Newspaper Page Text
f a great ntnn, who had ' too many irons In
the fire,' and could not put in nirAnti-Slnve
7 bnr, becnuse Lis forge wna lull ! Hut
there were ether arrows in his ipiiver, which
own as w not; and now, I tliiink (iod, thnt
lu a great pulpit, on this heights of Brooklyn,
oil Lone Island, the ion of Dr. Lvinnn
Beee.her etnnds, week niter week. venr in
nd year out, and blesses every Sundny
ir.on.ing ami iionows every nununy nigni,
Wrlln An ftltuiliahnn A ) e 1 1 im m slrannns in
the) American Church, i.oured out in defence
Of the highest rights ami the noblest dutica
f mankind (loud npplntisc). Most of us
the misfortune to lie reckoned heretics
py me ciiurcnc ; I mysell hnvn Inllcn miller
;S Clf.::"L"e.',lB 'tPA
Ward Beecher belongs to thnt (rent nnd
powerful bond, which tins inherited the spirit
of the Edwardxcs, Ihe Hopk'mses, mid tlm
summonses which has inherited their logic
una ineir tirengtni ami Whicli tins got tlio
Ihronvof Chnnniniit nml Im wields ,,,.-
weapone Willi n tuility power, whirli is nn
astonishment in tho Imtd. There is number
pleasing spectacle. Dr. Ileecher himself,
thefother-ol mora brains limn nny man
mi:i iv m, (iiiei .muiil;iii ,19 inn lir.l.'llli 111,11 Ul
liia venerable benti, to which orthodox or
lieretirs, we linve all looked up so tunny
limes for guidnneo nml n blessing. Uncle
Tom, the youngest of tho Itccchers, has been
on our sido this good w hile. I think he will
convert his grandfather, nnd then we shrill
have all the family. (Loud cheers.)
From the Liberator.
The Slaveholding Guarnties of the United
LETTER FROM HON. HORACE MANN.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21st, 1853.
VTii. L. Gamusoa, Esq. i
DbakSih, I hsvo not seen a copy of your
LiBRBAron of last week, but I am told it con
tains a speech of Ma. Wendell Puri.i.ir,
copy oi vtiucnxnnvo just read in the Anti
tilaetry Standard of New York, and in which
are tho following pai-sigcs relating to ine :
Mr. Mnnn snid in ono of his speeches,
thnt " lie felt for the fugitive slave ns for his
own blood-brother Hint ho ought to do ns
much for him ns for his blood-brother ; mid
l'T for the Constitution of the I'niled Stntes,
he would rit-k every thing, rnllier ihim let
hi in be surrendered." Whnl a hit'! from
the lips, too, of n champion of tlm higher
law! Spile of nil constitutions, iipithvr my
mother's son nor any oilier mother's son
hall, with my consent, go Imck to bondage.
(Enthusiastic cheers). Ho speaks the heart
Mr. Mann's version is thnt of tho politician.
' Mr. Mann's recent speech in August, Kii,
has the same nnu-coimniftiil tone to which I
llnve alluded, ns .Mr. Sumner's. While pro
fessing, in the most eloquent terms, his loy
ally to tho Higher Law, .Mr. Sutherland
asked, "Is there, in Mr. .M inn's opinion, any
conflict between that Higher Low nnd the
Constitution? If so, what is it? If not,
why introduce nn irrelevant topic Into the
slebate ? ' (7" Mr. .Mann avoided any reply,
and atked not to It interrupted I Is thnt
the frankness which becomes nn abolitionist ?
Can audi concealment help nny cause?
The design of Mr. Sutherland is evident. If
Mr. Aloun had allowed tlmrn whh no conflict
between the Higher Law nnd tho Constitu
tion, nil his rcmui Ls were futile, nml nut of
order. Until be asHerted that nny such con
flict existed, how did be justify himself in
wearing to support thnt instrument ? n
question our Free Soil friends nro slow to
tseet, Mr. Mann aaw the dilemma, und
voided it by silence!
'The ssmo speech contains the iisunt dep
recatory assertions that Free Suilcrs have
Bo wish to interfere with slavery in the Slates:
suai mey - consent to let slavery remain
where it is." Jf he menus thnt ho, Ilurnco
Mann, moral nml accountable being, "coii
enta to let slavery remain where it is,' nil
lite rest of bis ieech is sound und fury,
signifying nothing. Jf he means that be,
Horace Mann, as a politician and party man,
consents to that, but, elsuwhuro nml other
wise, will dolus best to abolish this "nil
comprehending wickedness of slavery, in
which every wrong and crime has its natu
ral home" then he should have plainly said
o. Otherwise, bis disclaimer is hut nn
unworthy trick, which could have deceived
none. Ho must have known tlmt.nl I the South
rare for is tho action, not in what capacity
the deed it douo,'
In the first of the above passages, Mr. riiil
lipt declares that I said in one of my speeches,
that ' he I felt for the fugitive slavo as fcr his
own-blood-brother that he ought to do as
much for him as for his own blood-brother, and
wvfor tht Comtiution of tho United States, he
would risk every thing, rather than let him be
urrondered,' ko. He puts this in quotation
marks as my language.
Now, tho latter part of this sentence, after
the capitalised " bit," is not my lunguago nor
my opinion. Having said this, ha so contrasts
Ms own lofty scnlimonta with the mean one
Imputed to me, as to grt enthusiastic choera
Ibr himself, at my expense.
Again t in his next paragraph, Mr. Phillips
(ays of roe i
While professing In ihe most eloquent
terms, hie I y loyalty to the Higher Law,
Mr. Sutherland asked. " Is there, in Mr.
Mann's opinion, any conflict between the
Higher Law and the Constitution? Jf so,
. what is it ? Jf not o, why introduce nn ir-
reivnnt topio into the debate,? J" Mr.
Minn avoided any reply, and atktd uot to bt
interrupted Jft '
This asssrtion of Mr. ridllips is a doubly
false ono. And as though simple falsehoods
were not tuff! Jen", he intensities them by italics,
and by a dijito moiutrari ' at each cnd.e I did
newer Mr. Sutherland, by tolling him his in
quiry was not to the point, (as it clearly was
not) J and so fsr from asking htm not to inter.
,jrupt me, I yielded to his interruption three
Mveral limes. When ho had got the whole of
Ills point out, tteiat over, and was perfectly tin-
' It is duo to Mr, rhiliips to ssy, that the
tV .41 at eaeh end of tlio italicised sentence,
" " - "-''-. w . ...... Jiff, n0f
inserted by his re-ine.t, but were addod by an-1
were nm in ins manuscript oi air. rnuiips, nor
ns " confusion of ideas, and contnina
such misstatements of facts, with such Imputa
tive tion of bad motives, as to render it hard to bo-
dcrstood by me, 1 then exprencd a hope that
ha would not interrupt me any 1 run
Tiier' and the wholo episode shows that,
having comprehended Mr. Sutherland's ques
tion, my object was to husband my hour. Yot
Mr Phillips construes this Into the assertions
that I practised concealment.' saw mr dilem-
ms,' avoided it by silence,' and asked not to
Thi whol PBPh In Mr. rhiliips' speech
iicve t)lal any mBn Rt 01lc0 n tlli Kont; and
have Uttered it. I surely
ncvcr h'd o""0". '". or any time, to
1 Prov" '7 'conflict between iho Higher Law
and tho Constitution,' but only between the
Higher Law snd the Ftigitivo Slave Law
1 t)j H( n t,c dternntire question, put by Mr.
ln to support that in.trument.-the Constitu-
' tion, 'a question,' which, as he says, 'our
Free Soil friends are slow to meet,' I never
saw sny difficulty or 'dilemma' in it I never
' proctiscl ny 'concealment' shout it si.d I
never avoided tl by silence. I know or no
Free Soilcl who has ever felt any trnublo on
that score, or ever been 1 slow to meet the qucs
tion.' And this, for tho simple rcsson, that
we swear to support tho Constitution of the
Vnitcd States, becuuse, with our interpretation
of it, it requires us to do nothing in violation
of tho Higher Law of Uod.
The next paragraph is aho a tissue of mis
rcresentations. It charges mo with asserting
that the Free Soilcrs have no wish to interfere
with slavery in the States;' and that they
1 consent to let slsvcry remain where it is,' te.
Now I know of no Free Sailer who has not
tho strongest desire to arrest tho wrongs of sla
very by all tho legitimate means within his
power j or who consents to let s! ivory remain
whero it Ik,' in any other senso than as he con
sents to tho subjugation of Hungary, or to tho
Ut1-Mnl IrtM nf T nil!. X" ... i 1 ..... , I.....U.- 1.
can t nrip it. x never intimated any thing to
mo cmur.iry oi tins; ana let mo ok, does not
Mr. l'hillip. consent' in the snmo way ?
Hut .,.,!. Mr. P., If he mean, that he, Hor-
aeoMant.,a.pj.7.,W(m nild part) man, con-
srnts to that, but clseshero and otherwise, will
"T V , . ' " " ' UT" v "T I
ickcdticss of shivery, then ho should have
nLl .' ir,,.i.'r I ...;.i . ,i i .: i
v.- . i- , .,. .
ir.r 8 f. r mi :,; "n1 1
so? Whhtolhor ovcruiateriug molivo had I
to entor political life? Why hava I devoted so
largo a portion of my timo to tlio advocacy of
human freedom ? Why did I act myself right
acros tho path of that intellectual giant, Dan
lei WeU'cr, nnd contest, hand to hand, every
step of his pro-sluvcry course ? Why did I refuso
to f jUow the political party with which I hod act
ed, nnd take the sharpest edge of their weapons,
instead ol tiicir rewords? A hy did I do and
suiter tlicjo things, if it was not becauso I wns
to slavery, not only chewhero and '
otherwise,' but everywhere and in all ways-
in every fibre ar.,1 pulse of my being? And.
after all this, is there, I do not say any Justice,
is thero any decency in Mr. Phillips saying.
that if Mr. Mann wished to opposo the all-
comprehending wickedness of slavery, then
ho should have plainly said so?' and then, as-
suming I did not say so, insinuate that I was
guilty of an 'unworthy trick"?
A to tho general argument of Mr. Phillips' ,
speech, that tho Frco Soilcrs havo taken all
their weapons from the armory of the abolition- !
ists, others must answer for themselves. I have
Only to say for one, that I havo never been con-
scinus of committing nliii'inrtam In flu'. .
" ' " - i 1
-i.e .ersoevcr wo may derive our argu-
s, I hnpowomny never imitato tho spirit
. . i
that arrogates whero it cannot create, denuun
ces where it cannot argue, and flics in the foce
of all the best friends of tho cause it professes
to cherish, dealing out to them defamation in
stead of encourngemont.
Will Mr. Oarrison pleoso publish this com
municatinn in his nest paper, as part reparation
for the injury ho has, I trust unwittingly, done
mo by the publication of Mr. Phillips' speech.
Yours very truly,
P. S. I request ths editors of thoso papers
who have published Mr. P'e speech, to publish
MR. PHILLIPS'S REPLY.
The speech which Mr. Mann criticises was
published in Boston during my absence at Nctrh
ampton, and seeing the proof but a very few
minutes, i cut not oLserve that quotation marks
had been put to a aentence in which I endea
vorcd to stato his meaning in my own language.
I had come to Boston to take caro that, in ro
printing it, his exact words were used, when
Mr. Mann's lettor was shown mo. I havo rend
it attentively, and re read my own remarks,
and havo nothing to alter, and no apology to
mukc. I cannot see that I have dono him any
Mr. Mann entirely mistakes, if ho supposes
that I tako any plcasuro in uttering these eriti.
cismt on men whoso general courso and char
acter I cordially respect. Nomancan appreciate
more fully, or acknowledge more generously
than I do, the eminent services Mr. Mann has
rendered to the causo of K lueatinn, and the
gond words he hits spoken for the Antl-81avcry
eause. My blood has thrilled too often beneath
his glowing eloquence, his startling denuncia
tion, and those pictures of slavery which thrill
one's soul. For his argument against the Fu
gitive Slave Law, uncqusllod in ability, except
perhaps by R,ntoul, I f00l, in common with
many others, profoundly grsteful. The mis
takes of such a man are to be all th mnt.
carefully watched. Omnia mala extmpla it bonU
An1 nowt having diaeharged the duty far
more grateful to ,ne, of acknowiedgin, ,h.
have put various portions of the speech to
oppose! gether, to show that I do not misrepresent
i, geiier.il tenor. Tho render will please
observe, that in the sentences above italicised,
Mr. Mnnn allowa
I-.,imt ",u present Constitution secures
'''C r'Ut 10 recover ''"" slnves. Ishull
l,mH;h,,y ito other speeches of Mr. Mnnn,
'" w'''"'" "'"k' t the tame slntemviit.
2. In Ihe seiilence primed in small enpi-
iu' ',B "tsorlii, thut tecrr tht Statct onct tfpu
r"'' would nt soon return his brother as
3- He claims to bear nllegioiice to the
Constitution. Whut is this, in such roniioc
I i.. i , .....
merits of mr. Mann, let mo recur to his charges.
The first is, that, In my extract referring to
fugitive slaves, I have attributed to him an
npinon he does not hold. This is tho substance
of my statement, that Mr. Mnnn allowed that
a slave was the same to him as a brother, and
but for the Constitution of the United States,
he would as trait return to slavery his own
brother a sny fugitive slave. Tho latter psrt
of this statement ho denies.
In his speech of July 15, 1830, on the ZOO
JO? pages of his volutnoof speeches, Mr. Mann
paints ths conscquoncrs of Disunion In the
matter of getting back fugitive slaves. Ho
suppoaos the Constitution abolished, and ob
1 An oulsido belt or border region of the
slave states, no part id' which shall bo more
thnu one hundred miles from n free frontier,
would embrace nearly one half, of their
whole area ; nml, ns 1 suppose, much more
than one linlfof their whole slave population.
What is to prevent the easy escape of slaves
living within these limits? While God sends
nights upon the earth, nothing can prevent it.
I venture to predict, that in such n state of
things, slaves will become cheap, and horses
will become dear. J nin nware of your laws
which tin hid slaves to cros hi idges or ferries,
without a pass ; but you enn have no law
against seasons of low Water. The o'd adage
says, 'riches have wings.' You will find that
these riches have legs. The Missis-ippi and
Ohio Rivers, here they Iwrder upon free
stales, will he nlive as wuh ahonls uf nor
poises, Hememhtr Hurt it no comtitution of
Iht United Mattt now. 1 hut you havt broken,
Tht fret ttatet are, therefurt, nhto'.ved from all
ohliention to tiirrtmler fugitive). Tht late of
1 71:l is at an end. .... The eonilitution of
.1. .... f.f.f i Irii-i I .
me inata .irarcj, ana ine laic nj uw,ucing ul
an end, the law of nature revives. .... Ths
stati:s iii:i'(; sn'.ui.vra), I woui.it
as soot BETin.-r sir ow.x nnoritrn on sismn
I.VTO DOMIAUK, AS I WOULD nRTL'n.V A rCOI
TIVF. SLAVE. Jt:'ORR (iol), A ND ClIHIST, AMD
ALL ClIIIIHTIAM MI..M, TIIK.r AUK MY BIIUTMF.RS
And on page 24:
I disdain to nvail myself, in n sober nrcu-
incut, ot Iho poi
metit, of tho popular sensitiveness on this
subject; nnd I acknowledge my obligations
to ine constitution wlnlu it is sullernd to hist.
0l, page 182 of same speech, ho separates
lilll(,rlf froll) . ,
Constitotion.' and el,.-.. I.i,.,.ir !,l.
thoso whoso ' allegiance to this Constitution
"'l'Ken ;' and again, pg m, be says:
... 1 b ' J
two things exist nt tlm north, winch the
Two things exist nt tlm th, which the
south iIops nut duly appreciate, t in depth
,,mi ,"ie,, ,,r . .Ji-
nml that reverence Tor the law which keeps
it ill cheek. Tho latter couulerpoirtes the
lornier. We lire n law-:i),idi;iu neoide lint
rttenie. it) from our ohliention), tear off from
tht bond leith yuur own hand tht tiff nature)
Which, bind our conscienctt nnd repress our
lecliugs, destroy those! compensations which
tho world and which posterity would derive
Iioiii n continuance ol this Union, and well
uiny you (remote, lor the rcsull.'
Tho single sentence printed ubnvo in cap.
I"1'", lully heart out my statement, lint I
" " h-iivd iiiu reader 10 inter Hint lie
will return fugitive slaves un.7 Iht Statet art
Mr. Mann's second charge is, thnt I have
not correctly represented the interruption
that Mr. Sutherland miuh) in his(Mr. Mann's)
speech of August 17, 1852.
I will extract, from his own report, the
whole account in bis own words, nnd the
render shall judge :
To hail liberty in the East, while wo were
propagating slavery in thu West ; to receive
with honors n fugitive from Austrian bond
age, while our liiiuds were thrusting buck
fugitives into a tenfold direr Iximtoge at thu
South, were contradictions so palpable and
flagrant thnt even parlizan blindness could
not but see them. Kossuth owed labor and
service to Francis Joseph, nf Austria, just ns
much nt Thomnt Sims owed it to John Pot
ter, of Georgia. Why should the one be
cheered, ami tho other chained? Why
should the Mississippi bring Kossuth here
liir freedom, and ihe Acorn carry Sims back
to bondage ? KoksiiiIi bad committed Ircn
son, leu thousand times over, against the
House of llapsbuigh. Why should he be
sheltered in our arms ngninst the penalties nl'
irons-mi, while the government bore sots all
tlm find ministers of the law to make con
structive treasons for tho punishment of
innocent men ? Kossuth hud rebellod ngninst
Austria, nnd had caused ihe death of tens of
thousands of her subjects. Why should ho
he screened behind n rampart of American
hearts, while those whu killed Gorsuch, un
der Ihe law of self-preservation, nnd in de
fence of life, und liberty, nml home, should
bo ignouiiniuiisly hung on the gallows?
These were questions thut no deafness could
avoid bearing, nnd when beard, no sophistry
could answer. Freedom is one ; shivery is
its nmipndu ; nnd therclbro the protection ol
the fugitive Kossuth nnd the surrender of
the fugitive slave could never be reconciled.'
Another collateral effect which shivery
hr.s produced, is the promulgation from the
halls of Congress, and ulso from what in
such cases it not the laered, but the profant
desk, thai there is no ' higher luw' Hum the
Constitution, or than any interpretation
which nny corrupt Congress niny put upon
It. Such n doctrine it nothing lest than pal
pable nnd flagrant atheism. Jf I am bound
to obey any human law or Constitution, at
my pnrumount rule of dutv. iliencnf'oriii that
rule hecomta my supreme arbiter, judge,
nnd God, and I nm compelled, by logical
necessity, la nbjure, renounce, nml tleposo
all others. There cannot he two tupreme
rules of r ght. if I acknowledge mysell
Iroiind by tho divine low, and that comet in
conflict with the human law, then 1 must
disobey the Inttnr. But if the human law
be the Higher Law, and if it conflicts with
God'a Inw, then I am bound to disobey Ihe
low of God. If the Constitution be the
" higher law," then we, on Inking our sentt
in this House, and nil magistrates nnd legis.
lators, when entering upon the duties ol their
respective offices, ought not to Inke nn oath
before God to support the Constitution, but
migiii iu Bvrunr ny ui vsooeiiimioo in soi
that first, and God afterwards provided it
be convenient. 1 any, then, that this doc
trine which is one of ihe offshoots of sla
very thnt there i no higher law than the
Inw of the State, is palpable atheism. Anil
yet it is perfectly well known to nil who hear
me, and to nil who fre'ptnnt the purlieus of
CoirgTrs', thnt thero is no butt of ridicule so
common here, nothing which so rendily ami
so frequently raises the " loud laugh that
speaks tho vacant mind," ns n fling or jeer
nt the " higher Inw."
Mr. SUTIIKRI.WD. I ask the geotlo
man from Massachusetts, whether it is pos
sible that the higher law of God can como
in conflict w ith the CoiiNtitutiou ?'
Mr. MANX. 1 think it would be belter
to ask whether tho Constitution comet in
conflict with the higher law
.Mr? SU I IIF.IILAN l? I sk the genlle -
... . . . .
mnn it every American citizen does Hot obey
tho higher Inw of God when ho obeys every
part ot Ihe Lonstituiion? And can nny good
T""!L? tT:'",l " "'y".-
slrnclinns? Is not Ihe spirit of Ihe Coiisti-
lotion in sronnlmiP. ur.il. ii, ... s
Can you point to n clause in the Constitution
which, when fulfilling lo the best of my abil-
i.y, would make me violate the higher luw of
Mr. MANN. Thnt is not tho point.
' Mr. SlTIIERLANO. That is the very
You nnd others I sny it with nil
possible respect disturb tlie bnrn.ouy of ibis
House, nnd the country, by try hid to i get up
issues upon ul.Hlriict ipieslious of morality,
which hnve nothing whatever to do with Hie
proceedings of this House, or with correct
public sentiment. If I should undertake to
nn iisuo between you nnd me ui
lliis subject of slavery, it would be wrong
Vetyou get up her?, nnd attempt to muke
Ihisk-ne belbretbo country. You ,,,'
mi issue upon nn immaterial unction -!''
morality, which eimply tends to excite men.
without nny pincticnl benefit.
I hope the gcmlomon will
not interrupt me further.1
ll Mr. Mnnn 'bad not been professing loyally
to thu Higher Law1 if Mr. Sutherland's
uticsl ion wns not in imim if ii
made nidi the design I attribute to it if Mr,
Mnnn did not ' avoid nny reply,' nnd if he
did not'iifk not to be interrupted' I confess
I do not understand language. I lenvo tho
reader, however, to form his own opinion.
If Mr. Mann then ma.bi, or has ever mndo
any nuswer to thu question thus put, nm!
w hich bus been often put to the Free Soilers',
I hnve never seen it.
' Tho third charge is, thnt my assertion that
Frco Suiters maintain they have no right to
intiM-fcro with slavery in theSlutce, isa'lissuo
1. In the speecli nbove quoted, Aug. 17,
1832, p. 13, Sir. Mnnn tnyt:
And now, having shown what n mighty
wrong shivery is, in nnd of iisell': hiivimr
shown what collnlornl debasement, cruelly,
ml practical atheism it geuerntes und difl'u
ses, let me ask, if the politicnl Free Soil party
do not go to the uttermost verge thnt pntriul,
moralist, or Christian enn bo. uiAen it consent)
to let slavery remain where it ut There is nu
endeavor to muke up a false issue for the
country, and tor the tribunal of history, o:i
this subject. Frco Soilers are charged with
interfering with iluvcrti within Hit iurisdirtinn
of the atales where it is. This allegation is
u-holly unfounded. Our whole effort fits been
simply lu keep it within the jurisdiction of
inn omies wnore it is. Wo would not have
it profane free territory. We would not al
low it lo dotiblo Hs present domain; we
would not see it blast with nameless nml in
numerable woes, two thirds of our ten ito-
rial area on the 1'ncifio const, oa it nlreiulv
bus two thirds on the Atlantic. ThU U .,11
we nave aont.
2. In the speech of FeU 15, 1850, Mr.
Mnnn is so fur from donying my statement,
thnt be seems never to huve heard of any.
body who did w ish to agilnte for the aboli
tion of slnvery in the Slntea. Tint is quite
probable, since now is the first time that lie
ever recognized the existence of Tuc Liber
ator. Ill tnying thnt they had no wish to
interfere with aluvery in the Stntes, have I
misrepresented the men w hom Mr. Munn de
scribes in the following extract ?
They the south complain of northern
ngitntion on the subject of slavery, nnd nor
thern instigation of tho slaves themselves.
On the subject of niiilation." I denv Hmt
the north lint ever overstepped the limits of
uicir consiiiiHioiini rights. Tltet have never
agitated the question of slavery in the states. J t
hits been only in regard lo slavery in this
District, or the unnexaliou of Texas, or Ihe
acquisition of territory for tho extension of
slavery, or the imprisonment of her own cit
izens iu southern ports, or a denial of the
inviolable right of petition ; it hns been only
on such subjects that the north lint tilled up
the voice of expostulation und remonstrance.'
In regard to instigating slaves lo escape, I
acknowledge there hnve been some iustuueet
of it ; hut they have been few. The perpe
trntnrs have been tried and severely punished,
ami the north has acquiesced.'
Mr. Mnnn will please not include the Gar
rison nholiiioniste in that 'acquiescing North.'
We claim the right to instigate slaves lo
escnpu' whenever we choose, and by no
meant 'acquiesce' in the imprisonment of
Drayton and Sayres or Torrey.
3. In a tpeech, Sep. 16, 1851, on taking
the chair of the Free Soil State Convention,
Mr. Mann quotet Webster' wordt of 1848,
and addt comment t
1 may claim to be, and may hold myself,
at good a Free Soil man at any member of
that Buffalo convention. 1 prny to know
w hut words thry con use, or can dictate to
The conslilnlion proceeds upon this doc-
i ,r."! w ,c" l P"""' f'ire oi
point. . Uhy did it not provide for the
l''' " fK'tive horse or ox? Why did
'" '"" l,rov"le ll"" ,f" "'""'or nn ox should
i "L,"l"! !''0"' n "lllve " ,re0 """u' "
?,",U.M 1)8 tltliver'1 "l'."r be recoverable by
! ""r'-" ' H' cnuso horses nml oxen
! !". ProP?rtU hy 0,0 fmnmoii ennsentof man
make I k""1' "icedt no Inw lo mnke them prop-
i e.r,-v' 1 l' y "ro properly by tho law of un-
' """',."' u,u ,'"'".,MI . y 1
'"W "' "very stale in Ibis Union, ic'ue m
o '. -ln escaped tUwe cot
I "0 . rtcovt"d befir Hie adoption of tht co
itdtttton. J lit poicer to tetu upon eicaptt
me freer than those which hnve dwelt upon
my Hps. I prny to Know wun wnni teenngt
they can inspire my breast more resolute and
firm in retittug tlavtry MTr.ssto.t on
croacrmknt, than hnve Inhabited my bosom
tine the first time 1 opened my mouth in
These, gentlemen, were bis words, spoken
nt Mnrshfield, on the first day ofSeptember,
1818. If he were here to-day to address you,
could he speak any tvorit more grateful to
! your ears?
I The italics nml cnpilnls are Mr. Munn't.
Do I misrepresent Free Soil, when their
State Convention cnu imagine no words
from Wfebsler't lips more greatful thnu tim
pie pledge against elnve 'extension or en
See also bit controversy with Badger.
Throughout bis letters In Ilndger, und bis
addresses to the Free Soil Conventions, the
inmo doctrine thnt Free Soilcrs have no
concern for stuvery in tho Stales occupies
Inrge space. It is so woven inlo the tex
ture of thoso addresses, that to quote nt nib
one must quote the whole speech,
Mr. Muun nsserts thnt the Free Soilcrs
have no dihVulty in swearing to support the
1 C""9ti""i"" ' " "'' -
iiiiiiriir.i.i.it ri, 1. , . ... ... .1.. .....t.
i--. , ic,,,inr iu on num-
lg Violation of the Higher Law of God.'
j Jt will bo rembered flint, es 1 buve shown
nbove, Mr. Mann's interpretation, the only
. , . ,. . ,
" ever nvowed, allows thnt Ihe
. Coustitututinil orders the return of fiigili
slnves. I will mid oilier citations besides
,,, ) ,mve giveil
ions, by thu English common Inw, by the
' 'J!'' u"' ont "J "" "''" adopting it.' p.
will n lllVM DKnll'mrV In Clrumt ttw't-
tnin.or In any of her colonial possessions, lie
' reclaimabli! ? Examine Somerset's case for
nnswer. ii, sir. ieiiiier the tl.ir.l
clause nf ihe second section of ihe fourth ar
ticle of the constitution, nor tho Inw of 171)1),
will ever be extended over Ihe t hree King
doms or their dependencies.' p. 215.
'Or to leave metaphor for literal speecli:
Tho constitution of the I'niled States gave
tho most 'comprehensive nnd fundamental
guaranties in favor of freedom, with here and
there only nn exception in hehnlf of slavery.
It i.f owed 'persons' who were held to ser
vice or lulior, nnd who should escape into
other stnies, lobe retaken, hut it nlsn secured
tho trial by jury lo every 'person' who sho'd
claim it on nny question of life or liberty, nml
on nil questions of property even down to
the poltry sum of twenty dollars.' p. 540.
'The constitution says, be shall be 'deliv
ered up.' There Ihe obligation of that in
strument ceuses.' p. 354.
In those claborato and ahlo arguments
against the Fugitivo Slave Law to which I
have rcfcircd, Mr. Mann ransacks the wholo
Constitution, availing himself of every word
that will strengthen his points ; but no where
does he bnso a singlo argument on this new
interpretation,' that slnves sre not roferrod to
in what is commonly called the slave clause.
IIo expatiates long and ably on the fact that
the Slave Act violates the law of God, but no
whero explicitly says that the return of a slave,
under any circumstances, or with any safe
guards, violntcs the Constitution.
Now the question which I have so often
asked of Mr. Mann and his friends, and which
Mr. Sutherland asked him, I repeat : Do Free
Soilcrs, confessing that the Constitution orders
the return of fugitive slaves, still find no dif
ficulty in swearing to support' it, and maintain
that it requires nothing ' in violation of the law
This question I have been putting to Mr.
Mann and other Free Soilcrs for years. Iu
this very letter, there is tho same lack of ex
plicitness. After all, Mr. Mann doea not tell
us what tho interpretation' is which Free
Soilers put upon the Constitution. Tho Whigs
hsvo, it seems, asked the same question before.
What answer they got, we see in Mr. Mann's
speooh, Sept. 18, 1851. Of thoir address, he
It goes into an nlnbornto palliation of the
Fugitive Sluve Inw itself. It first attempts
to slult the question by uskiug the Free
Soilcr whnt they would do with regard to
the constitutional provision respecting es
caped slaves. The views of the Free Soil
party on this point, and their purpose of
fidulity to the constitution, have been set forth
n hundred times. Ju further nnswer, there
fore, to this question, I trust it is only neces
sary to remark, that the Freo Soil parly will
do wluit they say, and not pass ten lung years
in asserting, und protesting, and resolving,
and calling Earth and Heaven to witness
thoir devotion to Freedom, nnd then disavow
nil they had ever avowed, and furswear their
Now, I frankly tell Mr. Mann, I shall con
tinue to crltieiso his speeches snd those of his
frionds, till I get a definite and explicit answer
to threo questions I
1st. Do, thoy, or do thoy not, boliove that
the Constitution orders the return of fugitive
tlavos ? On this quostion Mr. Manr. was frank
until this prosent lottor, which seems to throw
a oloud about it. His friends have been some
what obscure for years.
2d. If they think the Constitution does so
order, how do they justify themselves in
swearing to support it ?
Sd. If they have any other private Interpre
tation, how do thoy justify themselves in
keeping such construction to themselves?
And how, while the nation and the Supreme
Court construe it otherwise, do they honest
Itatosmen, justify themselves in swearing to
support the Constitution, In a sense which they
know is not the sonse in which the nation ac
cepts their osth ?
A promise it binding in that sense In which
the promisor knows the promisee undsnta'nds
it. And so of Mr. Mann't oath to the Consti
tution. The nation the ichol nation and
he, are the parties to that promise. Use he
any doubt in what sense the nation understands
his oath ? ' T
This is not tho first time that I have been
called to allude to Mr. Mann's want of frank
ness. It is only within a very few yesrt, flist
ho hns opened his mouth on the subject of
slavery. For yesrs, es Secretary of the Board
of Education, he preserved a profound eilence,
while his intiinstc friends were sure he wat an
snti- slavery man nt heart. At that time, I had
occasion to criticise tho?.e statement in his Re
ports of half truth nn.I concealment of rest
facts that threaten harm to the colored man'.
Tho moat honorable excuse for him wss, that
his philosophy deemed it right to sacrifice the
slavo and the free colored mnn, in order to se
cure for himself a wider influence, and for tha
white rnco a better education. I had no reason,
therefore, to be eurpriaed thnt ho carried into
politics the tame habit. When he first entered
Congress, it was by Whig nomination and
though elected, doubtless, by the voles of the
anti-slsvcry party, ho would give them, no
public recognition. They acquiescod In this,
ss likely to leave him stronger with his own
party, and relied on his private assurances. I
rejoice to ssy they wcro not deceived. But
tho course was ono which tallied well with Ihe
philosophy of his previous years. ' ' "'
As to Mr. Mann's remark about ' plagiarism,'
if ho will road my speech attentively, he eial
seo I do not chargo plagiarism on any one.
I hnve no apology to insko to Mr. Mnnn- - f
cannot see that I havo dono him. any inpistio.
Perhaps I do injustice to the Free Soilcrs,. in
allowing Mr. Mnnn to speak for them. Though
they havo recently put him at the head of , their
State Convention, I know public rumor assort
ed that he never accepted their nomination until
ho found himself unabto to get a Whig qne ;
and as late as tho full of 1830, he voted, lie
says, tho whole Whig ticket. ' Aa lato as Maj
1850, ho was lauding the Whig party, and pro
nouncing Ueneral Taylor 'an anti-slavery itiin'
though o little later he could describe him as
' the hero of the Florida war, as great an 6ut
rage against a race as ever Rome or Russia
committed. Ho had been a prominent, and, 'a)
many believed, a willing instrument In sptlfing
Iho blood of a sister republic. Kvon sheald
tho executivo divest him of military oommsnd
or he should grjw too old tor service, wis
universally known that there was a fulU black
battalion on hit own plantation, which.' a
would always commond.' 1 cannot, therefore
allow Mr. Mann to talk very loudly cf-, re(soks
ing to fellow tho pohticul party with which if
had acted.' , ..
As to his criticism of my manner, his letter
hat obliged me to look again over hit volume;
and if he could lay what I find in hit Letter t
Webster, I believe every psrt of my 'Letter,',
to bo within the bounds of courteous and ttt
pectful discussion; thero is nothing in il which,
might rot poss between gentlemen, stithou
interrupting relations of civility or friendship,
I think 1 may claim as much for my remarks.
If, quoting again his own words, I remind hint
that, 'among geiitlcmon, no insult Is ever of-:
fored where none it intended : there may be
heedlessness of conduct, there may be an urfi
intentional wounding of sensibilities ; hut thtre
con be no affront whero tho design to affront ir
wanting : he is not a gentleman, but a poltroon
and a braggart, who pretends ho is intuited,
snd proceeds to rctnliato for tho affront, when,
all insult and all r ffiont are tinccrcly disclaim,
ed,' I trust ho will sec no occasion to make
tho present rase an exception to that very em
phatio and sensible remark.
Tho tpirii nml language of hit lottor I cannot
detcend to criticise. His rulo it, still, I sup
pose, at ho told Mr. Wcbtter, that when your"
opponent indulges in 'angry and roproaohful
lsnguugc, it rolesses you from all furthor obli-,
gut ion to treat him with personal regard.' Had
I indulged uny unbecoming language, I should
not consider that fact any justification to Mr,
Mann ; for I cannot assent to auch a canon. '
On tho contrury, I hold mysolf bound as a '
gentleman to treat evtry man with courtesy,
no matter how grossly any one may fail la
oourtcty to me.
The "Negro Law."
The Legil re of Illinois lint just pnised
a luw to prevent lliu migration of free ne
groes to Hmt Stale, which is cuusing great
excitement nmnng , p,.p0. Tlier are,
provisions iu this law of thu must iliulxdical
nature, revolting alike to humanity mK j,,-,
The Chicago Duniocriilic Press, iu regard
to this law, bus the following:
" Iu the first place, we regard ihe law
unconstitutional. Almoin every section of
it bears that fuel piomini.iiy upon ill face.
e do not believe there is H Judgtl within
Hie Mule hut will so decide, should an at.
tempi be made lo enforce the law. Iu North
ern Illinois, it will Im, dead letter, under
any and every circuinslunce, and we very
much doubt whether such will not be the esse '
in most of the counties iu the southern nor.
tiont of the Slate. We presume tome me..
Hires will be taken to lest iltr.oiisiiiulionalil
at nu enrlv duv. without ,.;,i .i
ulur operation of the law.
H In the next nlaen w . ..... i.
, ...... wiiiiumju la h
on the ground of its practically disusing
. - siav state. ..W
do not BviniathuM will. iKa.u ukA .,1
- ...... xiKsni t IIW KUTUCIlf
the immediate and indiscriminate abolition
oralavery. Such a termination of the eve- .
tern is neither practicable, wise or human,
f reedom is a state which require soma fur
t ier degree of preparation for i la enjoy meol .
man the srent maaa nf uu .i " c..:u
possess. But while we are oppoeed to the)
enforcement of the dogma of th hnnwdk.