting the point I distinctly made as to the power he proposed to confer upon the people of Kan sas, to absorb and appropriate the pub lic lands in case they should chose to vote down tho Lecompton constitution which was to be submitted to them for ratification . or rejection by the Critten den bill for which he voted ? and the whole scope of his argument went to show that if submitted to them, they would vote down that constitution ; his main objection to the admission of Kansas, under the Le compton constitution, being that it was not the will and tho voice of the peoplo of that Territory. Now, &ir, strange as it may eecm, my colleague in his desire to sustain his un founded charge against me, that Iliad sur rendered the rights of the United States to to the public domain, by my vote for the Minnesota bill, which he voted against adopts the very principle which I asserted in my speech of the 20th April, by which I showed, that by conferring-"upon the people of-Kansas, as he proposed to do by his vote for the Crittenden bill, the right to frame a new constitution and be admitted into the Confederacy by the proclamation of the President, without any condition precedent to secure the right of the Gov ernment to the public lands in Kansas m3r colleague has clinched the argument I made against him on that point. I repeat, I undertook to prove, and did prove, to my own satisfaction at least; that the people of Kansas would have been ena bled, had my colleague succeeded' in his effort to defeat the Lecompton constitution and carry through the Crittenden bi1!, to seize, upon evrery acre of the public lauds in that Territory j and my logical 'and sa gacious colleague has fully sustained my point by adopting the veryprinciplo upon which I based the whole argument. : Now, in referenca to the charge' that I voted for tho bill to admit ; Minnesota, which, ho says, does not contain one Word by which ' the Government is Secured in the public lands. Has my colleague put this - case faily? Has ho sustained the grave charge ho hiakes against mo, of hav inabandoned. tho" rights and surrendered tho interests, of NortluCarolina in the pub lic lands' in Minnesota? Sir, has ho told the whole. truth in. the matter? In his school-boy days, my colleague learned tho Latin maxim, " suppressio veri " but sir,' I have said I will not bandy epithets with' my colleague, and I will 'recall what I have said. My colleague may- not have' read tho " enabling act," by which tho last Congress authorized Mihnessota to form! a State constitution preparatory to her ad mission into the Union ; ho may have vo ted against her admission' without having informed himself of the facta in tho case. Now, sir, I shall quote tho proviso contain- ed in the fifth clause of tho'fifth Beckon of the enabling act, by which ample security was made for tho rights of the Government in the public domain. Hero ia tho pro viso : " Provided, The foregoing propositions' herein offered are on tlio condition that the said convention which shall form tho constitution of said State, shall provide by a clause in said constitution, or an ordi nance, irrevocable without the consent of tho United Stato shall never interfere with the primary disposal of the soil within tho same by tho United States, or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for scenring the title in said soil to bona tide purchasers thereof, and that no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to thai United States, and that in no case shall non-resident proprieties bo taxed higher than residents." And here I am reminded by tho chairman of the Committee- on Territories Mr. Ste riiExs that tho constitution of Minnesota ratified and confirmed this land provision; I quote here the third section of tho second article of that constitution : . . ''The propositions contained in tho act of Congress entitled 'An act to authorize the people of tho Territory of Minnesota to form a constitution and Stato govern ment preparatory to their admission into tho Union oh ah equal footing with tho original States are hereby accepted, rati fied, and confirmed, and shall remain ir revocable without the consent of tho Uni ted States; and it is hereby ordained that this State 6hall never interfere with tho primary disposal of the soil within tho same, by tho United States or with any regulations Congress may find necessary for securing the title to said soil to bond fide purchasers thereof; and no tax shall be imposed on lands belonging to .tho Uru- ted States and i:,oo tse halk TvmAVtenifci'miHftr than rrs-" Kleins. , Now, I submit to you and the' commit tee, I submit to the people of North Car olina, whether thero is tho smallest degreo of fairness or justico in the gentleraaifa charire against me as to this matter; Another charge alleged against me by tho gentleman from North Carolina is, that I had done him tho injustice to place his opposition to tho admission of Kansas under tho Lecompton constitution,, upon the ground that she would thereby be ad mitted as a slave State. Is there any such charge in my speech ? My colleague Can not show it. I made no such charge. I said : , . " lie bases his opposition to tho admis sion of Kansas under tho Lecompton con stitution, in other words, to her admission? as a slave State, upon three points of ob jection : first, that "tho Green amendment 'affirms tho right of a majority of tho peo ple to change the constitution at any tihio they please ; and that, by the establish ment of that principle, slavery may bo ex cluded whenever a majority of tho peo ple choose; second, that the population of Kansas is not sufficient to entitle her to admission ;- and, third, that the constitution framed at Lecompton is not tho will 6f tho people of that Territory." Now sir, is that charging hini with op position to the admission of Kansas, be- cause she would come in "as a slave State ?" My charge against him was that while "Kansas was as much a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina, under tho Lecompton constitution," by voting down that constitution, and enabling tho people of Kansas to frame another, if the opinion he gave as to the will of the majority in that Territory was correct, slavery would be abolished, and she would become a free State. I shall not stop hero to make an argument upon this point. Everybody knows that the seventh 'article of her con stitution established slavery by every guar antee that could bo thrown around that institution. It was opposed by the Black Republican party upon that ground. The President announced the fact in his spec ial message, that Kansas was as much a a slave State as Georgia or South Carolina, and my colleague labored throughout hia whole speech to prove that the people of Kansas would vote down tho Lecompton constitution if we 6hbmitted it to them1 and would, as certainly, frame a free-State' con stitution in its stead. But, sir, my colleague. says ho was un willing to bring Kansas into the Union by unfair means; ho would not countenance tho " shuffling " by which an " unnatural emigration " was forced into Kansas ; he would not force upon an unwilling people . a constitution, which, they were opposed to. -Yes, 8ir, my colleague." had 6uch an abhor-" rence for;th shuffling which had been witnessed in Kansas ;" ho was so much op posed, to that sort of shuffling by which aa unnatural emigration had been forced into that Territory V he was so honest, so fair, and so just, he felt constrained to ,vtte against a constitution cwhich made Kansaii 1 '-a- Mi".
The Western Sentinel (Winston-Salem, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
July 2, 1858, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75