Keowee Courier

SPEECH OF THE HON. JAMES L. ORR

OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

On the slavery Question, delivered in the House

of

Representatives; May 8, 1850.

The House being in Committee of the Whole

on the Union, on the President's Message trans-

mitting the Constitution of California-

Mr. Orr said:

Mr. Chairman: I propose, in the brief hour

allotted to me, to examine and present what I

conceive to be Northern sentiment upon the

subject of slavery, and the inevitable results of

that sentiment.

I believe, Sir, there is much misunderstanding,

both at the North and the South, as to the ex-

tent and character of that feeling. I know the

misapprehension that exists in that part

of the country which I have the honor

to represent, and I desire to lay before my con-

stituents and the people of the South the re-

sult of my observation since I have been a

member of this House, so that they may be

prepared to judge of the proper means of meet-

ing, counteracting and repelling that senti-

ment.

The first evidence of abolition sentiment in

the Northern States to which I refer, is to be

found in the numerous abolition societies organ-

ised in every part of that section of the Union.

composed of large numbers of all classes and

sexes. These societies meet at stated periods,

for the avowed purpose of advancing their po-

litical and moral tenets; they appoint their em-

issaries, who traverse the country, and who, by

their slanders, poison the minds of the masses

of the people as to the true character of the in-

stitution of slavery. They have established

newspapers and periodicals, which are circula-

ted in great profusion, not only in the non-slave

holding States, but are thrown broadcast over

the South, through the mails, for the purpose of

planting the thorn of discontent in the bosoms

of our now happy slaves, and inciting them to

the perpetration of the bloody scenes of St.

Domingo. These auxiliaries of the American

Anti-slavery Society, not content with a gener-

al combination against the institutions of the

South, form a component part of the American

and Foreign Anti-slavery Society, in which

they unite with the zealots of foreign countries

in an unjust crusade against their brethren of

the South. Most of the avowed abolitionists

have, however, the merit of frankness at least.

They seek to emancipate our slaves, it is true,

but concede that it cannot be done consistently

with the Constitution; they therefore declare

an uncompromising war against the Constitu-

tion and the Union; while others, who intend to

effect the same end, have not the candor to

own it, and hypocritically profess an attach-

ment to the Constitution which they are really

seeking to destroy.

Another evidence of the extent of abolition

sentiment in the Northern States is, the pro-

motion of certain gentlemen to seats in the oth-

er wing of this Capitol. I allude, sir, first to

the election of Wm. H. Seward. It might be

that this 'faction,' as the abolitionists have been

denominated, could, through their societies and

conventions, create some attention, and excite

the contempt of sensible moderate men, for

their fanaticism; but I would inquire, how

comes it to pass that, insignificant as it is said

to be, it is enabled to elect from the great State

of New York—the Empire State—a man to

represent it in the Senate of the United States.

whose greatest distinction has been his unti-

ring advocacy of the doctrines of abolition?

Does it not show that the major part of the

people of that State sympathize deeply with,

their Senator in his nefarious principles? Look

at the recent election by the Legislature of

Ohio—a State in numbers second only to New

York—of S. P. Chase, to represent that State

in the Senate of the United States. He has

been amongst the most zealous of his infat-

uated compeers: even Wm. H. Seward was

not more so, in the advocacy of radical aboli-

tion, and the Legislature of Ohio, knowing his

sentiments, and representing the people of

that State, have honored him with one of the

highest official stations on earth. Others, too,

have been elected to that body, who owe their

promotion to pledges given their constituents,

that they would oppose the admission of any

more slave States or slave territory into the

Union, and favor the application of the Wilmot

Proviso—that true scion from an abolition

stock—to the territories acquired from Mexico.

One would suppose that when a Senator avow-

ed that, acting as a Senator, he recognized a

higher obligation than his oath to support the

Constitution of the United States—an obliga-

tion which requires him to violate and set aside

the provisions of that sacred instrument—the

Legislature of his State, then in session would

have promptly branded such a declaration with

the infamy it deserves. Such a declaration, it

is known to the country, was recently made

in the Senate by the Senator from New York

to whom I have alluded—but the Legislature

of that State adopted no resolutions condemna-

tory of this sentiment.

They did, however, pass resolutions, with

great unanimity, sustaining fully the ultra po-

sitions of their distinguished—no, their notori-

ous senator. Resolutions have been adopted in

every non-slaveholding state; instructing their

senators and requesting their Representatives

in Congress to vote in favor of the adoption of

the Wilmot Proviso, and in opposition, in many

cases, to the admission of any other slave

States.

Mr. McLanahan asked if the gentleman from

South Carolina had observed that the Legisla-

ture of Pennsylvania had recently laid upon

the table resolutions in favor of the Wilmot

Proviso?

Mr. Orr: I have; and I honor the patriotism

of your constituents in coming to the rescue of

the Constitution in these perilous times. In-

structions, such as I have spoken of, did pass

this Legislature of Pennsylvania two years ago.

I repeat the assertion, that every non-slave-

holding state has passed resolutions of an un-

mistakeable abolition character. Yet the un-

ceasing efforts of the press here, and newspa-

per correspondents are directed to induce the

people of the South to believe that this hostility

to our institutions is confined to a few fanatics,

and that abolition is not the general sentiment

of the country.

Another evidence of the progress of abolition

sentiment is the legislation of the non slave-

holding states obstructing the delivering up of

fugitive slaves. What is the constitutional pro-

vision upon that subject. 'No person held to

service or labor in one state, under the laws

thereof, escaping into another, shall, in conse-

quence of any law or regulation therein, be dis-

charged from such service or labor, but shall be

delivered up on claim of the party to whom

such service or labor may be due.' Some of

the Northern states have passed laws imposing


heavy penalties on any state officer who may

aid the owner in recovering his runaway slave.

The state officers of all the states swear to

support the Constitution of the United States as

well as the constitution of the state in which

the officer resides. Now, if the Constitution of

the United States requires that a person held

to service shall be delivered up, and a state

officer refuses to obey that provision, does he

prove faithful to his oath? And is not the pen-

alty imposed by the particular state a compul-

sion upon the officer to commit perjury? This

legislation reflects truly the feeling of the Nor-

thern states upon this subject. When a slave

escapes, friends receive him with open arms,

and clandestinely convey him beyond the

reach of his lawful owner. If the slave, per-

chance, is overtaken, or hunted out of his se-

cret hiding place, the owner perils his life;

through the lawless violence of the mob, in re-

claiming his property, and in asserting rights

solemnly guaranteed to him by the Constitu-

tion. The laws and popular tumults against

the master, to which I have adverted, clearly

indicates the settled, deliberate purpose of the

Northern states to deprive us of our rights in

that species of property.

Northern sentiment on the subject of aboli-

tion speaks trumpet-tongued in the political

privileges conferred on free negroes in some of

the Northern states. Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and

all extend the right of suffrage to the African.

At the last state election in New York the

free negroes held the balance of power be-

tween the two political parties. Representa-

tives upon this floor receive the votes of this

degraded class, and the success of republican

institutions is made to depend upon the judg-

ment and intelligence of free negro sovereigns.

The aim of the abolitionists looks first to the

emancipation of our slaves throughout the

South, and then is to follow their elevation to

all the social and political privileges of the

white man. The thick-lipped African is to vote

at the same ballot box, eat at the same table, and sit

in the same parlor with the white man. This,

the abolitionists would say, 'is a consummation

devoutly to be wished for.'

Another evidence, sir, of the progress and in-

tolerance of this sentiment is to be found in the

separation into two of the most numerous and

respectable Christian denominations in this

country, (the Baptist and the Methodist.) They

assembled in convention and conference, year

after year, to advance that holy cause in which

they had mutually embarked. But, sir, the

demon of fanatical discord stalked into their

associations. Christian charity and brotherly

love were impotent in resisting its encroachment

upon their peace and union; Northern mem-

bers demanded that their southern brethren

should surrender and eschew the institutions of

the country in which they lived—that they

should become traitors to the state to which

their allegiance was due, and prove recreant

to their obligations to the

community in which they resided. They were

too holy to commune at the same altar with

their southern brethren, until the latter should

pronounce slavery a sin, and agree to enlist in

an effort for its extinction. The terms were

too ignominious for Christians or patriots. With

a manly independence, the southern wings of

both denominations rejected the offer, and the

separation of their churches ensued. These

two, sir, were heavy blows against our political

union, from the shocks of which we have not

yet recovered.

Another evidence of the extent of this senti-

ment is exhibited in the popularity, the univer-

sal popularity, of the doctrine of free soil—the

legitimate scion, as I before remarked, of the

abolition stock. The popularity of that doc-

trine is not to be judged by independent free-

soil party organization. Those who candidly

avow the opinion are few in number; they re-

fuse to co-operate with either of the other par-

ties, and hence a separate organization; but the

mass of the Northern people comprising the

two great political parties, sympathize in sen-

timent and feeling with the freesoilers. It is

idle to disguise the fact. The speeches deliv-

ered by Northern Representatives since the

commencement of this discussion is a thorough

vindication of the truth of this assertion. They

may be well arranged into two classes; one of

which broadly asserts that the North has been

guilty of no aggressions upon the south—that

the south has no just cause of complaint against

them—that our demand to share equally in the

common property of all the states is an aggres-

sion upon the North; that our fugitive slaves

are always promptly surrendered upon the

demand of the owner. This is the language

addressed by them to Northern constituencies.

They do not appeal to them to quiet this infa-

mous agitation—they do not remind them of

their constitutional obligations; and thus their

course can have no other effect than to fan the

flames of fanaticism until they shall burn out

the vitals of the Constitution and the Union.

The other class show equally, in their speech-

es, their attachment to the doctrines of free soil.

Every Northern man of this class who has ad-

dressed the committee on this subject, except

my friend from Indiana, (Mr. Gorman,) and my

friend from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Ross) is in the

same category. Their speeches open gener-

ally, with a violent philippic against the south.

They charge us with arrogance, and some of

them are in hot haste in volunteering their ser-

vices to march troops into our midst to force us

to continue in the Union, if we should choose to

secede from it. They tell us they are in favor

of non-intervention. What does this non-inter-

vention amount to? If it were a bona fide non-

interference with our rights, it would be all

that the south could ask—all that she has a

right to demand under the constitution. But this

much she does demand; and depend upon it,

she will be appeased by nothing less. Some

of the Northern non-interventionists deny that

Congress has the power to pass the Wilmot

Proviso; others maintain the position that Con-

gress has the power, but should not exercise it;

and straightway offer the excuse to their con-

stituents that it is not necessary to pass it—

that the Mexican laws are in force, and they ex-

clude slavery.

This is the opinion entertained by Gen. Cass

and all the non-intervention Northern Demo-

crats in this House. Is not this a heavy tribute

which non-intervention pays to free-soil? It is

tantamount to saying, we are in favor of the

end which the proviso aims to accomplish, viz:

the exclusion of the slave States from all the

territory acquired from Mexico—we oppose its

adoption only because we regard it as unneces-

sary, and because we believe the course we pro-

pose to pursue will most effectually subserve

the end without giving offence and producing

irritation in the South. I repeat it, Sir, such

non-intervention pays a heavy tribute to aboli-

tionism.

Another, and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the

most pregnant indication of the progress of

Abolition sentiment, is the remarkable condi-

tion of things that now exists throughout the

country in relation to the admission of Califor-

nia into the Union. I venture to say that nev-

er in the history of this Government has any

important question been presented for the

consideration of Congress where party lines

were all broken down as they have been on

this question. It is an Administration measure

—one which certainly reflects but little credit

upon its wisdom or patriotism. Parties have

but recently emerged from the heat of a presi-

dential struggle, and upon all other questions

save this alone, which have been introduced in-

to this House at the present session, partisan

gladiators have waged as fierce a contest as in

days of yore. Irregular and objectionable as

all the California proceedings have been, but

one solitary Representative (I refer again to

my friend Mr. Ross) from the free States has

avowed himself opposed to its admission

into the Union; parties are broken down—the

North is making it a sectional question. Nor-

thern Whigs and Northern Democrats, Whig

Free-soilers and Democratic Free-soilers all

rally upon this common platform, and the em-

ulation between them is great who shall be

foremost in introducing this embryo State into

the Union. Some of the objections to its ad-

mission into the Union I will briefly notice. No

census had been taken either by the authority

of the pretended State or by the authority of

Congress. We have no official information

which would authorize us to determine wheth-

er the population was ten thousand or one hun-

dred thousand. The number of votes said to

have been polled in the ratification of the con-

stitution was about thirteen thousand. This

number of voters, where the population is an

average one, would indicate a population of

seventy thousand souls. The proportion of the

adult male population in California is greater

far than in the States, comparatively few wo-

men or children having emigrated thither. If

the number of votes polled be adopted as the

criterion by which the population is to be ad-

judged, it could not have exceeded, at the date

of the ratification of the constitution, forty

thousand; and, with these facts, Congress is im-

portuned to admit California with two Repre-

sentatives, with a less population of American

citizens than each member on this floor repre-

sents.

Then as to its boundaries, they contain suf-

ficient territory to make five large States, and

embrace a sea-coast of more than eight hundred

miles.

The convention which framed the constitu-

tion was not called by authority of Congress,

but by a military officer, who, by virtue of the

commission he held under the Government of

the United States, exercised the functions of

civil governor. His ukase directed that the

convention should consist of thirty-seven mem-

bers. After the convention was elected, it as-

sembled, and, by a vote for which it had no au-

thority, not even from the military dictator, it

increased the number of delegates from thirty-

seven to seventy-nine, and allowed the addi-

tional number, without referring it to the peo-

ple, to take their seats, they being the defeated

candidates at the election. In my judgement

it was the duty of the President to have censur-

ed the officer who thus exercised the high pre-

rogative of military dictator. If the Presi-

dent had desired to carry out the will of Con-

gress according to his pledges, that officer could

not have escaped punishment, for Congress at

its last session positively refused to allow the

people of California to do that which the mili-

tary governor, by a military order or proclama-

tion, bearing striking analogies to an order, in-

structed them to do.

Who are the people of California? A world

in miniature—the four quarters of the globe are

represented there. No naturalization laws hav-

ing been passed, there was no legal impediment

to their exercising the right of suffrage. The

whole proceeding—not having the consent of

Congress, the rightful legislature of the territory

—was illegal and revolutionary. I repeat Mr.

Chairman, that with all these irregularities we

find every party in Congress from the Northern

States in favor of the admission of California in-

to the Union—and why? For no other reason

than that slavery has been excluded by her

constitution. If her people had assembled un-

der lawful authority, with an ascertained popu-

lation equal to the present ratio of representa-

tion, they alone would have had the power to

determine the question whether slavery should

or should not exist within her limits. If that

decision had been to exclude slavery, no mur-

mur of complaint would have been heard from

any Southern man; but I undertake to say here,

if slavery had been tolerated, we should have

found just as unanimous a sentiment in the Nor-

thern States against her admission into the Un-

ion as we now find in favor of that proposition;

and I do not make this assertion without good

foundation. When Florida applied for admis-

sion into the Union, a large majority in Congress

voted against it, when every initiatory step had

been regular, on the isolated ground that she

was a slaveholding State.

I have other evidences, Mr. Chairman, of

Northern sentiment upon the subject of slavery.

The speech recently delivered by the distingu-

ished Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. Web-

ster) and the action of the House in laying upon

the table the resolution of the gentleman from

Ohio, in the early part of the session, has in-

duced the belief in the South that a sense of

justice had returned to their Northern brethren.

These appearances are deceptive. It is an illu-

sion which I deeply deplore. The Senator

from Massachusetts made a truly patriotic

speech: but what did he propose? All that he

offered was, to give to the South her clearly-de-

fined constitutional rights. This gratifies us.

It gratified us to know that a distinguished

Northern man would frankly and ingeniously

concede our rights, and enforce their execution

by his vote and voice. How has that speech,

been received in the State of Massachusetts, of

which he is the proudest ornament? Her leg-

islature was in session: and fearing lest that

speech might contain the balm to heal the di-

visions of the country, straightway new poison

was poured into the wound. Resolutions were

passed, taking the strongest and most offensive

ground. They did not instruct him, it is true,

for the dominant party do not assume the right

to instruct; but that Senator has not been sus-

tained by his immediate constituents, but a

large majority of the people and of the press

of Massachusetts have condemned him. He has

not been more fortunate here—one after anoth-

er of the Massachusetts delegation has addres-

sed the committee, all assuming positions ad-

verse to those taken by Mr. Webster. The on-

ly hope of aid in this House took its departure

to-day, when the honorable gentleman who

preceded me (Mr. Winthrop) announced himself

in favor of General Taylor's unstatesmanlike

plan of settling the existing difficulties. Dan-

iel Webster once spoke and could speak for

New England. The waves of fanaticism have

broken over the land of the Pilgrim Fathers, and

are sweeping off the influence and power of her

best and brightest men. When his genius has

proved itself impotent to stay this onward wave

in the minds of these whose service he has so

much honored, upon what ground can the

South rest her hopes on peace and safety in this

Government?

The action of the House in laying Root's res-

olution upon the table promised fruit which

will never be gathered. If the proviso is not

pressed at the present session it will not be be-

cause the North have abated one tittle in their

devotion to it. The advocates of that measure

are satisfied they will accomplish their purpose

quite as effectually, and much more adroitly

in another way.

But, sir, there is still further evidence

of Northern sentiment. We have been

told by one gentleman, in this debate,

'that the only way in which the abolition

of slavery in the States can be constitu-

tionally effected, is to confine it within its

present limits;' another said, 'that no

more slave States or slave territory should

come into this Union—sooner civil war,'

&c.; another, 'the Wilmot Proviso was

an abiding principle in the hearts of the

people of the free States;' and still anoth-

er, who is a moderate Northern man 'that

slavery was a national shame and a na-

tional disgrace.' I quote these sentiments

that they may be contrasted with the oft-

reiterated assertion, that it is not the pur-

pose of the Northern States to abolish

slavery where it now exists. They tell

us plainly that they can effect abolition in

the States, through the legislation of this

Government, without violating the Con-

stitution; and they admit, further, that

they will do it by indirect means, but their

constitutional scruples forbid direct legis-

lation in abolishing slavery.

Now, sir, I have a great contempt for

the morality or honesty of that sort of

reasoning which would make an act un-

constitutional if executed directly, but sat-

isfies the conscience that it is constitution-

al if done indirectly.

The institution of slavery being a 'na-

tional shame and a national disgrace' in

the opinion of the North, and having the

power to abolish it by indirect means, the

legislation of this Government (for the

North have the majority) is to be hostile

to our institutions. We then present this

anomaly, that a Government established

by wise and patriotic men for the security

and safety of the persons and property of

all its parts—a Government which derives

its sustenance by taxation upon all its

parts, is to depart so far from the purposes

of its creation as to destroy, by its hostile

legislation, the property of one-half of the

States composing that Government; and

that, too, when the States thus threaten-

ed are in such a hopeless minority in Con-

gress that they are unable to protect them-

selves against that hostile, unconstitution-

al legislation. The value of our slave

property is some sixteen hundred millions

of dollars: this is to be destroyed through

a majority.

The rule for constructing the Constitu-

tion, which is fast being established, is

that the majority have the right to rule,

and whatever construction they give is

the true construction. Such, Mr. Chair-

man, is not our reading or construction of

that instrument. The Constitution is to

protect the rights of minorities: majori-

ties have always the ability to protect

themselves: if they have the absolute

right of making and constructing, then

there is no necessity for a written Constitu-

tion. If the will of the majority is absolute

it is the strong against the weak; the law

of force which existed between individuals

before Governments were instituted. If

the power now claimed for the Northern

States is persevered in it requires no spirit

of prophecy to foresee that it must end in

disunion. The institution of slavery is so

intimately interwoven with society, and is

so indispensable to our social, political and

national prosperity, that it will not be

surrendered so long as there is a South-

ern hand to strike in its defence. We in-

tend to preserve and perpetuate it. We

have another demand, and that is, that

we shall be allowed to enjoy our prop-

erty in peace, quiet and security. I tell

Northern gentlemen to-day, that five

years will not elapse before they will be

required to make their choice between

non-intervention and non-agitation thro'

Congress on the one hand, and a dissolu-

tion of this Government on the other;

and I tell Southern people, if this agita-

tion is continued during that time, their

peace and personal security will require

them to choose between secession and ne-

gro emancipation. Sir, I do not desire to

be considered an alarmist; but if gentle-

men will recur to the history of the

country, they will learn that the anti-

slavery party was contemptible and in-

significant, but it has now grown to be a

great colossal power overshadowing al-

most the entire North, and has enlisted

under its banner all the political parties

there. If its progress is as rapid in the

next five years as for the last ten, you

will find no Northern Representative who

will so far outrage the sentiment of his

constituents as to oppose even the aboli-

tion of slavery in the States.

(Concluded next week.)

HON. JAMES L. ORR.

We commence this week the publication of this gentleman's able and eloquent speech.

Mr. Orr's speech does great credit to him as a young politician, and will we doubt not give much satisfaction to his constituents and the South generally.

This Honorable gentleman takes a comprehensive view of the differences existing between the two great divisions of the country, and in the course of his remarks the aggressions, usurpations and injustice of the North are clearly pointed out, and the duties and obligations of the South, to herself under the circumstances, forcibly enjoined.