OCR Interpretation


The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, October 07, 1859, Image 1

Image and text provided by Minnesota Historical Society; Saint Paul, MN

Persistent link: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016751/1859-10-07/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?


Thumbnail for

VOL. XI—NO. 24.
CAMPAIGN SONG—Revised Edition.
Got up for the Pioeeer and Democrat, an l RespeclfiiU*
Inscribed to Billy Hubbell, of Winona, a sterling
Democrat —Tu*E—“JrfsA Holy, O."
BY JEROMES JAYIIAWK.
Come one. come all, good Democrats,
And rail} - round our flag,
To tight the Black Republicans,
Who play the game of brag.
We’ll meet them in discussion, 0,
We’ll meet them at the polls,
We’ll beat these same old coons again,
And drive them to their holes.
Chords.— We’ll make them face the music, O,
And then we’ll make them run,
Ou! on the next election day
We ll have a deal of fun!
Repeat, with h'ary s>ress on “Oh!" by the whole
compau.
We ll send them up Salt River
To their dirty homes again,
We’ll give them no fresh water.
But Democrats reign ;
Bluff Aleck shall be captain, 0,
And Goodrich man the gun.
And Ignatius blow the bugle
While Bill Wiudom beats the drum
Chords —We’ll, etc.
Aldrich shall do the sparring
When the boat gets on a bar,
And if he can sweat a barrel
He will surely do it thar !
Young Scheffer shall be purser, O,
And Cole shall be the clerk,
And Baker, from Ohio State,
Shall do the dirty work.
Chords —We’ll, etc.
In the boat Repudiation, O,
A craft of their own make,
With Swizzle’em for cabin maid,
They all will passage take ;
Bold Banning, he shall pilot them
Past all the dangerous banka,
And Foster black the boots and shoes
Of all those in the ranks.
Chords. —We’ll, etc.
October twelfth the boat will start,
And we shall bid adieu
To those poor Black Republicans,
A sorry hearted crew ;
Then all aboard ye lean and streak'd.
And you who Nothing Know,
For to the head of Salt River
You’re book'd that day to go !
Chorus— We’ll, etc.
Important Document
Read! Read! Read!
A Letter from Senator Rice, on the
Homestead Bill, and the Land,
Record of the Republicans.
TO THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA.
On my return home, I learned that seve
ral prominent Republicans from other States
were here, endeavoring to induce the people
to believe that I had opposed the passage ol
the Homestead Bill. These same gentlemen
have said to our citizens tbatjf they wish
for “ homes for the homeless,” they must
vote the Republican ticket.
A few facts will, I trust, show the insin
cerity of those who have travelled so far to
enlighten the people of this State. The bill
came up in the Senate upon three occasions.
It was first called up by Mr. Wade, of
Ohio. Gen. Shields and myself both voted
for taking it up. This was on the 17th day
of February last. On the 26th of the same
month, Senator Doolittle moved to post
pone the Cuba Bill and take up the Home
stead Bill. This was late at night, and at
a time when every Senator knew that the
bill could not be reached. Appeal after
appeal was made to Mr. Doolittle to with
draw his motion ; in proof of which I make
the following extracts from the Globe :
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I wish to call
the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin to
a single point. He knows that I have been the
early and consistent friend of the homestead
proposition. 1 advocated that measure when
it had but few friends; I have advocated it
since it has had many friends. We struggled
with it through one branch of Congress, and
we have it now before the Senate for action.
1 wish merely to suggest, in this connection,
that while I am for it, and intend to vote for it,
and speak for it until I am really satisfied that
it is either to be postponed finally, or to be
come the law, I hope the Senator, in the pres
ent state of affairs, with another question be
fore the Senate, and Senators willing to speak
upon it, and all prepared to vote upon it, will
withdraw his motion. It is not worth while to
antagonize with tne pending question, when it
actually weakens the proposition, and certain
ly cannot advance it. lam as much for the
measure as the Senator from Wisconsin can be,
and I was almost going to say that I am more
for it than he can be. I hope he will withdraw
his proposition, and let us have action on the
subject now before the Senate. The course
which he is taking cannot strengthen the home
stead measure. It will give ,t no votes, and in
the present state of affairs and business before
the Senate, 1 am satisfied that there are many
Senators who are in favor of the homestead
bill who will vote against postponing this bill
at the present time. 1 trust, then, he will with
draw his motion, and let it be understeod that
so soon as the Cuba question is disposed of, we
shall make one common ana united effort to
bring up the homestead bill and procure the
action of the Senate upon it.
Mr.. DOUGLAS. I had only a word to say,
and the Senator from Tennessee has said that
in about the form that I should have done. I
think it is unwise in the friends of the home
stead bill to occupy time by crossing motions
in this way and thus defeating the bill, when if
we will consider one question at a time, we
shall have ample opportunity to dispose of
both. The right way now to pass the home
stead bill, and the only chance it has, is to
stand by the Cuba bill until we get through
with it. then take up the homestead bill, and go
on with that until we get through with it, and
then take up the appropriation bills and get
through with them. Let us take up one meas
ure at a time, as we reach it. I voted to give
the homestead bill priority over the Cuba bill;
but this being up, as a friend of the homestead
measure, I think the surest way to pass it is to
stand by this bill until we dispose of it, and
then take up the homestead bill.
Mr. CLARK. As a friend of the Homestead
Bill I do not want to lose any votes for it by
pressing it at an unseasonable hour. I think
this is an unseasonable hour to press that or any
other bill [fifteen minutes past nine o’clock.]
I therefore move that the Senate adjourn, and
on that motion I ask the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. RICE. If there is any one measure before
the Senate that I desire to pass it is the Home
stead Bill; but I believe that every effort made
by those who advocate it to call it up on an
occasion like this, will but weaken the measure.
It is certain that it cannot be brought-up now;
it has not the votes here to do it; and the ten
dency of every effort which is made, and which
results in a failure, is to weaken the measure.
I hope, therefore, the Senator from Wisconsin
will withdraw his motion. I ask this as a friend
of the measure; and believing him to be a
friend of it, I ask him to withdraw his motion.
Mr. BROWN. There is no necessary antago
nism between these two measures. The Cuba
question is now befora the Senate, and its
friends mean to press it to a vote. There ought
not to be, therefore, any purpose on the part
of the friends of the Homestead Bill to thrust
it in at this stage of proceedings. I shall not
vote for the Homestead Bill, although 1 am not
particularly unfriendly to it. I will say to my
friend from Wisconsin, that if he will now with
draw his motion. I will, as soon as the Cuba
Bill is disposed of, vote with him to take up the
Homestead Bill. I want to get along with one
thing at a time. lam willing to bring it before
the Senate on a proper occasion, and let tlm
Senate dispose of it as they may determine, l
hope the friends of that measure will not press
it now, nor fritter away our time by making
one measure clash with another.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. I make an
appeal to the Senator from Wisconsin, as a
friend of the Homestead measure, to withdraw
his proposition for the present.
Yet, notwithstanding these appeals, Mr.
Doolittle pushed his motion to a vote, thus
doing all in bis power to strangle the bill.
I voted against postponing the business
then before the Senate. I was in duty
bound so to do, and I did it believing that
it was the most certain course to pursue to
reach the Homestead Bill—as by reference
to the journal it must appear clear to every
one that the only object our opponents had
was to embarrass, delay, and put over every
important measure, for the purpose of secur
ing an extra session of Congress, injhopes
thereby to secure the organization of the
House.
On the first day of March, Mr. Pugh, a
Democratic Senator, moved to postpone a
private bill for the purpose of taking up the
Homestead, and upon that occasion both
my colleague and self voted with the other
friends of the bill. Ido not see that the
Republicans have given us credit for this—
on the contrary they say that we “ stood
nobly by the bill up the 26th of February,
and then deserted it.” By reference to the
Glebe of March Ist, page 1433, vol. 2d, last
session, they will find that both Shields and
Rice were then, the last time the measure
was up, supporting it.
I was anxious that action should
have been taken, yet I did not like all
the details of the bill ; and Mr. Grow,
the author, was either insincere in his pro
fessions to aid the landless, or most blindly
ignorant of our land system. The bill
only gave to the settler lands that had been
surveyed and had been put into market,
thus depriving them of all except those that
speculators would not have, and to effectu
ally keep the best lands from going into the
hands of the “ landless,” and to keep them
until the Republicans shall be strong enough
to appropriate them for agricultural colleges,
canals, and like purposes. Mr. Grow mover
to amend the pre-emption bill, so as to pre
vent the President from putting any lands
into market until ten years after the sur
vey. See Globe, Part Ist, last session, page
493. Mr. Grow will not say that the pro
visions of his bill extended to any other
than the lands now private entry,
and I regret to learn that any other person
of intelligence should attempt to make the
laboring men of Minnesota believe other
wise. I trust that the rt cords will show
that the Republicans in Congress, as a party,
were opposed to a Homestead Bill—not
openly like men, but secretly—and in proof
of this I beg to call your attention to a few
facts, to show what real disposition that
party wished to make of the public lands,
and then leave not only the landless of Min
nesota, but the thousands now in want of
work and of bread, to judge for themselves.
Oo the 21st day of December, 1857, Sen
ator W ilson, of Massachusetts, one of the
Republican leaders, gave notice to the Sen
ate that he would introduce a bill “appropri
ating one million of acres of the public lands
of the United States for the benefit of free
public schools in the District of Columbia.”
Was this giving land to the landless? was
this giving land to the freemen of the north
to educate their children? No! it was
taking from the North lands made valuable
by the labor of the landless, and giving them
to the rich of the South. On Tuesday, the
28th day of December, 1858, this same
Senator W ilson gave notice that he would
introduce a bill for the same purpose.
Turning back to 17th December, 1857, I
find that he then gave a similar notice of his
intention to astf one million of acres of land
to aid in educating the children of the cities
of Washington and Georgetown. How
SAINT PAUL, FRIDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1859
many such Republican friends would it lake
to ruin every man within our State?
As early as December, 1858, Mr. Seward
urged immediate action upon the Agri
cultural College Bill. This bill was kept
ahead of the Homestead Bill, and by unti
ring efforts, the Republicans succeeded in
forcing it through both branches of Con
gress; and had a Republican filled the Pres
idential chair, it would have become a law,
and there would now be left within our
limits but a small quantity of good land for
the honest settler; but you could by going
to Maine or Connecticut, or some other
State, purchase from one of these Agricul
tural Colleges, or of their agents, land for
from five to ten dollars, perhaps more, per
acre.
This outrageous measure received the
support of Hale, Chandler, Grow and the
entire Republican party. Had it become a
law, where would the poor man have found
land under Mr. Grow’s Homestead Bill?
Homes for the homeless indeed ! I trust you
will not be deceived by men who wish to
secure your votes to enable them hereafter
to rob us ot the lands wanted for future cul
tivation.
By reference to my remarks upon this
bill, you will find that I spoke of another
Republican devise for taking our lands and
giving them to a corporation within the
State of New York, to aid in building a
ship canal around the Falls of Niagara.
That measure asked for three millions of
acres to be takeu from the State of Minne
sota. Fellow citizens, in all candor let me
ask you, if any Homestead Bill would have
aided you, had the Republicans been success
ful in passing their several land measures ?
I have already mentioned enough to take
from our midst nine millions of acres. I
deem it my duty to bring these facts to
your attention, and if hereafter men elevated
to power by your votes, shall deprive you of
the right to purchase homes at the present
rates, and compel you to purchase of States
and corporations at speculative prices, you
must remember that you were warned of
the consequences.
Particularly do I wish to call the atten
tion of the laboring men to the course
pursued by Seward, Hale, Chandler and
other Republicans in regard to the Pacific
Railroad. The Bill which was reported by
a select committee of nine, provided for oue
route, and that a central so-called route,
although, in fact, a Southern one. Wm.
H. Seward was upon that committee.
When the Bill was under consideration,!
moved an amendment so as to place the
North upon a footing with the central part
of our country; but the amendment was
rejected, and by the votes of Seward,
Hale, Chandler, Trumbull, Wade,
Wilson and others. Thus you can see
how much these political missionaries cared
for the interests of the people of the North.
Again—when I brought forward the
only practicable Homestead Bill that was
up before the Senate, a substitute for the
Pacific Railroad, a bill providing for a
Northern route, and placing the lands at
five cents per acre on the line, these very men
voted against it. They not only voted
against giving us a Northern route, but
against giving us an opportunity to com
pete with the other portions of the Union
for the same. They voted against giving
you the public lands at five cents per acre.
Yet they now tell you that they were in
favor of a Homestead Bill. For giving us
a Northern Railroad to the Pacific, for
giving the landless of the North land at
five cents per acre, for giving the laboring
men of Minnesota work, but two Republi
cans in the United States Senate voted—and
those two were Collamer of Vermont,
and Doolittle of Wisconsin. Had Mr.
Seward and his friends got through their
bill, the people would have been compelled
to have paid in taxes over one hundred
million of dollars towards constructing a
railroad hundreds of miles from the State
of Minnesota ; a work so far distant that
not one of you could have obtained a day’s
employment—a work so far off that our
farmers could not have sold to the laborers
a dollar’s worth of produce. I mention
these things to warn you of the coming
danger should you place the party in power
that has so unmistakably pointed out the
course it will pursue.
On the 22d of April, 1858, Mr. Seward,
the Republican Presidential aspirant, intro
duced into the United States Senate “A
Bill to secure the prompt construction of a
line of Telegraph from San to
Fort Smith, and from Fort Smith to St.
Louis, in Missouri, and Memphis, in Ten
nessee.” Was this measure lor the benfit ot
the N orth ?
In the same year, January 21st, Mr. Yu
lee, a Democratic Senator from Florida,
gave notice that he would introduce a bill
giving to the States all the public lands
within their limits, which, had it become a
law, would have done more for Minnesota
than all other bills ever introduced. Thus,
you see a National man of the South com
ing forward to aid us, and a sectional man
of the North, with no other political capital
than abuse for Southern men, refusing upon
all important occasions to aid the free white
man.
By many, it is believed that the next
Presidential election will go to the House
of Representatives. Hence the efforts made
by Republicans from abroad to carry this
State. Should the election be thrown into
the House, you can see the importance of
sending two men to represent you in the
House, who will under no circumstances
cast their votes for a man who has here
tofore doue all in his power to take
from us, and give to the rich old States,
the last acre of public lands within our
limits. For a judicious disposition of the
public lands—for the speedy opening up
of a Northern route to the Pacific—
and the placi% of the lauds on the line
within the reach of every man, your only
hope lies in the Democratic party. I refer
yon to the record—it shows for itself—and
as the evils of bad legislation will fall the
most heavy upon you, and if hundreds of
millions of dollar are appropriated to build
a Railroad from Missouri to California, you
will be the ones by whom the tax will be the
most severely felt, I invite your mo3t
earnest attention to all the facts—trusting
that you will not permit any local, personal,
or fancied consideration to bias your action.
For six years, fellow citizens, I have had
your confidence, and have acted as your
representative; and this is the first time I
have addressed you, and even now, had not
false charges been made in regard to my
course, and the policy of the Demrocratic
party, I should have remained silent.
Your Ob’t Ser’t, HENRY M. RICE.
GREAT MEETING AT C(MERfHALL.
GOV. A. P. WILLARD, OF INDIANA
Tlie Speech of the Canvass.'
Thrilling Enthusiasm.
On Monday evening Concert Hall was
“ rammed, jammed, and packed” with our
citizens, anxious to hear Governor*A~. P.
Willard, of Indiana. We have no hesi
tation in saying that the audience there
assembled,exceeded in numbers, intelligence
andenthusiasm, anyjpublic meeting ever con
vened in this city. Every available corner
of the hall—the aisles, the window-sills,
and the stairways, were covered with live
Democrats. The hall, large as it is, could
not contain the number who desired to hear
the speaker, and many persons were forced
to leave, not being able to effect an entrance
into the room. The enthusiasm manifested
exceeded anything that has been witnessed
in the canvass. The cheers and hurras of
the immense crowd, fairly shook the build
ing.
Before the regular hour of the Club meet
ing had arrived, the hall being full, Wm.
Sprigg Hall, Esq., introduced in an ap
propriate style, Governor Willard, who
had previously ascended the speaker’s stand,
accompanied by Gov. Sibley. The former,
on rising to address the audience, was re
ceived with hearty cheers.
Governor Willard commenced by ex
pressing his cordial thanks for the generous
and heartfelt reception tendered him. There
were doubtless, before him, many children
of his native State, New York ; and many
others from the State of hi 3 adoption—
Indiana—a State he loved better than all oth
ers, because she had loved and honored him.
He was startled on arriving here, to find a
city like St. Paul, which eight years ago,
had barely an existence and a name. Min
nesota, too, now takes a front rank among
the States, in position, in extent, and im
portance ; and she would maintain that
rank while she proved loyal to the Constitu
tion and faithful to the integrity of the
Union.
OUR STATE POLICY.
The speaker knew nothing of our State
affairs, nor of our quarrels and differences
about men. He could quarrel with the
Republicans, but never could take part in
differences among Democrats. Minnesota
was almost the youngest daughter of the
Union. She was the child of the Democ
racy. (cheers.) We welcomed her into the
confederacy of American States, when the
Republicans said she should cot come in.
Yet these same Republicans were now
seeking to degrade and debauch Minnesota
—to rob her of her dearest jewel—her pub
lic virtue. Minnesota has given her bond;
they cry repudiate it. (Cheers.) They
would have repudiation your first act. He
did not know whether our past policy as a
State was right; but if your bond has been
given, and au obligation assumed under the
broad seal of the State, stand to it like men.
Such conduct will do you no harm, but add
lustre to your already spotless honor.
(Cheers.)
Many years ago the speaker had wandered
from his native State of New York, and by
chance became a citizen of Indiana. In
diana had been under opposition rule up to
1843. She had, while under that rule,
failed to meet her just indebtedness, and
pay the interest on bonds issued. The De
mocracy came into power in 1843, and like
all honest p arties should do, promptly as
sumed and met the obligations resting upon
the State. We, as a State, were then
worth 8100,000,000, and had forty miles of
Railroad. From that day to this, Demo
cratic have governed Indiana.
The State has always met promptly the in
terest on her public debt. And to-day, as
a consequence of this honest policy, the
taxable property of Indiana amounts to
§485,000,000; we have completed 1,500
miles of Railway, at a cost of §40,000,000.
That shows what an honest policy does for
a State. (Uproarous cheering.) Take a
boy, and let him, upon his entrance in life,
borrow §SO, and afterwards repudiate
the debt, and while God lets him live he
never would get another cent (laughter).
The same rule which governs the acts of
men—which conduces to their prosperity or
brings on them disgrace—operates on
States. The speaker referred to the United
States government. It could send to Lon
don, and borrow England’s money cheaper
and more readily than England herself could
do. The reason of this is, because the
United States has always met promptly the
interest and principal of her public indebt
edness.
The speiker invoked the people of Min
nesota to stand by the honor of the State.
Lose that, and every thing was gone.
Sacrifice your land, your houses, aye your
very cattle, but lor God’s sake, and for that
of your children, maintain inviolate your
plighted faith. In thirty years from now—
and that was but as a moment in the history
of a State—the people of Minnesota would
thank him that he had given this advice.
(Cheers.)
THE “ NIGGER.”
The speaker said he came now to con
sider that particularly interesting, but re
markably novel subject, “ the nigger.” He
bad started out in political life a very young
man, and when other questions excited the
public mind. Previous to the canvass of
1844, the political parties into which the
people of the country divided, did not talk
of what should be the condition of the ne
gro ; but where the white man stood, and
what could be done to promote the inter
ests of the white man. But a little
band of Abolitionists thought this was not
right. They werd too good and too pure
to act with either the Whigs or the Demo
crats. They could not consider the inter
ests of the white man; the negro—the
negro—was the burthen of their soeg. f'l he
Whig party passed away. The issues which
it sought to engraft upon the policy of the
country, become obsolete. The great lead
ers of that party--the champions whose
mighty genius gave it power and influence
were in their graves; and then, there sprung
up a new organization —the Repub
lican party. It was made up mostly of
Whigs, with a sprinkling of Democrats;
but they were both -ashamed to take the
lead in this new party, so they put
this Abolition gang at its head, and there
they are now— Giddings, Seward, Hale,
and the rest of them. (Great cheering.)
POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY.
Tne speaker proceeded to discuss the rise
of the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty,
from 1848, when the Democracy were divid
ed on the subject, and when Gen. Gass,
the Democratic candidate for the Presi
dency, first enunciated the right of the
people of the Territories to regulate
their local affairs in their own way, down
to the Presidential election of 1856. He
showed that in 1850, this doctrine of non
interference was advocated by Cass, Clay,
Fillmore, Webster and others ; that it
was then fought and opposed by Giddings,
Seward, Gerrit Smith, Chase and all the
Abolitionists; that in 1852, the Whigs and
Democrats united in battling for it ; that in
1854 it was engrafted on the Kan3as-Ne
braska bill, when the Republican party was
formed in opposition to the principle, with
the cry that the Democracy favored the ex
tension of slavery. We were, the truth was,
extending freedom to white men, by per
mitting them to be their own rulers, and
manage their own affairs. The New
England Republican notion was, that
the further west a man went, the bigger
fool he gets to be. If a western farmer
sends one of his boys west, he fills up his
wagon with bacon and salt and flour, but
says nothing about the nigger. The New
Englander fills the emigrants’ pockets with
anti slavery tracts, and then lets him “ hoe
his own roe.” (Laughter.) The speaker
weut into an examination of Western char
acter, showing that if there was a class of
people on earth, capable of governing them
selves wisely, it was the pioneer settlers of
the Western Territories.
DRED SCOTT DECISION.
The Supreme Court, in this decision, had
merely decided that a black man was tot a
white man; and that he, the dark man
could not, therefore, become a citizen of the
United States. When the Constitution was
formed there were bondsmen in every State
save one. The framers ot the Constitution
deliberated long and well; their mission was
to establish liberty and a constitutional gov
ernment. They came from the battle fields
of the Revolution, to form our organic law.
and sat down with the beloved Washington
at their head. They found the negro a
bondsman in the States already organized,
and they left him so. But they declared
that States seeking admission into the con
federacy should decide for themselves
whether they would or would not tolerate
slavery.
fugitive slave law.
Nor would the founders of the Constitu
tion permit the people of one State to be
thieves or those of another to be robbed.
He referred to the Fugitive Slave Law.
The people of Pennsylvania, in the Consti-
NEW SERIES-NO. 198.
tution, said to those of Virginia, you shall
not steal from us, and we will not steal from
you. The speaker here read the provision
from the Constitution in regard to the re
clamation of fugitives from labor, and point
ed to the signature of “ George Washing
ton” thereto appended. Vet, said he,
Washington, if now living, for that act
would be denied admission into Heaven by
hundreds of Abolition preachers.
NEGROES NOT SO BADLY OFF
The negroes were stolen from Africa
and brought to this country, and were
sold into slavery, by the ancestors of
these same New Englanders who now
denounce slavery. The speaker did not be
lieve the negro so badly ofl in a philanthrop
ic point of view, for his having been trans
ferred from benighted Africa to enlightened
America. What has been the result of the
trade pursued in Africans by the ancestors
of the present citizens of New England? It is
200 years since the introduction of Africans
into this country, and to-day their number
amounts to 4,000,000 ; in that 200 years
700,000 had died in full communion with the
Christian church, and to-day, of the total
African population in this country, 400,000
are members of the church of Christ. How
is it in Africa ? In that 200 years, with
all the efforts of opulent missionary societies,
not one copy of the Bible of the living
God had been carried into the interior.
The speaker mentioned these facts, to
answer back the pharasaical cant of the
men who claim, “ we are better than you.”
NEGRO EQUALITY
If the Supreme Court had decided other
wise than it had done in the Dred Scott
case, viz : that negroes could not become
citizens of the United States, every negro
now held in bondage would have become a
freeman, by virtue of a provision in the
Constitution of the United States, extend
ing the protection of government to all citi
zens. What would you have done, Messrs.
Republicans, with the negro when you got
him free? Would you take him and make
him your equal in the church, in the marts
of commerce, or in the family circle ? I
answer for you, no ! When has ever one
proud race been merged aud amalgamated
in or with the blood of an inferior oue ?
Never!
THE “ irrepressible conflict.”
While Lincoln, Seward and Chase ac
knowledge that the Democracy have secur
ed all the free States and free Territories,
they say there is an “ irrepressible conflict ”
existing between us and the men of the
South, and we cannot live with them. We
must be all free or all slave. The speaker
here referred to the commercial relations
existing between Minnesota and the South ;
bow they received our lumber and produce
in exchange for their sugar and molasses,
the fruits of slave labor. Say we separated,
said he, would not you men of Minnesota
trade as cheerfully with the men of the
South as you do now ? England with all her
hostility to slavery, does not refuse to take
from the South cotton, and with it, she
furnishes employment for hundreds of thous
ands of her laborers. Even the United
States, but a short time since, sent her
fleets to a barbarous nation, to compel the
opening of ports to the trade of the world.
Yet in the face of these facts, they say
we cannot live together, except we are
all slave or all free. The men of the
South and the men of the North, stood
shoulder to shoulder in the war of the revo
lution. Washngton thought it no digrace
to drive the British from Boston, or
Morgan, with his Southern riflemen,
to encompass Burgoyne’s defeat at Sara
toga ; neitheir did the Quaker, Greene,
of Rhode Island, deem it wrong to
unsheathe his sword and drive the
British from the Carolinas. Our Fathers
bled side by side, and were buried in the
same graves; they bequeathed the common
inheritance of liberty and union to their
children ; they implored them to be broth
ers. Oh, let it be so. Go on, a united
people. Hold fast to the Government as
created by our Fathers—adhering to it with
fidelity and patriotism. Pour into this, our
country, every child from a foreign land
who loves liberty. And if we have not
enough of land, for the millions who seek
to live under our institutions, send out our
eagle, and bring in new Territories. If he
caft find no better resting place, let his talons
fall upon Cuba. Go on, conquering, until
this great continent is ours, and the islands
of the seas are sentries at our doors. Stand
faithful to the Constitution ! Execute your
part of the contract !
Within a year 500.000 men have been
marshalled on the plains of Italy, to see
whether a little Territory, not half the size
of Minnesota, should make its own laws.
Divide this empire, and instead of a stand
ing army of 15,000 men, it would take
600,000 to defend the boundaries of the
Northern and Southern States. Who
would feed and support these soldiers but
the laborers and industry of the country.
The soldier exists by the toil of the pro
ducer. Let 3,000,000 of voters be. our
standing army ; their farms fortresses, and
their weaponsithe ballot (loud and prolonged
cheering).
The above is a meagre synopsis, imper
fectly taken and hastely written. When he
left the hall, Gov. Willard was greeted
with three cheers as hearty as a thousand
Democratic throats could utter them.

xml | txt