Is Millard Fillmore an abolitionist?

I s

MILLARD FILLMO

.A-usr

ABOLITIONIST?

BOSTON*

AMERICAN PATRIOT OFFICE,

No, 32 Congress Street;

1806,

C AC

PREFACE.

In the following pages will be found the whole, except a modicum devoted to Mr. Bu-
chanan, of a I d from the office cf the " Washington Union," well known as
rgan of the ultra Southern Dfemoc

"We have omitted ihose portions relating to the record of Mr. Buchanan's action in con-
nection with the subject of Slavery, for the sake of brevity, and because we considered that
in Massachu least, the contest lay bo entirely between Mr. Fillmore and Col. Fre-

mont, that it would be time lost, to. go into Mr. Buchanan's history here. Enough for us
is it, that he is sufficiently Southern for the most ultra Southerner.

Although we print only that portion devoted to the annihilation of Mr. Fillmore, as an
Abolitionist, yet we give the title page entire and the few opening remark low dis-

tinctly whence the document emanates, and what are its objects ; the position it assumes
and attempts to make good ; and also the spirit in which it proceeds, or would have it un-
derstood < eds, to the work in hand : and we give the peroration because we could not
feel that we wei d in withholding from the public so sublime a specimen of child-
like . - nous comparison, and of EKLAEGED CALCULATION.

We must however most respectfully enter our protest against t! 'eer-

ing, by comparing the candidates with Wa . If Col. Fremont is to be like him, be-

cause he was a - r. Buchau ruse he has no children, v with all

humility sugg a1 no candidate can her who ma}' not in some equally impor-

tant particular resemble the 1 . of his Corxniy j and we shall soon have a calendar
of saints equal to that enjoyed by the Catholic Chu If.

We would m . erty of hinting tj c to

vouchsafe to our much favored country a second Washington, the wh will a owl-

edge the fact, without troubling politicians to proclaim and prove it bj ich marks m

these.

Whether the proof of Mr. Fillmore's abolitionism in the annexed, is as c our

Northern re its editor evidently thinks it will be to his Southern fr

tion which e\ cide tor e can only say that to us it seems clear,

that the man who is cond . by the fire-eaters and ultra-pro-slavery men of the South,
as an abolitionist, and by the Abolitionists and disunion fanatics of the riend of

)ies exactly thtt noble, modi Lt
ch the eyes of all true lovers of their country may turn » 1th c hour of

We wish it d ' the append! Fre-
mont's action, a i tatter while in the Senate of thi dded by
ourseh forms no part of the document we are und quote. We give it,
that those who in: lavery question is the only one to be , uing

: >nt is the onlj and the- true exponent of their anti
authentic l-ecords of the two candidate

THE AGITATION OF SLAVERY.

WHO COMMENCED

AND

BUCHANAN AND FILLMORE COMPARED

FROM THE RECORD.

•' Notwithstanding all the wrong that has been done, not another slave State can come into

the Union,"-— Hon. Wms H. Sewakd,

WASHINGTON:

PRINTED AT THE UNION OFFICE,

1856,

SOUTHERN RECORD OF BUCHANAN AND
FILLMORE COMPARED.

Sr> imporlant i* it for the South to determine whicli of th^ two condidatps
now seeking its suffrages has given the best evidences of his fidelity to its
right?, that we must examine in detail —

1. Their recorded antecedents upon the subject of slavery.

2. The present position of each of these candidates upon that subject.

3. In making the comparison and investigation proposed, we shall treat the distinguish-
ed subjects with respectful freedom. We intend to throw no unworthy imputation upon
either. We concede that the personal integrity of each is unimpeachable, and in no manner
involved in the present issue. * * *

RECORD OF MR. FILLMORE UPON THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

The earliest authentic avowal of Mr. Fillmore's opinion upon the subject of slavery is
to be found in the following answer to a letter of inquiry addressed to him by "The Anti-
Sltvery Association of the County of Erie." These opinions, we shall subsequently show,
have never been disavowed or recanted.

" Buffalo, October 17, 1S38.

" Sir : Your communication of the 13th instant, as chairman of the committee appointed
by ' The ^inti- Slavery Society of the County of Krie,' has just come te hand, iou so-
licit my answer to the following interrogatories:

<; 1st. Do you beli-ve that petitions to Congress on the subject of slavery and the
slave-trade ought to be received, real, and respectlully cunsidered by the representatives
of the people ?

''2d. Are you opposed to the annexation of Texas to this Union, under any circum-
stances, so long as slaves are held therein ?

" 3d. Are you in favor ol Congress exercising all the constitutional powers it possesses
to abolish the internal slave trade between the States ?

t: 4th- Are you in favor of immediate legislation for the abolition of slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia ?

"Answer. — I am much engaged, and have no time to enter into argument, or explain at
length my reasons for my opinion. I shall therefore content myself, for the present, by an
swenng ALL yonr interrogatories in the AFFIRMATIVE, and leave for some future oc-
casion a more extended discussion on the subject.

"I would, however, take this occasion to say, that in thus frankly giving my opinion, 1
would not desire to have it understood in the nature of a pledge. At the same time that
I seek no disguises, but freely give my sentiments on any subject of interest to those for
whose suffrages I am a candidate, I am opposed to give any pledge that shall deprive inc
hereafter of all discretionary power. My own character must be the guaranty for the gen-
eral 'correctness of my legislative deportment. On every important subject I am boun I to
deliberate before I act, and especially as a legislator — to possess myself of all the informa-
tion, and listen to every argument that can be adduced by my associates, before I give a
final vote. If I stand pledged to a particular course of action, I cease to be a respo. sible
agent, but I become a mere machine. Should subsequent events show, beyond all doubt,
that t!ie course I had become pledged to pursue was ruinous to my constituents and dis-
graceful to myself, I have no alternative, no opponunity f .r repentance, and there is no
-power to absulve me from my obligation. Hence the impropriety, not to say absurdity, in
my view of giving a pledge.

" I am aware that you have not asked any pledge, and I believe I know your sound
judgment and good sense too well to think you desire any such thing. It was, however,
to prevent any misrepresentation on the part of others, that I have felt it my duty to say
thus much on this subject.

" I am, respectfully, your most obedient servant,")

MILLARD FILLMORE.

"W. Mills, Esq., Chairman."

It is proper to state that Mr. Fillmore, when pressed at the South, in the canvass of
1S4S, upon the monstrous dootrines^if this letter, wrote to Governor Gayle, of Alib ima,
the following explanation of his posmon upon the questions involved in his reply. We
publish the Gayle letter in full.

"Albany, July 31, 1S-IS.

"Dear Sir : I have your letter of tne 5th instant, but my official duties have been so
pressing that I havejjeen compelled toneglect myjprivate correspondence. I had also deter-

mined to write no letters for publication bearing upon the contest in the approaching can-
vass. But, as you desire some information for your own satisfaction, in regard to the char-
ges brought against me from the South, on the slave question, 1 have concluded to state
briefly my position.

"While I was in Congress, there was much agitation on the right of petition My votes
will doubtless be found lecorded unifonnly in favor of it. The rule upon which 1 acted
was, that every citizen presenting a respectful petition to the body that by the constitution
had the power to grant or refuse the prayer of it, was entitled to be heard ; and therefore
the petition otisht to be received and considered. If right and reasonable, the prayer of it
should be granted ; hut if wrong or unreasonable, it should be denied. 1 thin]; all my votes,
whether on the reception of petitions or the consideration of resolutions, will be found consis-
tent with this rule. [£hu iialics. I

" I have none of my congressional documents here, they beim; at my former residence in
Buffalo, nor have I access to any papers or memoranda to refresh mv recollection ; but I
think at some time while in Congress 1 took occasion to state, in subst-.nce, my views on
the subject of slavery in the States. Whether the remarks were reported or not, I am
tmable to say: but the substance was, that I regarded slavery as an evil, but one with which
the national government had nothing to do — that by the constiiution of the United Mates,
the whole power over that question was vested in the several States were the institution
was tolerated. If they regarded it as a blessintr, they had a constitutional right to enjoy
it ; and if they regarded it as an evii, they had the power, and knew best how to apply
the remedy. I did not conceive that Congress had any power over it, or was in any way
responsible for its continuance in the several States wlieie it existed. I doubt not that all
my acts, public and private, will be lound in accordance with this view.

" I have the honor to be, your obedient servant,

"MILLARD FILLMORE.

"Hon. John Gayle."

In this response there are some errors of fact, or of memory, and an entire failure to
deny the power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia and the
Territories. This constituted the very gist of objection to the Erie letter. The Gayle let-
ter denies the power of Congress over slavery "in the States where it existed ; ' nothing
mote. But upon a review of this letter, of his votes, and subsequent conduct while a mem-
ber of Congress, we are compelled to assert that Mr. Fillmore stands recorded and proven,
by contemporaneous testimony, to have been one of the fathers and lotinders of that aboli-
tion agitation which he now so much condemns. Trie following votes will show that Mr.
Fillmore was mistaken when he said, in 1848, "the ruie upon which I acted was, that ev-
ery citizen presenting a respectful petition to the body that by the constitution had the
power to grant or refuse the prayer of it, was entitled to be heard." ;'I think," he adds,
"all my votes, whether upon the reception of petitions or the consideration of resolutions,
[our italics,] will be found consistent with this rule."

He votes to receive and ref r abolition petitions :

•'December 12, 1837, Mr. Adams presented a petition praying the abolition of the slave
trade in the District of Columbia, and" moved that it and others be referred to the coinmt-
tee on the District of Columbia, with instructions to consider and report thereon. Mr.
Wise moved to lay that motion on :he table — yeas and nays ordered on that question — yeas
1-3, nays 70 Adams, Fillmore, Slade, Giddings, it Co in the negative "—Cong. Globe,
vol- 6, p. 19.

"Mr. Adams then presented a petition for the abolition of slavery in the Territories of
the United States, and moved its reference to the Committee on Territories. Mr. Wise
moved to lay the motion on the table — yeas and nays ordered — yeas 137, nays 73. Adams,
Fillmore, Giddings, Slade & Co. in the negative." — Cong. Globe, vol. (J, p. 20.

In this case the right of petition is confounded with the proposition to report for legisla-
tive consideration. It is imposible to assert with what motive Mr. Fillmore advoeaied the
reception ; but

His vote against receiving the Atherton resolutions is more explicit upo?i that point :

On the 11th December, 1838, (Cong. Globe, vol. 7, p. 23,) Mr. Atherton asked leave to
submit the following resolutions :

'• Resolved, That this government is a government of limited powers, and that by the
constitution of the United States, Congress has no jurisdidtion whatever over the institution
of slavery in the several States of the confederacy.

" Resolved, That petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the
Territories of the United States, and against the removal of slaves from one State to anoth-
er, are a part of a plan of operations set on foot to effect the institution of slavery in the
several States, and thus indirectly to destroy that institution within their limits.

"Resolved, That Congress has no right to do that indirectly, which it cannot do directly ;
and that the agitation ol the subject ot slavery iu the District of Columbia or the Territo-
ries as a means, and with a view of disturbing or overthrowing that institution in the sev-
eral States, is against the true spirit and meaning of the constitution, an infringement of
the right of the States affected, and a breach of the public faith upon which they entered
into the confederacy.

" Resolved, That the constitution rests on the broad principle of equality among the mem.
bars of this confederacy, and that Congress, in the exercise of its acknowledged powers, has

no right to discriminate between the institutions of one portion of the States and another,
with a view of abolishing the one and promoting the other.

" Resolved, therefore, That all attempts on the part of Congress to abolish slavery in the
District of Columbia or the Territories, or to prohibit the removal of slaves from state to
state, or to discriminate between the institutions of one portion of the confederacy and an-
other with the views aforesaid, are in violation of the constitution, destructive of the funda-
mental principle on which the union of these Stat 's rests, and beyond the jurisdiction of
Congress ; and that every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or
relating in any way or any extent whatever to slavery as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof,
shall, on the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be laid upon the table
without being debated, printed, or referred."

Mr. Atherton moved a suspension of the ryles — yeas and nays ordered — yeas 137, nays
66. Adams, Fillmore, & Co., in the negative.

This vote, against the "leave to submit," is inconsistent with the principle avowed in the
Gnyle letter; for even if he had determined to vote against the resolution upon its merits,
he was bound to have voted for the reception, because every citizen "presenting a petition
[or resolution] to the body that by the constitution had the power to grant or refuse the
prayer of it, ivas entitled to be heard."

But there is another evidence of inaccurate recollection, combined with an endorsement
of the most dangerous and abominable doctrines, presented by —

His vote upon the case of the Creole slave mutiny and murder :

This case was presented to Congress March 21, 1S42. — See Cong. Globe, vol. 11, p. 3-12.

The brig Creole, bound from Richmond, Va., to New Orleans, was freighted, among
other things, with a large lot of negroes, who mutinied in a storm, killed the captain, several
of the crew and passengers an 1 compelled some of the officers of the vessel to take her inio
Nassau, \. P., one of the British West India islands, where the negroes were taken care of
and set free by the authorities of the island. This case was the subject of Congressional
action in both houses of Congress, and of negotiation with Great Britain. The most intense
feeling was manifested all over the Union, and particularly in the South.

"During the pendency of the excitem-nt, the noto ious abolitionist, J. R. Griddings,
offered a set of resolutions, justifying the negroes in their mutiny and murder, and approv-
ing of their course, denying that said negroes had violated any law of the United States ;
stating that they had incurred no legal penalty, and are justly liable to no punishment ; and
that all attempts to regain possession of, or to re enslave said persons, are unauthorized by
the constitution and prejudicial to the national honor."

We annex them, ommirting the first three '

" Resolved, That slavery being an abridgment of the natural rights Of man, can exist only
by force of positive municipal law, and is necessarily confined to the territorial jurisdiction
of the power creating it.

" 5. That when a ship belonging to the citizens of any state of this Union leaves the \va
ters and territory ol such state and enters upon the high seas, the persons (slaves) on board
cease to be subject to the laws of such state, and thenceforth are governed in their relations
to each other by, and are amenable to, the laws of the United States.

"6. That when the brig Creole, on her late passage to New Orleans, left the territorial
jurisdiction of Virginia, the slave laws of that state ceased to have jurisdiction over the
persons (slaves) on board said brig, and such pet sous become amenable only to the laws of
the United States.

" 7. That the persons (slaves) on board said brig, in resuming their natural rights of per-
sonal liberty, violated no law of the United States" incurred no legal penalty, and are justly
Liable to no punishment.

"S. Thatall attempts to regain possession of, or to re-enslave said persons, are unauthor-
ized by the constitution and laws of the United States, and are incompatible with our nation-
al honor.

" 9. That all attempts to exert our national influence in favor of the coastwise slave-
trade, or to place this nation in the attitude of maintaining a commerce in human beings,
are subversive of the rights and injurious to the teachings and interests of the free States,
are unauthorized by the constitution, and prejudicial to our national character.

A motion was made that the resolutions do lie on the table — yeas 52, nays 125, — Mr.
Fillmore & Co. voting in the negative. This could not be considered a test vote : many
members who were oppossd to the resolutions voted against the motion, in order to kill them
by a direct vote. Mr. Fillmore's views; however, will appear by what followed.

Mr. John Minor Botts, on the same day, olfered the following preamble and resolution :

" Whereas the Hon. Joshua B. Giddings has this day presented to this House a series of
resolutions touching the most important interests connected with a large portion of the Un-
ion, now a subject of negotiation between the United States and Great Britain, of the most
delicate nature, the result ofwhieh may eventually involve those nations in war; and whereas
it is the duty of every good citizen to discountenance all efforts to create excitement, dis-
satisfaction, and division among the people of the United States at such a time, under such
circumstances ; and whereas mutiny and murder are therein justified and approved, in
terms shocking to all sense of law, order, and humanity ; therefore,

'■ Resolved,--Tha.t this House holds the conduct of the said member as altogether unwar-

ranted and unwarrantable, and deserving the severe condemnation of the people of this
Country, and of this l>o<ly in particular."

On these resolutions a motion was made to suspend the rules — yeas 128, nays 68. Fill-
more voted nay, with Adams, Giddings, and Slade. Two-thirds not voting in the affirma-
tive, the rules were not suspended.

The call for resolutions still resting with the State of Ohio, Mr. Weller oil'-red Mr Bott's
resolution as his own. In the discussion which then tool< place, Mr. Fillmore appeared as
the speeial apologist and defender of his confrere, Giddings, who secins to have been as
closely allied to him in feelinas as we have shown him to have been in vote3.

Mr. Adams then moved to lay the whole subject on the table — yeas 70, nays 125 — Adams,
Fillmore. & Co. in the allirmative. The direct vote was then taken on the resolution cen-
suring Gridd.in«s — yeas.125, nays 69 — Fillmore & Co in the negative. The vote was next
taken on the preamble — yeas 119, nays 66 — Fillmore & Co. again in the negative. — Con.
Globe, vol 11, pp 345- 6.

On the 1 3th December, Mr. Wise asked leave to submit the following resoludons. as pro-
positions containing his sentiments, and what he believed to be the real sentiments of the
whole South :

•' I. Resolved, That Congress has no power to abolish slavery in the District of Colum-
bia, or in the Territories- ol' the United States ; whether such power in the said District be
exercised ' as a means or with the view of disturbing and overthrowing slavery in the
States , or not.

" 2. Resolved, That Congress has no power to abolish the slave trade or prbhibi* th» re-
moval of slaves between the Stales and the District of Columbia or Territories of the Unit-
ed States.

"3. Resolved, That Congress cannot receive or consider petitions foi the exorcise of any
power whatever over the subject of slaveiy which Congress does not possess.

''4. Resolved, That the laws of Congress alone govern in prescribing and regulating the
mode and manner in which fugitive slaves shad be apprehended, and their rights to free-
dom held in the non slaveholding States, District of Columbia, and Territories; and the
mode and manner in which they shall be restored or delivered to their owners in the slave
States.

"5. Resolved, That Congress has no power to impose upon any State the abolition of
slavery in its limits, as a condition of admission imo]jthis Union

" 6. R solved, That the citizens of the slaveholding Stit-.s of this Union have the con-
stitutional right voluntarily to take their slaves to or through a no 1-slaveholding State, and
to sojourn or remain temporarily with such slaves in the sain >., and the slaves arc not there-
by ipso facto emmcipated ; and the general government is constitutionally bound to protect
the rights of slaveholding States ; and the laws of non-slaveholding States in conflict with
the laws of Congress providing such protection are null and void "

Several members said '• Object to them."

Mr. Rives did so; and Mr. Wise moved a suspension of the rules calling fir the yeas and
navs ; which being ordered, were — yeas, 1 IS, pays 90 — Fillmore in the negative. — See Con.
Globe1 p. 33 ; House Jour., p. 799-

So the motion to suspend was decidediin the negative.

On the 13th December, 1S3S, Mr. Slade asked leave to submit the following resolutions :

" Whereas there exists, and is canied on between the ports in the District of Columbia
and other ports of the United States, and under the sanction of the laws thereof, a trade
in human beings, whereby thousands of them are annually sold and' transported from said
District to distant parts of the country, in vessels belonging to citizens of the United States ;
and, whereas such trade involves an outrageous violation of human rights, is a disgrace to
the country by whose laws it is sanctioned, and calls for the immediate interpret ition of
legislative authority for its suppression ; therefore, to the end that all obstacles to the con-
sideration of this subject maybe removed, and a remedy for the evil speedily provided.

" Resolved, That so much of the tilth of the resolu:ions on the subject ofslavery, passed
by this House on the llthand 12th of the present month, as relates to the ' reino'. al of slaves
from State to State,' and prohibits the action of the House on 'every petition, memorial,
resolution P'Oposition, or paper touching' the same, be, and hereby is rescinded."

Objection being made, Mr S. moved a suspension of the rules, and demanded the yeas
and nays ; which being ordered, were — yeas 35, nays 157 — Mr. Fillmore voting in the af-

rmative.

So the House refused to suspend the rules. — See Con. Globe, p 99; House Jour. p. 75.

On the 3 1 st December, 1S39. 1st Session, 26th Congress, Mr. Coles moved a suspension of
the rules, for the purpose of offering the following losolution .

llResolved. That every petition, memoiial, resolution, proposition, or paper, touching or
relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the abolition of si ivery in the States of
this Union, or either of them, or in the District of Columbia, or in the Territories of the
United S-ates, or either of them, or the removal of slaves from one State to another, shad I,
op the presentation thereof without any further action thereon, be laid upon tiic table with-
out being debited, printed, or referred."

Upon which the yeas and nays were called, and were — yeas 87, nays 81 — Mr. Fillmore in
the negative- — See Con. Globe, p. 93 House Jour., p. 153.

8

On the 1.3th January, 1840, Mr. Lincoln, of Massachusetts, presented petitions praying
for tho abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, and in the Ter-
ritories of the United States.

Mr. Cave Johnson moved to lay the question rf reception on the table ; which was de-
cided in the affirmative— yeas 131, 'nays 85 — Mr. Fillmore voting in the negative. — See Con-
Globe, p. 1 19 ; House Jour., p. 204.

To show the excitement prevailins^upon the discussio , of these questions, a certain Mr.
Peck (an abolitionist) thus taunted those northern men who voted for sectional harmony,
when the vote was about being taken on laying Mr. Cole's resolution on the table : "Now
come up, von southern slaves and show yourselves."

On all occasions upon this •- bjeot, we hndiMr. Fillmore voting with Mr- Peck.

On the -2Sth, the laraous 21st rule was adopted, as follows :

" That no petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery
in the District of Colambia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States
or Territories of the United States in which it now exists, shall be received by this House,
or entertained in any way whatever."

The question was taken on its adoption, and decided in the affirmative — yeas 111, nays
10S— Fillmore in the negMtive. — Con. Globe, p. 151 ; House Jvur., p. 5J41.
HE TOTES TO RECEIVE ABOLITION PETITIONS.

On the 30th of December, 1S30, a resolution was offered by Mr. Wise, declaring that the
petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, or of the
slave Trade between the States, should be objected to without debate.

Mr. Wise said if he thought there would be any objection to the passage of the resolution;
he would call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. Fillmore rose and said, he objected.

The vote on motion to suspend the rules stood — yeas 109, nays 77. Adams, Fillmore &
Co. in the negative — Cong. Globe, vol. 8, p. 897.

On the 23d of December, 1S40, Mr. James, of Pennsylvania, asked leave to present a pe-
tition from an anti-sla.ery society of his State. He also moved a suspension of the rules to
enable him to present it. Mr. Johnson moved to lay the motion to suspend on the table — >
veas 99, nays 53. Adams, Giddings, Fillmore & Co. voting in the negative.— Cong.
'Globe, vol. 9, p. 51.

On the same day Mr. Rice submitted a series of resolutions, denying the right of Congress
to interfere with slavery in the District of Columbia, in the Territories, or with the slave
trade between the States, and resolving not to consider any petition, &c.; for that purpose ;
motion to suspend the vote stood — yeas 106, nays 82. Adams, Fillmore & Co. in the neg-
ative.

On the 14th, Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina, moved a suspension of the rules to ena-
ble him to offer the following resolutions :

Resolvtd, That upon the presentation of any memorial or petition praying for the abolitioa
of shivery or the slave trade in any District, Territory, or State of the Union, and upon the
presentation of any resolution or paper, shall be considered as objected to, and the question
of its reception shall be laid upon the table, without debate or further action thereon.

The question was taken on the motion to suspend the rules, and decided in the negative ;
yeas 123, nays 77 ; there not being two-thirds voting in the affirmative. Fillmore in the
negative. — (See Congressional Globe, page 121 ; House Journal, page 206.)

March 30, 1840, Air. Marvin, of New York presented a petition to rescind the rule reject-
ing abolition petitions. Motion to lay it on the table — yeas 84, nays 49. Fillmore, Adams
& Co. in the negative. — Cong. Globe, vol 8, p. 295.

There is yet a further evidence that Mr. Fillmore's impartiality consisted rather in his re-
collections than in his votes.

On December, 9, 1840, Mr. Adams offered the following resolution:

Resolved, That the standing rule of this House, No. 21, adopted on the 28th of January
last, be, and the same is hereby rescinded.

Mr. Jenifer, of Maryland, moved to lay the resolution on the table.

After some conversation on the subject, the yeas and nays on the motion to lay on the ta-
ble were then ordered, and being taken, resulted as follows: yeas 82, nays' 38. Amongst
the nays are — Adams, Fillmore, Slade, Peck, and 51 others.

So the resolution was laid on the table. (Sea Cong. Globe, page 12 ; House Journal,
page S. )

On the 21st January, 1541, Mr Adams presented and moved the reference of a petition,
asking the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories.; also, that
no new Territory tolerating slavery may be admitted into the Union.

Mr. Conner moved to lay that portion of the petition which came under the standing rule
on the table.

Mr. Adams asked how that was to be done, for the petition must then necessarily be cut
in two.

Mr. Warren, of Georgia, observed that, if the petitioners thought proper to attach objeo
tionable matter, not receivable by the House, to their petition^ they ought not to complain
if the whole was rejected. He therefore moved the rejection of the whole.

That portion of the petition coming under the rule having been laid on the table sub si-
lent io.

Mr Black, of Georgia, moved to reconsider the vote, for the purpose, in case it should be
reconsidered, of moving the rejection of the whole, as he contended that no part of it ought
to have been received.

On that motion Mr. Adams demanded the yeas and nays, which were offered, and de-
cided by yeas and nays as follows : yeas 103, nays 51. Fillmore in the negative. (See
Congressional Globe, page 116; House Journal, page 202.)

So the vote was reconsidered After some further conversation, the hour having expired,
the House proceeded to the orders of the day.

On the 7th January, 1S42, 2d session 27th Congress, Mr. Giddings, of Ohio, presented a
memorial from certain legal voters of Lenox, in the county of Ashtabula, and State of Ohio,
praying Congress to repeal the laws regulating or sanctioning the holding or transportation
of persons as slaves in vessels of the United States sailing coastwise from one State to an-
other ; and to pass laws protecting the rights of all persons claimed or held as slaves who
may be con-titutionally entitled to their freedom by going to sea, with the consent of their
masters, beyond the jurisdiction of the State in which they are legally held to he slaves.

Mr. W. Cost Johnson objected to the reception of the petition, as prohibited by a ride of
the House in relation to petitions for the abolition of slavery.

Mr. Wise supported the objection, strenuously insisting that the memorial amounted to a
prayer for the abolition of slavery on board any American vessel, whether public or private,
in which a slave was carried three leagues out to sea — a new shape of the abolition ques-
tion, and one that went beyond anything heretofore attempted. He held that the deck of
an American ship was a portion of the Territory of the United States, let her be in what
part of the world she might.

Mr. Campbell, of Soutli Carolina, moved to lay the question of reception, raised by Mr.
Johnson, on the table, which also eanies the petition with it.

On this motion the yeas and nays were taken, and resulted as follows : veas 104, nays 86,
Fillmore in the negative. (See Congressional Globe, page 105 ; House Journal, 134.)

And upon the same day a petition to repeal the rule excluding abolition petitions was of-
fered. Upon a motion to lay it upon the table, the vote stood — yeas 99, nays 89. Messrs.
Adams, Giddings, Fillmore & Co., voting in the negative. [Congressional Globe, vol. 11,
page 105.)

January IS, 1842, Mr. Henry offered a petition to repeal the rule excluding abolition peti-
tions Mr. Campbell moved to lay the petition on the table — yeas 93, nays 75. Messrs.
Adams, Giddings, Fillmore & Co., voting in the negative. (Congressional Globe, vol 11,
page 143.)

On the 14th of June, 1841. the vote was taken upon the motion to reconsider the vote
striking the rule excluding abolition petitions from the rules of the House — yeas 106, nays
104. Messrs. Adams, Giddings, Fjllmore & Co., voting in the negative. (Congressional
Globe, vol. 10. page 51.)

On the 5th June, 1841, the main question was put upon Mr. Adams' resolution, to repeal
the rule excluding abolition petitions — yeas 106, nays 110. Messrs- Adams, Giddings, Fill-
more & Co., voting in the affirmative. (Congressional Globe, vol. 10, page 56.

January 4, 1842, a motion was made to lay Mr. Adams' abolition petition on the table —
yeas 115, nays 84. Messrs. Adams, Giddings Fillmore & Co., voting no. The speaker
then announced that there were many other similar peti ions not disposed of. Mr. Gamble
moved that they all lie on the table — yeas 1U3, nays 87. Messrs. Adams. Giddings, Fill-
more & Co., voting in the negative. (Congressional Globe, vol 11, pages 90 91.)

On the 21st January, Mr. Adams presented a petition from a number of citizens of Mas-
sachusetts, stating that by law no foreigner of color can now become a citizen of tire United
States, and hold real estate therein ; and praying that the naturalization laws may be so
amended as to permit free colored foreigners to become citizens of the United States, and to
hold real estate.

Mr. Wise raised the question of reception on the above petition, and moved to lay that
question on the table.

Mr. Calhoun, of Massachusetts, asked the yeas and nays, wdiich were ordered, and being
taken, resulted as follows : yeas 1 15, nays 68. Fillmore in the negative. (See Congres-
sional Globe, page 158 ; House Journal, 259 )

On the 12th December, 1842, 2d session, 27th Congress, Mr. Adams called up his resolu-
tion, rescinding the 21st rule.

Mr. Wm. Cost Johnson said, if the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts was
thus to obstruct the public business, he would move that it be laid upon the table.

The yeas and nays being ordered, resulted as follows: yeas lu6, nays 102. Fillmore in
the negative. (See Congicssional Globe, page 42 ; House Journal, page 38 )

He votes to receive the resolutions of Mr. Slade, pronouncing the sale of slaves in the Dis-
trict of Columbia piracy. On the 3d day of January, 1843, Mr. Slade moved the following
preamble and resolutions :

" Whereas, by a law of the United States, framed on the ]5th May, 1S27, the foreign
glave trade is declared to be piracy, and is made punishable by death j and whereas there
is, and lias loi.g been, carried on in the District of Columbia, within siyht of the balls of the

10

two houses of Congress, and the residence of (he Chief Executive Magistrate of the nation,
a trade in men involving all thp principles of outrage on human rights which characterize
the foreign stave trade, and whidi r.ave drawn upon it the maledictions of the civilized
world, and stigmatized those enga'-rerl in it as the enemies of the race ; and whereas the
trade thus exi^tin.: in this District is aggravated in enorm ty by reason of its being carried
on in the heart o a nation whose institutions are based upon the principle that all men are
created equal, and whose laws have in effect proclaimed its g'-eat and superlative iniquity ;
aggravat d, moreover, by its outrage on the sensibilities of a Christian commnmtv, by sun-
dering t' e tie's of Christian brotherhood, and by the anguish of its remorsel^s violation of
all the do n stiq relations, rendered the more deep and enduring by the hallowing influence
of the Christian re i ion upon those relations and by the increase of stret f»th which it gives
to the domestic affections : and whereas this trade in human beings is carrie.l on under the
authority oil iws enacted by the Congress of the United States, thereby invohitm the peo-
ple of a]! the S'ates in its guilt and di-grace — a guilt and disjr^ce enhanced bv the consid-
eration that those laws are a Virtual usurpation of power, the Constitution of the United
States baviqg conferred upon Congress no right to establish the relation of slavery, or to

SANCTION AND PROTECT THE SLAVE TirADE, IN ANY PORTION OF THIS CONFEDERACY : therefore,

resolved,"' &<:., Stc.

On motion to suspend the rules so as to receive the preamble and resolution, the vote
stood yens 7 3, nays 109 ; Messrs. A lams Fillmore, Giddings, Slade, &c , voting in the af-
firmative.— Congressio7ial Globe, vol. 15, p. 106.

He votes to receive a resolution r p • ling the territorial law of Fiorida prohibiting the im-
mi_ ration of free negroes into that Territory.

Again: on the 3rd January, 1813, Mr. Morgan presented a resolution instructing the
Commi'tee on Territories to inquire into the expediency of repealing an act passed by the
territorial legislature1 oif Florida, entitled "An act to prevent the future migration or emi-
gration of free negroes and mulattoes into si id Territory," or to so much thereof as im-
posed a capitation tax on such of them as may enter said Territory, fend authorizes their
sale for ninety years for the non-payment qf said tax.

Black moved to lay the resolution on the table — yeas 113, noes 90. Fillmore voted in
the negative.

On the 22d of February, Briggs, of .Massachusetts, asked leave to submit the following
resolution :

Whereas, all lawc passed by the governor and legislative council of Florida are in full
forte until disapproved of by Congress, therefore —

Resolved. That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed forthwith to report the fol-
lowing b'll :

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Slates of America
in Congress assembled, That an act parsed by the governor and legislative council of the
Territory of Flora I i, approved by the sii 1 governor on the 5th March, 1842; entitled " An
act to prevent the future migration of f ee negroes or mulattoes to this Territory and for
other purposes" be, and the same is hereby disapproved, and shall henceforth be of no
force.

Briggs asked a suspension of the rules- — yeas 66, nays 105. Fillmore yea, in favor of
Briggs — Cong. Globe, vo\. 12, p. 337.

On the 3d January, 1843, Mr. Moigan presented a resolution instructing the Committee
on the Territories to inquire into the expediency of repealing an act passed by the territo-
rial legislature of Florida entitled " An act to prevent the future migration or emigration of
free negroes and mulattoes into said Territory," or so much thereof as imposes a capitation
tax on such of them as may enter said Territory, and authorizes their sale for ninety-nine
years for non-pay in nt of said tax.

Mr. Black moved to lay the resolution on the table.

Mr. James called for the yeas and nays, which were ordered, and being taken, resulted
in yeas 113, nays 80. Fillmore in the negative. (See Congressional Globe p. Iu7 ; House
Journal, p. 111.

On tire 23d February, Mr. Briggs, of Massachusetts, asked leave to submit the following
resolution :

Whereas, all laws passed by the governor and legislative council of Florida are in full
force until disapproved by Congress, therefore —

Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed, forthwith, to report the
fodowing bill :

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That an act passed by the governor and legislative council o4 the
Territory of Florida, approved by the said governor on the 5th of March, 1^45, entitled
" An act to prevent the future migration of free negroes or mulattoes to this Territory, and
for other pur poses," be, and the same is hereby, disapproved, and shall henceforth be of no
force.

Mr Merriwether, of Georgia, objected to the reception of the resolution.

Mr. Briggs moved a suspension of the rules.

Mr. Fillmore believed that the subject had been referred to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary, and he wished to know whether they had reported on it.

11

The Si rik-T sni btrisy had n<>t. This re*»ll»tk>« WW; *0 <!> "r't them Jo report forthwith.
The Teas and nays tw»e ordered "ti the sus >en9i n of tin- nil '&.

The question was 'hen taken on the motion of Mr. Biig'S ro suspend . tlio rules, audit
was decided in the negative — \ eas P6, nir- 104

yr„.,_.\Ies«rs. \i!:ira*. Filhnore, Slide, and 64 others. (Sea Congrrsfonal Glohc, p.
337; House Journal, p. 13JM

Upon an examination of the "ari us vot s wlii.'li we have presetted, it will he found that
M--. Fillmore voted in every ease to teceiv • any petit on or resohitinn the. p iyej or pur pope
ofwlneh was the feholitiofi ofslhvery, -ml ag»«»st that rnrbt, in all c s 3 |n which the
payer or purpose was adverse to aholiii n. An it-is a£ tin pase, ,SP far H* we know or
believe in every vote ho eve- "ivo upon, the sulgeet He voted for the reception of; the
abolition petitions present ad by Mr. hil ms>nnd Mr. James.oCIV' nsylvaniaj butjwhen Mr.
Atherton asked leave to prese*t resfcluitions condemnatory of abolition and of agitation j he
voted dgainat their reception.

He voted for considering the resolutions of Mr. Giddings approving the conduct of the
slaves in the Creole case, an I voted again&f. the reception pf the resolution of Mr. Botts de-
claring the Creole slaves guilty of mutiny 'arid murder, an' Mr. Giddin s tlfeir advocate,
" deserving the severe condemnation of die people of the coentry and of Congress in par-
ticular." He voted for the consideration of a resolution to repeal a law evelndiu- f ee
negroes fom the Terriov of Florida. He voted to conside- an aboliti n p tition otl" ■■red
by Mr. Mann, of \- w Yn k. bathe voted against a resolution to suspend the rujes to allow
Mr. Rice to introduce a resolution denying the power of Cong ess on the su j el of si ivory
in the District of Columbia, or in the Territories, or with the slave tr»ue b tween the
States, and resolving not to consider any petition for that purpose, and also '-amsta simi-
lar one offered by Mr. Thompson, of South Carolina.

From this argument and statement of fact it must be obvious that the 1 tt ■>■ of Mr. Fill-
more to the " anti-slaverv society of Erie" subsists in fall fore, wholly nn -ontradicted or
unexplained by him, and should be held as a just exposition of bw pre sent opinions upon
the questions involved in that correspondence. We may, however, refer ,n •■ readers to an
aide ail I elaborate editorial review of that letter, whieh appeared in the Union new.-p >per
of September, 184S. Itis only necessary to do so to come to the same cot iclu ion with the
writer of that article, that the reply o! Mr. Fillmore ' leaves all his p.asj p of.-ssions. his
past votes, and his signature of the abolition society's platform [together vnrecanled and
untouched."

But Mr. Fillmore voted in company with a batch of the most notorious abolitionists
against all the resolutions offered by Mr. Atherton, avid those votes show I'" more conclu-
sively than any professions can do the true principles hell by him on this ittipo tant

Subject

The resolutions of Mr. Atherton. it will be remembered, ufefre the eonnte pot of those in-
troduced a few weeks later in the Senate by Mr. Calhoun, vote for bv Mr. Fhichanan, and
were deemed, at that day, a lair exposition and compromise of principle between the two
sect ons upon the controverted powers of Congress.

The first of these resolutions was adoptee! almost unanirnon-ly, few claim- I for Congress
the right to legislate upon slavery in the States. On the resolution (that the petitioners for
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and against the removal of slaves from
one slave State to another were intended to destroy the institution of slavery) the vote
stood — yeas 136, nays o5. Adams, Fillmore. Slade, Gildings & Co., i i th- n -uati- e.

On the first branch ofthe 3 1 resolution (that Congress bad no tight todo that indireetly
which it cannot do directly) the vote stood — yeas 173, nays t'j-5. Adams, Fillmore, Slade,
Giddings & Co., in the negative.

On the second branch (that the agitation of the question in the District of Columbia s a
means of overthrowing the institution of slavery in the several States is contrary to the
spirit of the Constitution, an infringement ofthe rights ofthe States, and a breach ofthe
confederate southi the vote stood — yeas Did, nays 40 Adams, Fillmore, SI ade, Giddings
& Co., in the negative.

On the first branch ofthe 4th resolution (that the Constitution rests upon the broad prin-
ciple of equality among the members ofthe confederacy) the vote stood — yeas b'J nays 26.
Fillmore and Gildings in the affirmative.

On the second branch ofthe 4th resolution, to wit : " That Cong ess, in the exercise ofits
acknowledged power, has no right to tlisei inmate between the ln-titmio s of on ■ portion
of the States and another with a view of ah dishing the one and promoting the other," die
vote htoo ' — yeas 174, nays 24. Adams, Fillmore, Giddings, Slade, Truman Suiith & C§.,
voting in the negative.

On the first branch ofthe 5th resolution the vote stood — yeas 146, nays 52. Adams, Fill-
more, Giddings, Slade & Co. , in the negative.

On the second branch ol the 5th resolution (tabling abolition petiti ns and resolutions
without other notice) the vote stood — yeas 166, nays 2v Adams, Fillmore, Slade, Gid-
dings & Co., in the negative. — See Cong. Globe, vol. 7, jip 27 2a

But, upon a question of so much importance, it is our duty, at the expense. of tim- and
patience, to demonstrate completely the charge that Mr. Fillmore was one of Ike first and
mostformidable authors of the slavery agitation!

12

The session of lS36-'7 seems to have been the commencement of an effort, on the part
of the abolitionists, to connect their nefarious schemes with the political operations of the
country. A powerful endeavor was made by Adams, Giddings, Slade, and other*, 10
create an excitement against the southern States, by charging them with a violation of the
right of petiiioti. The struggle was fierce and exciting, but it was decisive against the agi-
tators Congress determined to exclude all reference to a question so dangerous and excit-
ing in its character. Bin the fire then kindled has never gone out, it has burned more or
less fiercely as any casual collision between the sectional interests has furnish >d fuel.

We shall therefore recur to the events of the 26th December, J&37, a •day which Mr.
Wise hns called "the darkest in a congressional service cf eleven years. " Our narrative
will be compiled from the pages of that observant and caustic historian, Thomas H. Benton,
who will not let the dust of oblivion cover the sins of contemporaneous inconsistency. Our
object in recalling this important historical era is to show that Mr. Fiilmore was responsi-
ble for his share of the original mischief wrought by the agitators to whom we have ad-
verted.

A DARK DAY FOR THE SOUTH. SOUTHERN MEMBERS RETIRE FROM THE
HALL. MR. FILLMORE VOTES THROUGHOUT WITH THE ABOLI-
TIONISTS ! !

The immediate occasion of this contest was the pertinacious effort of Mr. Slade, of Ver-
mont, to make the presentation of abolition petitions the ground of agitation anil action
against. the institution of slavery in the southern States. Mr. Slade had moved to refer the
resolutions presented by him to a select committee, with instructions to report upon them.
Upon making this motion, he commenced a violent assault upon the institution of slavery.
Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, interposed, to warn him of the consequences of such an in-
flammatory harangue. Mr. Slade refused to desist, and was interrupted by a motion, made
by Mr. Dawson, ol Georgia, for an adjournment. The Speaker [an upright and impartial
southern man] ruled this motion out of order

Mr. Slade was proceeding to discuss the question, " What was slavery ?" Mr. Dawson
again asked him to yive way for an adjournment, which was refused. " A visible commo-
tion began to pervade the house — members rising, clustering together, and talking with
animation." Mr. Slade continued, and was about reading a judicial opinion of one of the
southern States, defining a slave to be a chattel, when Mr. Wise called him to order for
irrelevancy. " The question being upon the abolition of slavery in the District, and the ar-
gument upon the legality of slave title in a State." The Speaker decided that it was not in
order to discuss the subject of slavery in the States. Mr. Slade contended that he read the
decision as he might have done that of an English court. Mr. Robinson, of Virginia, moved
an adjournment. The speaker decided the motion out of order, and Mr. Slade refused to
yield the floor, and continued his speech. Mr. Slade proceeded at great length, when Mr.
Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, called him to order. '1 he chair did not sustain the cail. Mr.
Slade went on quoting from the Declaration of Independence and the constitutions of the
several States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called him. to order for read-
ing papers without the leave of the house. The speaker then said that no paper objected to
could be read without the leave of the house.

Mr. Wise then said that the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of

slavery, going back to the very first day of its creation, instead of slavery as it now existed

in the District, and the powers and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now reading

the State constitutions to show that as it existed in the States it was against them, and

gainst the laws of God and man. This was out of order."

Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindication of his course ; he was about to read a
memorial of Dr. Franklin, and an opinion of Mr. Madison upon the subject of slavery,
when Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina, objected to the reading. Mr. Slade, without asking
the permission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, proposed that the clerk
should read the document. To this the speaker objected, that it was equally out ol order
for the clerk to read. Mr. Griffin withdrew the objection, and Mr. Slade proceeded to
read the papers and comment upon them. He was about to return to the state of opinion
in Virginia upon the subject of slavery before Dr. Franklin's memorial. Mr- Rhett in-
quired. ''What the opinions of Virginia fifty years since had to do with the case ?" The
Speaker was about to reply, when Mr. Wise tose, and with much warmth, said : "He has
discussed the whole abstract subject of slavery — of slavery in Virginia — of slavery in my
own district, and 1 now ask all of my colleagues to retire with me from this hall." Mr.
Slade reminded the Speaker that he had not yielded the floor, but his progress was inter-
rupted by the condition of the House and the exclamations of members. Amongst them
Mr. Halsey, of Georgia, was heard calling on the delegates from that State to withdraw
with him ; while Mr. Rhett was heard proclaiming that the members from South Caroli-
na had already consulted together and appointed a meeiing at three o'clock, in the com-
mittee room of the District ol Colmbuia. Here the Speaker succeeded in getting the floor,
and stating the question to be on granting leave to the member from Vermont to read cer-
tain papers, the reading of which had been objected to. Many members rose, all addressing
the chair at the same time, and the general scene of noise and confusion continued.

"Mr. Rhett succeeded in raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which waged

13

in the House, ami invited the entire delegation from all the slave States to retire from
the hall forthwith, and meet in the committee room of the District of Columbia."

The Speaker rose to a personal explanation, and succeeded in recapitulating his decis-
ions and vindicated their correctness. "Had it been in his power," he said, "to restrain
the discussion, he should have done so. But it was not."

Mr. Slade continuing, said the paper he was about to read was one of the Continental
Congress of 1774. The Speaker was about to put the question of leave, when Mr. Cost
Johnson inquired if it "would be in order to force the member from Vermont to stop ?"
The impartial chair said in despair that it could not be done. The indomitable Slide pro*
ceeded in triumph. "Then Mr. MeHay, of North Carolina, a clear, cool-headed, sagacious
man, interposed the objection that headed Mr. Slade." The rule of the House required
that when a member was called to order, he should take his seat; and, if deeiiled to be
out of order, he should not be allowed to speak again without the leave of the House.
Mr. McKav stated the point of order, and said that he now objected to Mr. Slade:s pro-
ceeding. "Redoubled noise and confusion ensued — a crowd of members rising and speak-
ing at once, they at last yielded to the noise and confusion of the Speaker's hammer, and
his apparent desire to read something from a book — recognized to be the Manual — which
he he! 1 in his hand, he at last succeeded in reporting the rule referred to by Mr. McKay,
and sustaining his motion. Mr. Slade endeavored to proceed. The Speaker directed him
to take his seat until the question of leave should be put. Then Mr. Slade — still keepiug
on his feet — a^ked leave to proceed in order. On that question Mr. Allen, of Vermont,
asked the ayes and nays. Mr. Rencher, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr.
Adams and others demanded the ayes and noes upon this motion. They were called, and
resulted 1UG &\es, 63 noes — some fifty or sixty members having withdrawn.

"This opposition to adjournment," nays the historian, "was one of the worst features in
this unhappy day's work — the only effect of keeping the House together being to increase
irritation, and multiply the chances of an outbreak, from the beginning southern mem-
bers had voted to adjourn, but were prevented from succeeding by the tenacity with which
Mr. Slade kept possession of the floor ; and now, at last, when it was time to adjourn, any
way — when the House was in a condition in which no good could be expected, and great
harm might be apprehended — there were sixty- three members wilLng to continue it in ses-
sion. When the adjournment passed, Mr. Campbell stood up in a chair, and, calling for
the attention of members, invited all of the southern delegations to attend the meeting then
being held in the committee-room of the Distiiet of Columbia.

"Members from the slaveholding States had impaired to the appointment, agitated by
various passions. We give a report of the propositions, presented from a letter written by
Mr. Rhett :

"In a private and friendly letter to the editor of the Charleston Mercury, amongst other
events accompanying the memorable secession of the southern members from the hall of
the House of Representatives, 1 stated to him that I had prepared two resolutions, drawn
as amendments to the motion of the member from Vermont, whilst he was discussing the
institution of slavery in the South, 'declaring that the constitution having failed to protect
the South in the peaceable possession and enjoyment of their rights and peculiar institu-
tions, it was expedient that the Union should be dissolved ; and the other, appointing a
committee of two members from each State, to report upon the best means of peaceably
dissolving it. They were intended as amendments to a motion, to refer with instructions
to report a bill, abolishing sUvery in the District of Columbia. I expected them to share
the fate which inevitably awaited the original motion so soon as the floor could have been
obtained, viz : to be laid upon the table. My design in presenting them was, to place
before Congress and the people what, m my opinion, was the true issue upon this great and
vital question ; and to point out the course of policy by which it should be met by the
southern States.'

"But extreme counsels did not prevail. There were-members present who well consid-
ered that, although the provocation was great and the number voting for such a fire-brand
motion was deplorably large, yet it was but little more than the one-fourth of the House
and decidedly less than one hall of the members from the free States ; so that, even if left
to the free State vote alone, the motion would have been rejected. But the motion itself
and the manner in which it was supported, was most reprehensible — necessarily leading to
disorder in the House, the destruction of its harmony and capacity for useful legislation
tending to a sectional segregation of the members, the alienation of feeling between the
North and the South, and alarm to all the slaveholding States. The evil required a remedy-
but not the remedy of breaking up the Union ; but one which might prevent the like in
future, while administering a rebuke upon the past. That remedy was found in adopting
a proposition to be offered to the House, which, if agreed to, would close the door against
any discussion upon abolition petitions in future, and assimilate the proceeding o( the House
in that particular, to those of the Senate. This proposition was put into the hands of Mr.
Patton. of Virginia, to be offered as an amendment to the rules at the opening of the House
the next morning. It was in these words :

''Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers touching the aboln TO of slavery
the buying, selling, or transferring of slaves, in any State, District, or Territory of the

14

United States, be laid on 'he table without being deba'ed, printed, read, or referred, and
thai no m ther ac ion wha'ever shall b- had the con

"Accordingly, at the op niti^ of the House, Mr. Patton asked leave to submit the, follow-
ing resolution — which was rea I for information. Mr Adams objected to the grant of leave.
Mr. Patton then moved a suspension of the rides, which motion required two-thirds to
sustain it; and unless ob'ained, this salutary remedy for an alarming evil (which was al-
ready in force in the Senate) could not be offered. It was a test motion, and on which the
opponents of abolition agitation in the House required all their .-trength ; for, unless two
to one they were defeated. Happily the two to one were ready, and on taking the yeas
and nays, demanded by an abolition member, to keep hisfri. n is to the track, and to hold
the ftee State anti-abolitioi ists to their responsibiity at home,) the result stood 135 yeas to
60 nays — the full iwo thirds and fifteen over.

"This was one of the most important votes ever delivered m the House. Upon its issue
depended the quiet of the House on one hand or on the other the renewal and peipetua-
tion of the scenes of the day before — ending in breaking up all deliberation and all nation-
al legislation. It was successful, and that critical step being safely over, I tie passage of the
res Union was secured — the free State fri ndly vote being itself sufficient to curry it ; but,
although the passage of ttite resolution was secured, yet resistance to it continued. Mr.
Pation rose to recommend his resolution as a peace ottering, and to prevent fuither agna-
tion by demanding the previous question.

"Then followed a scene of disorder, which thus appears in the Register of Debates :

" Mr. Adams rose and said, Mr. Speaker, theirentleman p.ecedes his resolution — [Loud
cries of Order ! orcer ! from all pans of the hall !j Mr. A. He preceded it with remarks —
[Order ! order !j

'• The Chair reminded the gentleman that it was out of order to address the House after
the demand for the previous question.

" Mr. Adams. I ask the House — [Continued dies of order !' which completely drowned
the honorable member's voice.']

" Order having been restored, the next question was, ' Is the demand for the previous
question seconded ;' which seconding would consist of a majority of the whole House ;
-which, on a division, quickly showed itself. Then came the further question, 'Shall the
main question be now put V on which the yeas and nays were demanded and takeu ; and
ended in a repetition of the vote of the same 63 agains't it. The main question was then
put and carried ; but again, on nays and yeas, to hold free State members to their respon-
sibility ; showing the same bo in the negative.

" Thus was stifled, and in future prevented in the House, the inflammatory debates on
these disturbing petitions. It was the great, session of their presentation, being olfered by
hundreds and signed by hundreds of thousands of persons — many of them wuim n, who
forgot their sex and their duties to mingle with such inflammatory work ; some of them
clergymen, who forgot their mission of peace to stir op strife among those who should be
brethren. Of the pertinacious 63, who backed Mr. Slade throughout, the most notable were
Mr. Adams, who had been President of the United States ;Mr. r illmure who became so ;
and others. It was a portentous contest. The motion of Mr. Slade was, not for an in-
quiry into the expediency of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, (a motion in
itself sufficiently inflammatory,) but to get the command of the House to bring in a bill for
that purpose — which would be a decision of the question. His motion failed."

"Amongst the pertinacious sixty-three," says Mr. Benton, "who backed Mr. Slade
throughout, the most notable were Adams, whe had been President of the United States,
Mr. Fillmore, who became so," and others.

" It was a portentous contest. The motion of Mr.' Slade was not for an inquiry into the
expediency of abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia, (a motion in itself sufficiently
inflammatory,) but to get command of the House to bring in a bill Jor that purpose, which
would be a decision of the question. — Benton's Thirty Yeais' View, chap 26, vol. 'J..

Such is the description of a scene which has no parallel for prolonged and angry excite-
ment, and for turbulence, since the irruption of the '• poissardes" into the convention of
Paris. We have given the details from the knowledge arid observation of a narrator. This
was the beginning of excitement upon this subject. It originated in the effort of a faction to
make the rules of deliberation the vehicles of injustice and insult. It was called " the most
angry and portentous degate which had yet taken place in Congress ;" and now, Millard
l< illmore, one of the chief actors in these disgraceful scenes, claims high exemption from
the frailties and responsibilities of faction and fanaticism ! Heads homilies upon decorum
to those who are at this day reaping the tares and thorns of a controversy sown by his own
hand : and with an air of pious astonishment, exclaims :

" Where are we now ? Alas ! threatened at home with civil war, and from abroad with
a rupture of our peaceful relations. If the present Executive and his supporters have, with
good intentions and honest hearts, made a. mistake, (in the repeal of the Missouri compro-
mise. I hope God may forgive them as 1 do.

" It is for you to say whether the present agitation which distracts the country and
threatens us with civil war, has not been recklessly and ivo?itonly produced by the adoption
of a measure to aid in personal advancement rather thanin any public good"

* * * * * # ##&# *

15

" He deplored the sectional policy that had been adopted by important political parties at

the present time, and could only place his trust in the sterling patriotism and sound sense of

the people, to avert the calamines which sectional agitation nm-t entail upon a country. •

# # # The blame, therefore, it appears to me, with all due deference

is chiefly chargeable to those who originated the nieusiue. "

Then he adds :

" I am unwilling to believe that those who are engaged in this strife can foresee the con-
sequences of their own acts. Why should not the golden rule which our Saviour has
presribed for our intercourse with each other, he applied to the intercourse between these
fraternal States ? Let us do unto them as we would that they should do unto us in like
circumstances."'

He pities his successors :

" He regretted extremely that those who succeeded him in the administration had thought
proper, bv disturbing existing compromises, to re-open the wounds so recently healed, and
again to shike the country from the centre to the circumference with the same deploroble
agitation. (Loud applause ) The disturbance of a compromise that had existed for more
than thirty years, he deeply deplored. (Cominued applause.) The evils it had entailed
upon the country were known to all, and he could only hope that the authors of those evils
had not foreseen the consequences of their policy."

Have the annals of political hypocrisy anything to compare with this inconsistency be-
tween the recorded legislative actions of Mr. Fillmore, and this severe reproach upon others
who are now suffering the consequences of his own example ?

Messrs. Fjlmore, Adams, Slade, Giddings & Co., had organized an attempt to force the
dSscussion of slavery upon Congress. They would suffer no adjournment. They opposed
every attempt to stop the streams of abuse directed upon the peaceful and astonished mem-
bers from the North. They pressed the offensive subject untd they caused the first act of
representative secession which had ever taken place in this country. Well might Mr.
Wise, himself a prominent actor in those scenes, receive with indignation the very swift
testimony of Mr. Stewart — afterwards one of Mr Fillmore's cabinet — who volunteered to
prove that Mr."Fillmore was one of the soundest 'and best friends of the South.

In a letter written by Mr. Wise to Mr. Alfred of Augusta, Va., dated July 29, 1S4S, he
says : - * ~=-si >

" I, too, served Mr. Fihnore much longer than Mr. Stuat did in Congress, and I was
intimately acquainted with his speei lies and. votes in the House of Representatives on the
subject of slaveiy, and of its abolition, in all its forms ; and I do not hesitate on my own
personal knowledge and responsibility, to pronounce the charge of abolitionism against Mr.
Fillmoie true. 1 appeal to the journals of the House, for the whole period of Mr. Fillmore's
service in Congress, to prove that, if he is not an abolitionist, John Quincy Adams was not;
Giddings was not He voted with them and against the South, on every question of slavery
or abolition without an exception within my knowledge or recollection. The darkest day
I erer saw, during eleven years' experience, from 1S33 to 1844, in the House, was on the
20th of December, 1837, which we have already explained, on the occasion on which Mr.
Slade discussed the question of slavery in the States."

Mr Fillmore' Fxccutive record upon the subject of slavery :

Whilst in the executive chair, Mr. Fillmore sought no opportunity to extend our Terri-
torial possessions or commercial relations towards the South. He had been opposed to the
annexation of Texas. He occupied himself very vigilantly in maintaining the laws against
fillibusters — laws in themselves very salutary and proper to be enforced.
Opposition to Texas annexation:

In J ?44 he was an ardent opposer of Texas annexation.

At a mass meeting in the State of New York In 1S-I4, Mr. Fillmore made a speech from
a booth reared under a banner on which were painted, in ridicule, General Jackson and
James K. Polk, the latter mounted by a negro ! who carried a small flag bearing the name of
Texas.

His course in 1S47 :

In 1847 he headed the ticket of his party in New York, the basis of whose organization
consisted of the following resolution :

Resolved — That while the Whig freemen of New York, represented in this convention,
will faithfully adhere to all the compromises of the constitution, and jealously maintain all
the reserved rights of the States, they declare — since the crisis has arrived when the ques-
tion must be met — their uncompromising hostility to the extension of shivery into any
territory now free which may be hereafter acquired by any action ol the government of our
Union "

A Fillmore paper, speaking afterwards of this resolution and the result, said :
" On the strength mainly of that resolve — of its rejection by the Democracy, and its
hearty adoption by the Wings — the State went Whig in the election that followed by some
thirty thousand majority. MILLARD FILLMORE headed the Whig Ticket."

The Address, issued in support of the resolution and of Mr. Fillmore, was furious in Its
denunciation of slave extension, saying that :

*' The flag of our victorious legion is to be desecrated from its holy character of ii ert
and emancipation into an errand of bondage and slavery."

16

" We protest in the name of the rights of man and of liberty, against tne further exten-
sion of slavery in North America,"

During the canvass of 1847, at Rochester, in the State of New York, Mr. Fillmore made
a speec^m Minerva Hall against " the aggression of slave power." The greater part of
the speech was upon the encroachments of slavery ; upon the monopoly which the south-
ern O'ioaichy, a nest of 250,000 slaveholders, had enjoyed in all the offices of trust in the
Union : how many Presidents from the South, how few from the North. He commented
on the same disproportion of judges, foreign ministers, Speakers of the House, members of
the cabinet, &c, with ungracious flings at what he alleged to be southern arrogance and
injustice.

In 1851 he negotiated the Central American treaty with Great Britain. Under this we
guaranteed that power in all her possesions aud pretensions, renounced any possibility of
acquiring territory ourselves in that quarter, bound ourselves to divide with her any rights
of transit we might acquire, engaged to maintain the peace of the isthmus, and by this
" entangling alliance," placed a barrier to southern progress, more effectual than all the
fleets and armies of Europe. This unfortunate convention was founded in a false admira-
tion of British power, and was either a covert attempt to injure the South, or a weak
elmlitior. of magnanimous vanity. England already held the monopoly of the isthmus
between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea. She offered us no reciprocity in its use. We
were just acquiring territory on the Pacific ; we were on the eve of acquiring commer-
cial communications which must give our marriners and marchants infinite advantages over
theii competitors. The treaty of Mr. Fillmore has entangled us in a co-partnership and a
eo protectoiate, which has been a fruitful source of dispute between the contracting
powers. The obscurity of its language has occasioned questions of personal veracity
among our own statesmen, and with the ministers of England. A convention intended to
keep the peace of the isthmus has nearly involved in war two peaceful continents. But it
has stopped the progress of the republic in that direction, and we shall never be relieved
from its embarrassments until notice shall be given of our purpose to abrogate it.

MR. FILLMORE'S APPOINTMENT OF FREESOILERS TO OFFICE.

The proclivities of Mr. Fillmore are perhaps as obvious from his nominations to office,
whilst in the executive chair, as from his votes in Congress, or his known opinions pub-
licly expressed elsewhere.

The Hon. S. A. Smith of Tennessee, having "been asked by the Hon. Mr. Shaw for some
information about the character of Mr. Fillmore's appointments, replies in a letter, from
which we make the following extracts :

He says that he has been led —

" To examine carefully the political, or rather sectional views of the appointees of Mr.
Fillmore during his Presidential term.

This has been a work of no little labor and required some time, which accounts for the
delay in answering youi letter

Upon this investigation I find the following facts :

1. Every man appointed to any important office by Mr, Fillmore while President, whose
residence was north of Mason & Dixon's line, including three members of the cabinet, was
a Freesoiler, and in favor of the " Wilmot Proviso."

2. One of the leading members of his cabinet, the Hon. Thomas Corwin, of Ohio, Secre-
tary of the Treasury, was a prominent Abolitionist,

3 Every one of the appointees before referred to, who had taken any position on the
slavery question, was known at the time of his appointment, to be in favor of the prohibition
of slavery in the Territories.

4. Most of those from the same section retained in office by Mr. Fillmore, who had pre-
viously been appointed by President Taylor, were Freesoilers or Wilmot Piovisoists."

From this report it would seem, that, to have been an advocate of the Wilmot provisc;
constituted no valid objection in the mind of Mr. Fillmore to appointment to office.
Pardon by Mr. Fillmore of Daniel Dayton and Edward Sayres, parties convicted in the

criminal court of the District of Columbia, of enticing away and transporting seventy-
three slaves from said District.

As a practical illustration of the views of Mr. Fillmore in relation to slavery in the Dis-
trict of Columbia, and the rights of slaveholders generally, we submit the following facts ;
in the year 184S the city of Washington was startled by the announcement that a very
large number of its slave population had nbsconded upon the same night. Suspicion was
directeed against a par.icular vessel which had left the port of Washington ; it was pur-
sued and overtaken. " and concealed under hatches were found seventy three slaves belong-
ing to citizens of the District of Columbia and of the States of Maryland and Virginia. The
vessel was in charge of three white men from the north. The slaves and kidnappers were
brought back to the city and placed in prison.

The following recordshows the action of the criminal court in the case :

Criminal Court^of the District of Columbia, for the county of Washington.

March term, 1840. ■

17

United States ) May 8. Convicted of transporting slaves in 73 cases, and sentenced by
vs. > the court in each case to pay a line of $>l 10 and costs, one half of the line

Daniel Drayton. ) to the owner of the slave, according to the act of Mid. of 17'J6, ch. 67. ,
Ordered to be committed to the jail of Washington county till lines and costs are paid.
Same number of cases vs. Edward Sayers, and fined ftlUO and cost in each, and com-
mitted as above. *

Test : JOHN A. SMITH. Clerk.

Under this law of Maryland, in force in the District of Columbia, the penalty is a fine not
exceeding two hundred dollars, with imprisonment in the county jail as the alternative of
non payment. This act was passed in 1796, and was then deemed sufficient to prevent
such offences, but we feel assured there is no a slave State in .which the commission of
such a crime does not now subject the offender to imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard
labor for many years. It will be seen that the court did not impose the maximum fine in
either case, one half of which, under the express terms of the law, enured to the owners of
the slaves, and the other to the '•' commissioners of tin county." The costs belonged to the
United States, by whom all the expenses of the prosecution had been paid. Before we exhibit
the record, to show under whose authority these men were discharged, we ask our readers
to consider their offence and its consequences. It was not the transportation of a single or a
few slaves, the number was seventy-three. From the confessions of one of the parties, it
was proven that money was the motive on their part, and that the whole scheme was under
the management of northern abolitionists, and doubtless was one of those ''underground
railways" now so boastfully spoken of.

Joshua R. Giddings, of Ohio, immediately upon the imprisonment of the offenders, visited
them at the jail, and showed by his conduct that he rejoiced in their act. Horace Mann,
member of Congress from Massachusetts, and of equal notoriety as'an abolitionist, was one
of their counsel, and during the trial actually denied the legality of slavery in the District of
Columbia. What were the consequences ? let us enumerate them : the invasion of private
rights and the violation of public law, accompanied with very considerable expense to the
individual owners, and much more to the United States ; the disturbance of the peace of the
seat of government whilst Congress was in session; for the indignation, of the citizens of
Washington, exasperated by previous losses, and now by this wholesale robbery broke out
into an angry mob. This danger proved so threatening, that special meetings of the muni-
cipal authorities were held, and the President of the United States, Mr. Polk, held consulta-
tion with them as to the best means of preserving the peace of the Capital. The excite-
ment, however, did not end here, but was introduced into the halls of Congress ; by Mr.
Hale, of New Hampshire, into the Senate, and by Mr. Palfrey, of Massachusetts, into the
House of Representatives, the result of which was an angry debate, with an increase of
sectional strife and hostility. In proof of these^statements see the National Intelligencer and
Union from April 18, 1S4S, et seg

g RECORD OF PARDON.

^Criminal Court of the District of Columbia for the county of Washington.

United States vs. Daniel Drayton.

August 12, 1S52. — Discharged from jail by the President of the United States, Millard
Fillmore.

Same vs. Edward Sayers.
Also discharged, at the same time, by the President.

Test : JOHN A. SMITH, Clerk.

This pardon discriminated between the release from imprisonment, and the payment of
the fine and costs, leaving them to be recovered by civil process. This discrimination was
a mere evasion and mockery of justice. How idle it would have been for southern slave-
holders to have followed these parties north for any such purpose ; the United States has
never recovered, or attempted to recover, one dollar of costs, in reinbursement of the expen-
ses of prosecution paid out of the common treasury, and the owners of the slaves (a portion
only having released their interest in the funds) have never received the expenses of their
recapture.

Upon these points we quote the following extracts from the opinion of John J. Critten
den, given in April, 1852, and then Atterney General, to whom the President, Mr. Fillmore,
submitted the question of his constitutional power to pardon Drayton and Sayers. The re-
port wiU be found in volume 5, Opinions of Attorneys General, published by R. Farnham,
page 536, Mr, Crittenden says : " To convert the power of mercy and grace by pardon into
a power releasing and acquitting or abrogating private vested rights would be a distortion
<?f the power from its true meaning, spirit, and purpose." Again he says, page 542 : "I
cannot advise that your power of pardon as President of the United States extends to any
portion of the several fines imposed by the judgments against Drayton and Sayers. The im-
prisonment is to compel payment of the lines, and is not to be released by the power of

m

18

granting pardons any more than the fines themselves. They were released from imprison-
ment without the payment of a single dollar of the fines or costs.

Admitting, however, the power of the President, let us consider the act of Mr. Fillmore
in its relation to those communities whose rights had been outraged, and especially the in-
terests and sensibilities of the south generally. It is the rule of the President of the United
States, as doubtless of the State executives, when invoked to exercise the pardoning power,
to learn the views of those officially connnected with the case under advisement, and also of
the community against whom the offence had been committed. In this case, Mr. Fillmore,
contrary to his* own custom, and although the application for pardon had been before him
for several months, neither sought nor received any statement of the facts, or any opinion
from, Philip Barton Key, Esq., who, as district attorney, conducted the prosecution, and
was therefore the most suitable person to advise him, or from Philip R. Fendall, Esq., who,
at the time of the pardon held that office. There was no recommendation from Judge
Crawford or the Jury who tried the cases. There was no consultation with either of the two
gentlemen, Messrs. Walter Lenox and John W. Maury, Esqs., who held the office of mayor
of the city of Washington during the pendency of the application, or even notification of it to
them. If such notification had been given, earnest remonstrances would have been laid be-
fore the President from the mayor of the city and the municipal authorities, " and from the
citizens generally, who were even more astonished at the announcement of the pardon than
they had been when the slaves were first carried off !" So unexpected was this pardon, and
so hurried the departure of these offenders, that not only had the citizens of Washington no
chance to remonstrate, but the State of Virginia had no opportunity to interpose her execu-
tive requisition for them, a portion of the stolen slaves having belonged to her citizens.
Since the occurrence of this outrage, and the free escape of the criminals, the State of Vir-
ginia ha? felt herself called upon to prohibit the hiring of slaves in the District of Columbia.
Under such circumstances, the exercise of the pardoning power, in the forcible language of
Mr. Crittenden, becomes "a distortion of the power from its true meaning, spirit, and
purpose."

The only apology offered for Mr. Fillmore is that he yielded to his sentiments of human-
ity ; but was it a case which justly appealed to his pity ? These men had been in prison
between three and four years, but this confinement was in the county jail without labor, in
pleasant apartments, with wholesome food and the privilege ol books and papers. Average
the duration of the imprisonment and the number of slaves, it is much less than a month in
each case. Under the laws of this District the larceny of any article under the value of five
dollars is punishable, and often punished, with imprisonment in the county jail for twelve
months, and tlfe larceny of articlesof the value of five dollars and upwards subjects the of-
fendeis to imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for one to three years. Regarded,
then, as a mere question of property, it is manifest from this contrast that the punishment
was wholly inadequate and a mockery of equal justice. Again : how many far more meri-
torious cases were then languishing in the District penitentiary, the victims of ignorance
and poverty. It is said, were these men to reman in jail for their lifetime ? We answer
no, but for such time as was reasonably proportionable to their offence. Can it be presumed
that Mr. Fillmore's successor would be less humane ?

The pardoning power is not to be exercised from feelings of pity at the expense of duty
and great public considerations. If so, our prisons will soon be emptied and convictions
but idle forms. We regret to believe that it was not sympathy for any sufferings of these
men, but with the act they had committed, as subsequent circumstances will show.

What renders the conduct of Mr. Fillmore more inexplicable is the fact that it was dur-
ing his own presidential term, and before the granting of this pardon, that a similar offence
was committed in the city of Washington. In the year 1S50 one William S. Chaplin, a no-
torious abolitionist, enticed several slaves to abscond from the city. Three of them belonged
to Messrs. Tombs and Stepnens, then sojourning at the seat of government in the discharge
of tlieir duttes as representatives from the State of Georgia. Chaplin provided a carriage
for the purpose, armed himself and slaves. When intercepted he made a desperate resist-
ance, as also the slaves at his instigation, firing repeatedly uponthe officers. Chaplain
gave bail in the sum of.$6,000, forfeited it and npon his return home was applauded as a
hero. It was his boast that the slaves were the property of southern members of Congress.
This aggravated attack upon the rights of slaveholders was staring Mr. Filhnore in the
face when he paidoned Drayton and Sayers.
We give the record :

Criminal Court of the District of Columbia for Washington county.

March term, 1S51.

Ukited States, ) Indicted for the larceny of slaves in two cases. Recognizance in the

vs. \ sum of $3,000 in each case. Recognizance forfeited and cases

Wm. L. Chaplin, ) still pending and undecided. ^

Test : JNO. A. SMITH, Clerk. \

You will then ask, fellow-citizens of the south, at whose especial instance was this par-
don granttd ? We answer from the record, Charles Sumner, senator from Massachusetts.

19

On file in the State Department will be found a long and elaborate petition and argument
by him in favor ofthis pardon. He received it himself, and bore it triumphantly, in com-
pany with the marshal, to ihe jail. It is now paraded as one of his brightest achieve-
ments, as will be sen by reference to page 48 of a work published by Tieknor & Fields,
Boston, entitled "Recent Speeches and Addresses, by Charles Sumner." It is there
stated " that this case (that of Dayton and Sayers) excited particular interest. " On invi-
tation of Mr. Fillmore, Mr. Sumner laid before him the following paper. Shortly after-
waul the pardon was granted,"

We cannot for bear tomention the singular aud painful fact, that whilst the paidon was
refused belore the meeting of the Whig convention of 1852, yet that it was granted at the
instance of Charles Sumner, subsequent to the action of that convention. We ask the
question, ought Mr. Sumner's interposition have weighed a feather ; but, on the contrary
should not his interference have admonished Mr. Fillmore of the necessity of eaution. Yet
the President fails to consult with those who have been aggrieved, and grants the pardon
" shortly after Mr. Sumner's argument." It seems to us that Mr. Fillmore having acquaint-
ed himself with all the facts of the case, with the view* of the people whose rights had
been invaded, and weighed well the enormity 4f the offence in all its consequences, should
have answered Mr. Sumnar in this wise : " I cannot grant this pardon ; it should oidy be
granted with the knowledge and approval of the authorities, iegal and municipal, of the
city of Washington, and of some considerable portion of the community whose rights have
been invaded and peace disturbed. There are numberless cases in the penitentiary and jail
of this District more deserving of Executive clemency ; if these men have committed this
wholesale robbery of their own motion for gain, they must expiate it by suitable punish-
ment. My successors can interpose at a proper time torelease them. If they were the
agents and dupes of abolition societies, let their employers, from their abundance, pay the
fines and cost:-, or some portion thereof, as a just restitution to the United States and the
owners. If their employersiwill not save them harmless, let their dupes expose the plotters
of this nefarious scheme, and they shall be discharged. Again, this is a national matter,
Congress and the country are convulsed by this sectioual strife. Since the commission of
this offence, the servants of representatives in Congress have been stolen away and the
rights of sovereign States thereby violated. Until this spirit of fanaticism which so flag-
rantly tramples upon private rights and the public peace is allayed, I cannot, by any act
of mine, give it the slightest countenance ; but, on the contrary, must rebuke it. Such
criminals, with such abettors, must be held as hostages for the public peace." Such, how-
ever, was not his langnage or his action ; but a few months before the expiration of his
term, and with the retirement of private life before him, Mr. Filimore co-operates with Mr.
Sumner, and, in fact, gratifies thfs bitter enemy and wholesale rcviler of the south by the .
consummation of this outrage. How opposite Mr. Fillmore's course to the south, to the
cordial and consistent friendship of Mr. Buchanan alike in sunshiue and storm!

FILLMORE'S RECORD RECAPITULATLD.

/

We will now briefly recapitulate the acts of these two competing statesmen, that our
southern readers may determine at a glance upon which of them the south can best rely for
safety and justice.

Mr. Fillmore was wiliing that Congress should receive petitions to abolish slavery in the
Distiict of Columbia, and in the Territories, and praying that no other slave State might
ever be admitted into the Union.

He was not willing that resolutions condemnatory of those principles should be offered.

He has expressed the opinions that Congress has power to abolish slavery in the District
of Columbia, and that it may prehibit the removal of slaves from one slave State to another.

He voted that the agitation of slavery, with the purpose of abolition in the States, is not
against the Constitution ; not an infringement of the right of the States ; and not a breach
of confederate faith.

He voted that Congress may discriminate between the institutions of the different States,
with a view to abolish those of some States, and to promote those of others.

To declare slaves free, who had gone to sea with the consent of their masters, and to
protect them in their freedom.

To repeal all laws aud constitutional provisions by whtch the federal government is bouiid
to prefect the institution of slavery.

Against the admission of any new State into the Union whose constitution tolerates sla-
very.

Against the annexation of Texas, solely on the ground that slavery existed in that coun-
try.

To abolish slavery mthe District of Columbia, though the whole people of the District
cher.shad the institution and never petitioned for its abolition.

'1 o prohibit the buying and selling of slaves in the District and other Territories of the
Union

He supported by his vote petitions to Congress to repeal the act of the Territory of Flor-
ida, to prevent migration of free negroes to the Territory.

20

He voted in favor of petitions to naturalize and make American citizens of negroes from
every quirter of the earth ! •

He voted in favor of petitions to receive negro ambassadors from the black republic of
Hayti.

Such was the course of Millard Fillmore in Congress.

He negotiated a treaty by which the Republic renounces any right to acquire any ex-
elusive rights of transit across the IsiLmus of Central America, or any Territory in that
quarter.

He signed the compromise measures of 1S50, without approving them all.

He enforeed the fugitive slave law.

He remitted the fines and discharged the recognizance of certain abolitionists who had
kidnapped seventy. three slaves at one time from the District of Columbia.

This exercise of the pardoning power was not upen the petition of the people of the
District of Columbia, whose rights had been violated, but upon the arguments and personal
soli nations of that most notorious enemy of the south — Senator Charles Sumner, of Mas-
sachusetts ! on behalf of petitioners, none of whom resided in th» Distsict of Columbia.

He has expressed the opinion that the Missouri restriction should never have been repeal-
ed. His friends in Congress have voted for the restoration of those restrictions. He is
bound by his antecedent declarations of principle to approve any constitutional and formai
legislation- Thereupon, it is asserred as a demonstration, that Millard Fillmoke will, if
elected President, approve the repeal of the Kanzas act, the chief object of the Black Re-
publicans.

We have shown that the whole legislative action of Mr. Fillmore, whilst in Congress, as
well as his diplomatic measures afterwards, were hostile to the institution of slavery and
to the territorial expansion of the south. But, compelled by the want of any authentic
declaration of his intentions in respect to the existing regulation on the subject of slavery,
groping in the dark for the means of ascertaining the chances of escape from a position of
rational danger, we are compelled to the only rule acknowledged by himself and friends,
and infer his future course from his past, although we have just seen that this rule would
make him the most dangerous nominee now before the people. But his friends insist that
he shall not be judged by his earlier record, but by the more recent acts of his executive ad-
ministration. Let us, then, suspend the rule, and examine the subject with the impartiality
its importance demands.

MR. FILLMORE'S SIGNATURE OF THE COMPROMISE OF 1S50.

From a deliberate examination of the text and spirit of the several measures which com-
posed the compromise, from the 'circumstances which surrounded and succeeded it, and
from thg principles upon which Mr. Fillmore administered the government, we are obliged
to infer —

(PS 1. That those who supported the compromise do not acknowledge an obligation to sustain
the Kansas act.

2. That, according to his avowed principles of Executive action, Mr. Fillmore is under
positive obligations to approve the repeal of the right of Kansas to admis?ion as a slave
State, the restoration of the Missouri compromise, and even the repeal of so much of the
eomp.ronvse of 1850 as may be still within the reach of legislation.

We presume it will not be denied that Mr. Fillmore, when elected Vice President, stood
on the platform and was bound by the public pledges of General Taylor.

Amongst the questions most distinctively in issue in the election of 15-18, was the proper
nature, limitation, and application of the Executive veto. Many questions were put to
General Taylor which he declined\to*answer,upon the ground that he did not choose to re-
spond to any special inquiry, or to prejudge important questions. But upon the powers of
the veto, he responded frankly and unequivocally. In his letter of February, 1S4S, to Cap-
tain Allison, he said :

" Second. The veto power. The power given bv the constitution to the executive to in-
terpose Ins veto, is a high conservative power, bu\ in my opinion, should never be exer-
cised except in cases of clear violation of the constitution, or manifest haste and want of
consideration by Congress. Indeed, I have thought that, for many years past, the known
opinions and w-ishes of the executive have exercised undue and injurions influence upon the
egislative departntent of the government ; and for this cause I have thought our system
was in danger of undergoing a great change from its true theory. The personal opinions of
the individual who may happen to occupy the executive chair ought not to control the ac-
tion of Congress upon questions of domestic policy ; nor ought his objections to be inter-
posed where questions of constitutional power have been settled by the various departments
of government, and acquiesced in by the people." *

To explain his application of this doctrine, he adds :

" Third. Upon the subject of the tarhf, the currency, the improvement of our great high,
ways, rivers, lakes, and harbors, the will of the people, as e-piessed through their repre-
sentatives in Congress, ought to be respected and carried JUt by the executive."

It is a strong indication of the severe disclaimer of power made by this gallant veteran,

21

that thousm no avowed himself in favor of the increase enumeratad in the third section of
his letter, he-doea not propose to bestow upon them executive approval because they accord
with his own principles, but because their enactment by Congress will enforce '' the will of
the people" as expressed " through their representatives ; " we repeat, it must have follow-
ed from this principle, that if simdai measures had been repealed, he must with equal facil-
ity have approved the legislation.

But som.1 persons at that day, as at this, f-lt an anxiety to know what course General
Taylor would take in the event Congrers should, by the adoption of the VVilmot proviso,
exclude any new slave States.

In February, 1S4S, Mr. B. M. McConk^y addressed the following question :

" Should you become President of the United States, would you veto an act of Congress
which should prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude forever, except for crime, in all the
Territories of the United States where it does not now exist 1 "

To this General Taylor made the followingreply :

" In reply to your inquiries, I have to inform you that I have laid it down as a principle ;
not to aive my opinions upon, or prejudge in any way the various questions of policy now
at issue between the political parties of the country, not to promise what I would or would
not do, were I elected to the presidency of the United States ; and that, in the cases pre-
sented in your letter, I regret to add, I see no reason lor departing from this principle."

In his inaugural address General Taylor faithfully complies witli his assurance to Cap-
tain Allis m. He says :

"It shall be my study to recommend such constitutional measures to Congress as may be
necessary and proper to secure encouragement and protection tb the great interests of agri-
culture, commerce, and manufacture, to improve our rivers and harbors, to provide for the
speedy extinguishment of the public debt, to enforce a strict accountability on the part of
all officers of the sinvernment, and the utmost economy in all public expenditures. But it is
for the wisdom of Congress itself, in wlich all legislative powers are vested by the consti-
tution, to regulate these and other mitters of domestic policy. 1 shall look with confidence
to the enlightened patriotism of that boly to adopt such measures of conciliation as may
harmonize conflicting interests and tend to perpetuate that Union, which should be the par-
amount object of our hopes and affections. In any action calculated to promote an object
so near the heart of every one who truly loves his country, I will zealously unite with the
co-ordinate branches of the government."

In his only annual message he renews the same declaration :

" Our government is one of limited powers, and its successful administration eminently
depends on the confinement of each of its co-ordinate branches within its own appropriate
sphere. The first section of the constitution ordains that ' all legislative powers therein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate
and house of representatives." Tire Executive has authority to recommend (not to dictate)
measures to Congress. Having performed that duty, the executive department of the go-
vernment cannot rightfully control the decision of Congress on any subject of legislation
until that decision shall have been officially suimitted to the President for approval. The
check provided by the constitution in the clause conferring the qualified veto will never be
exercised by me, except in the cases contemplated by the fathers of the republic. I view
it as an extreme measure, to be resorted to only in extraordinary cases — as where it may-
become necessary to defend the Executive against the encroachments of the legislat:ve
power, or to prevent hasty and inconsiderate or unconstitutional legislation. By cautiously
confining this remedy within the sphere prescribed to it in the contemporaneous exposi-
tions of the framers of the constitution, the will of the people, legitimately expressed on all
subjects of legislation, through their constitutional organs, the senators and representatives
of the United States, will have its full effect. As indispensable to the preservation of our
system of self-government, the independence of the representatives of the States and the
people is guaranteed by the constitution ; and they owe no responsibility to any human
power but their constituents. By holding the representative responsible only to the peo-
ple, and exempting him from all other influences, we elevate the character of the constituent,
and quicken his sense of responsibility to his country. It is under these circumstances only
that the elector can feel that, in the choice of a law-maker, he is himself trulya component
part of the sovereign power of the nation. With equal care we should study to defend the
rights of the executive and judicial departments. Oifr government can only be preserved
in its purity by the suppression and entire elimination of every claim or tendency of one
co-ordinate branch to encroachment upon another. With the strict observance of this rule,
and the other injunctions of the constitution ; with a sedulous inculcation of that respect
and love for the Union of the States which our fathers cherished and enjoined upon their
children ; and with the aid of that overruling Providence which has so long ?nd so kindly
guarded our liberties and institutions, we may reasonably expect to transmit them, with
their innumerable blessings, to the remotest posterity."

22

That Mr. Fillmore adopted the doctrine announced by General Taylor, is to'be seen by
the following extracts from his message : ■ •

" Upon you, fellow-citizens, as the representatives of the States, and the people, is
wisely devolved the legislative power. I shall comply with my duty, in laying before you,
from time to time, any information calculated to enable you to discharge your high and res-
ponsible trust, for the benefit of our common constituents.

" My opinions will be frankly expressed upon the leading subjects of legislation ; and if,
which I do not anticipate, any act should pass the two houses of Congress, which should
appear to me unconstitutional, or an encroachment of the just powers of other departments,
or with provisions hastily adopted, and likely to produce consequences injurious and un-
foreseen, I should not shrink from the duty of returning it to you, with my reasons for your
further consideration. Beyond the due performance of these constitutional obligations,
both my respect for the legislature and my sense of propriety will restrain me from any
attempt to control or influence your proceedings. With you is the power, the honor, and
the responsibility of the legislation of the country.

" The government of the United States is a limited Government. It is confined to the
exercise of powers expressly granted, and such others as may be necesssary for carrying
those powers into effect : and it is at all times an especial duty to guard against any in-
fringement on the just rights of the States. Over the objects and subjects intrusted to
Congress, its legislative authority is supreme."

The principle laid down by these Statesman was well considered by them, and was
much looked to by the country. Both were Whigs. The radical difference between the
Democratic and Whig parties upon the proper exercise of the veto power was this : The
first regarded the executive as a substantive department, representing the people, and under
obligations to administer the government according to certain principles of constitutionality
and expediency required by the people to be embodied in the laws and public policy. The
seccnd only inquired into the constitutional capacity of Congress to exercise a given power
— saw that the method of exercise was formal and free from irregularity, and then left the
expediency of all constitutional legislation to be judged of, and the responsibilities to be
borne by Congress.

General Taylor defined this principle as restricting the exercise of the veto power to
causes which present " a clear violation of the constitution, or shovy manifest haste or want
of consideration by Congress."

Mr. Fillmore, in his inaugural, says :

" If any act should pass the two houses of Congress which should appear to me uncon-
stitutional, or an encroachment on the just powers of other departments, or with provisions
hastily adopted, and likely to produce consequences injurious and unforeseen, I should not
shrink from the duty of returning ij to you with my reasons for your further consideration.
Beyond the due performance of these constitutional obligations, both my respect for the
legislature and my sense of propriety will restrain me from any attempt to control or in-
fluence your proceedings. With you is the power, the honor, and the responsibility of le-
gislation."

Mr. Fillmore's approval of the Compromise ' of 1850 was perfectly
consistent with their principles. It is true, that with a lapse of memory only equal to that
which forgot his discrimination in favor of abolition petitions, he had virtually claimed the
Compromise of 1850 as the act of his administration. But there was no such belief at the
date of the passage of these measures. He did not even recommend their passage. The
conservative statesmen of the Union did not " rally around his administration." They had
passed the measures after months of weary and exciting strife. "The power, the honor,
the responsibility" of "this legislation" was theirs, not his. - i

Jf hy he signed the fugitive-slave law :

But we will let him explain for himself, and then the reader can decide whether he is en-
titled to credit for the act.

We will quote from a speech delivered by him in Louisville, Kentucky, on his southern
tour, in 1854. The Louisville Journal is our authority. He said :

" The fugitive slave law had some provisions in it to which I (Fillmore) had some OB-
JECTIONS. I regretted the necessity of its being passed at all. When the bill came to me
from the two Houses, I examined it in the midst of hurry, confusion, and difficulties, and a
doubt came up in my mind whether it was not unconstitutional as denying the 7-ight of
habeas corpns to the fugitive slave, which doubt I submitted to the Attorney General, (Mr.

23

Crittenden), and on being assured by him that the law was not a violation of the constitu-
tion, I therefore gave my sanction to the bill."

Hence, according to Mr. 'Fillmore's own candid declaration before an audience of his
own southern friends, he doubted the constitutionality of the measure. He was opposed to
it because it did not provide a jury trial (as proposed b\ Giddings & Co.) to the absconding
slave ; and only signed it when assured by Mr. Crittenden that " it was not a violation of
the constitution." John J. Crittenden, then, and not Millard Fillmore, is entitled to the
credit of the assent of the Executive for signing the fugitive-slave law.

Testimony of Andrew J. Donelson :

To prove what we here assert, we will introduce as a witness Mr. Fillmore's associate on
the Know-nothing ticket — no less a personage than Andrew J. Donelson.

In 1851, Donelson, through the columns of the Washington Union, said :

" As to the assertion that the administration (of Fillmore) is entitled to the credit of
standing up to the measures of the compromise in good faith, it is too ridiculous to require
a denial, and too preposterous to demand refutation. Every free white citizen, who is not
an infant, idiot, or lunatic, or wofully forgetful, knows that it is idterly and entirely without
foundation. All the measures of the compromise, except the fugitive slave law, were self-
enacting. As to that law, Mr. Fillmore was unwilling to permit it to become a law before
he consulted Mr. Crittenden on the subject — a fact which the Republic (his organ) mention-
ed at the time in order to justify Mr. Fillmore before his northern higher-law friends for not
returning the bill with his objections."

Judge Conklin's testimony :

Judge Conklin, of New York, a friend of Millard Fillmore, and his minister to Mexico, in <
a late speech made the following apology for him for signing the fugitive-slave law :

" Of this gentleman I have to say a few words that are due alike to him and to myself.
The friendly relations that have long subsisted between us ; the high opinion I entertain of
his patriotism, integrity, and talents ; the confidence he saw fit to repose in me, and the
■great personal kindness I received at his hands while he filled the Presidential office, all
conspire to render it painful to me to withhold my support from him ; and had he been
brought forward under other auspices, as I cherished a vague hope he might be, it would
haveafforded me a corresponding degree of satisfaction to yield him that support.

" I am aware of the persistent, and I doubt not, to some extent, successful industry with
which for years he has been exhibited by those who had formed a different estimate of his
character, in an attitude that, if I had believed it to be just, would have rendered it incon-
sistent in me, holding the principles I do relative to slavery, to favor his elevation to the
Presidency under any circumstances. But in imputing to him a willingness to extend and
fortify slavery J am persuaded his assailants have done him injustice.

" I believe, on the contrary, that he still holds slavery in the abstract, as he is known for-
merly to have done, in as great abhorrence as they do. The evidence constantly cited to
justify this charge is the fact of his having affixed his signature to the fugitive slave bill.
The alternative was to interpose his veto. But no one had a right to expect ham. to do
this, for he had no right himself to do it. Either from doubt about its constitutionality, or
from deference to the opinion of those who questioned it, he did appoint the usual precau-
tion of submitting the bill to the examination of the Attorney General, and asking his
opinion of its constitutionality. To have vetoed it under the very extraordinary circum-
stances of the case, would have been, to say the least, a palpable violation of the constitu-
tion. No enlightened man who understands the subject can doubt this, and no such man
can have been sincere in casting censure upon Mr. Fillmore for adopting the opposite alter-
native."

Testimony of another friend :

The New Albany Tribune, the leading Fillmore organ in Indiana, says :
" Mr. Fillmore gave his official sanction to the fugitive slave bill, because we (the Free-
soilers) could not have got other laivs on which our hearts were set, that we have got had
not that law been passed also, and because in doing so he was but carrying out one of the
great principles of the party which elected him — that the personal opinions of the executive
on mere questions of policy ought never to be brought into conflict with the will of the peo-
ple's representatives hy an arbitrary exercise of the veto power.

In his recent speech at Albany, he says :

24

" You all know that when I was called to the executive chair by a bereavement which
shrouded the nation in mourning, that the country was unfortunately agitated from one end
to the other upon the all-exciting subject of slavery. It was then, sir, that I felt it my duty
to rise above every sectional prejudice, and look to the welfare of the whole nation. (Ap-
plause.) I was compelled to a certain extent to overcome long cherished prejudices, and
disregard party claims. (Great and prolonged applause.) But in doing this, sir, I did no
more than was done by many abler and better men than myself. I was by no means the
sole instrument, under Providence, in harmonizing these difficulties. (Applause.) There
wereat that time noble, independent, high-souled men in both houses of Congress, belonging
to both the great political parties of the country, Whigs and Democrats, who spumed the
dictation of selfish party leaders, and rallied around my administration, in support of the
great measures which restored peace to an agitated and distracted country." (Cheers.)

In his speech at Rochester, he modifies his claim to the merit of having carried the com-
promise of 1850 as a measure of his administration, admits that they were not all he could
have desired, and condemns the repeal of the Missouri restriction :

" But the truth was, that many noble patriots, Whigs and Democrats, in both houses of
Congress, rallied around and sustained the administration in that trying t me, and to them
was chiefly due the merit of settling that exciting controversy. Those measures, usually
railed the Compromise Measures of 1850, were not in all respects what I could have de-
sired, but they were the best that could be obtained, after a protracted discussion, that shook
the republic to its very foundation, and I felt bound to give them my official approval. Not
only this, but perceiving there was a disposition to renew the agitaton at the next session,
I took the responsibility of declaring, in substance, in my annual message, that I regarded
these measures as a ' final settlement of this question, and that the laws thus passed ought
to be maintained until time and experience should demonstrate the necessity of modifica-
tion or repeal."

" I then thought that this exciting subject was at rest, and that there would be no further
occasion to introduce it into the legislation of Congress. Territorial governments had been
provided for ail the territory except that covered by the Missouri Compromise, and I had
no suspicion that that was to be disturbed. I have no hesitation in saying, what most of
you know already, that I was decidedly opposed to the repeal of that Compromise. Good
faith, as well as the peace of the country, seemed to require, that a Compromise which had
stood for more than thirty years should not be wantonly disturbed. These were my senti-
ments then fully and freely expressed, verbally and in writing, to all my friends, north and
south, who solicited my opinion. This repeal seems to have been a Pandora's box, out of
which have issued all the political evils that now afflict the country, scarcely leaving a hope
behind."

* But, we ask our readers to apply this principle of executive action to the state of cir-
cumstances that surround us. " The will of the people has been expressed, through their
representatives," in the Kansas-Nebraska act. Suppose the will of the people shall be ex-
pressed through the same medium in favor of its repeal : can Mr. Fillmore hesitate to ap-
prove that repeal ? He must do so, or repudiate the most prominent principle of his ad-
ministration P Representing a state of executive neutrality, he is bound to apply the sig-
nature of the State as if it were but its seal to authenticate the constitutional and formal
perfection of its laws.

We have shown that, even if it be assumed that the Kansas act was a legitimate conse-
quence and corollary of the compromise of 1850, as it obviously is, and as is contended by
those who introduced that act, and by the whole Domocratic part}', Mr. Fillmore would be
compelled, on principle, to sign a bill for its repeal.

But, unhappily, there is no such universal admission of the legitimate consistency of the
Kansas act with the compromise. If there was, there could be no dispute, for the same
approval which sustained the compromise would extend to the Kansas act.

The question on trial before the American people is, Whether the Kansas act is a legiti-
mate consequence growing out of and perfecting the compromise of 1850, or whether it is a
* flagrant disturbance or violation of that measure ? Tried by the test of contemporaneous
construction, we find that a large portion of those who advocated the compromise now op-
pose the Kansas act. Mr. Fillmore himself has condemned the " disturbance of the Mis-
souri compromise." He, therefore, does not consider the Kansas act oensistent with the
compromise of 1850, and would sanction its repeal. Here are his words upon the subject :

" Territorial governments had been provided for all the territory except th.it covered by
the Missouri Compromise, and I had no suspicion that that was to be disturbed. I have no
hesitation in saying, what most of you know already, that I was decidedly opposed to the
disturbance of that Compromise. This repeal seems to have been the Pandora's box out of

25

which have issued all the political evils that now affect the country, scarcely leaving a
hope behind."

There can be, then, no !o'_ried doubt that Mr. Fillmore disapproves the repeal of the Mis-
souri restrictions, and would restore them ; nor that, if the Kansas act be repealed in
whole or in part, he would oppose it. To elect him President, is to concede all that the
Black Republicans desire. They would carry out their nefarious legislation without obsta-
cle, and all the fruits obtained by an intense struggle of nearly two years would be lost to
you, for even your enemies would triumph : the first and greatest step in the^r plan would
have been achieved, and the decree -would be registered in indelible letters, " No more
slave States in the Union."

Tlie Fillmore leaders openly advoca c Ihe restoration of the Missouri restrictions.

The rigid refusal on the part of Mr. Fillmore to make an avowal of his intentions in re-
lation to the present questions pending before the country, compels us to add other evi-
dences daily presenting themselves that Mr. Fillmore will," if elected, sign a bill to restore
the Missouri restrictions,and thus virtually repeal that section of the Kansas act which gives
that State the right of admission into the Union as a slave State.

This position is identical with that occupied by Black Republican party, and will compel
Mr. Fillmore, if elected to carry out so much of their platform as relates to slavery.

But to the collateral evidences of Mr, Fillmore's purposes :

For some time indication had been given that Mr. Fillmore favored a restoration of an-
tecedent legislation upon the subject of slaverv.

The Hon. Bayard Clark, of New York, a warm friend of Mr. Fillmore, on the 24th of
July openly avowed his opposition to popery and slavery as " twin demons," and pledged
himself before God to an equal and uncompromising war against both. He denounced the
enactment of the Kansas act, and declared himself in favor of a restoration of the Mis-
souri restriction.

About the same date, Hon. Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, appointed State elector by the Fill-
more convention announced a similar opinion in favor of the restoration. Speaking of the
Missouri restriction, Mr. Dunn said :

" He was now persuaded that there -would be no effort made to effect its restoration. He
believed that there would be no peace in the country until it should restored, either in sub-
stance or in fact. The prohibition of slavery within the territories of Kansas and Nebraska,
was a thing to be done, or there would never be peace. He spoke this, not in a spirit of
taunt or of threat, but as a sober truth. . Alluding to Kansas, he declared that until
question was settled,, the appropriation bills should never pass by his vote. He
that _ would never give a dollar for any purpose until the great question of
individnal safety connected with Kansas affairs was settled. (Cries of ' Good, good.') That
was the only way in which to insure compliance — stop the wheels of government."

On the 29th of July the suggestion of Mr. Dunn " to stop the wheels of government''
was adopted by an amendment to the army appropriation bill, depriving the army of ail
pay, unless the acts of the Kansas legislature should be repealed by Congress. Here is the
amendment : -»

" And provided, nevertheless, That no part of the military force of the United State?
herein provided for shall be employed in aid of the enforcement of the enactments by the
alleged legislative assembly of the" Territory of Kansas, resently assembled at Shawnee
Mission, until Congress shall have enacted either that it was or "was not a valid legislative
assembly, chosen, in conformity with the organic law, by the people of the said Territory ;
Andprovided, That, until Congress shall have passed upon the validity of said legislative
assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use the military force in said
Territory to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons
and property therein and upon the national highways, in the State of Missouri or elsewhere
from unlawful seizure and searches.

" And he it further provided, That the President is required to disarm the present organ-
ized militia of the Territory of Kansas, to recall all the United States arms therein distrib-
uted, and to prevent armed men from going into said Territory to disturb the public peace
or aid in the enforcement or resistance of real or pretended laws."

Upon the adoption of this amendment the vote was yeas 91, nays 86. Amongst those
who voted for the amendment were Messrs. Dunn, Harrison, and Moore. The _ vote of
these friends of Mr. Fillmore, if cast against the amendment, would have defeated it.

On the same day, however, all doubt of the position of the northern friends of Mr. Fill-

26

more was put at rest by the adoption by the House of Representatives of a substitute for
the Kansas act, offered by Mr. Dunn, of Indiana, repealing the right of Kansas to admis-
sion as a slave State, and restoring the Missouri restriction. Upon the passage of this bill,
Messrs. Dunn, Edwards, Haven, Harrison, and Moore, northern members, and friends of
Mr. Fillmore, voted in the affirmative. Messrs. Valk, (a south Carolinian by birth,) and
Mr. Broom, of Pennsylvania, northern friends of Mr. Fillmore, voted in the negative. This
determines, then, the position of that section of the party, and establishes the probability
that Mr. Fillmore will sign a bill repealing the Kansas act.

Mr. Buchanan the only man who can quiet the agitations

With respect to the opinions of Mr. Buchanan there is no doubt. He is bound by his
principles, by his past acts and present pledges, to maintain the equality of the southern
States and the admission of future slaves into the Union. He will veto any bill to restore
the odious Missouri restriction. He will veto any bill to repeal the right of Kansas to ad-
mission into the Union as a slave State. He will acquire more territory, if necessary, to
accommodate peacefully the great conflicting interests. He will separate these angry foes,
oot by ideal lines and unequal privileges, but by giving the right to each to enter upon and
occupy ample and abundant territory. This will secure the development of each in a di-
rection and in a region separate, distent, and where they can never again come in collision.

Mr. Buchanan has many advantages over any competitor in effecting this great object.
He has the confidence of the people as a man of moderation and integrity. He has, like
the earlier fathers of the republic, a matured fame ; his only object is to preserve it from
stain or diminution. He will only serve a single term. Like Washington, Madison, and
Jackson, Mr. Buchanan is childless. God has denied these benefactors children, " that a
nation might call them father." Content, therefore, with the -exalted honors conferred upon
them by a grateful country, they have never had the ordinary motive to perpetuate in their
own posterity the influence and consideration which have been bestowed upon them.

With all these motives, then, to be contented, we may expeet that, at the end of his official
term, Mr. Buchanan, having quieted the sectional strife which threatened to destroy the
Union ; having established and consolidated a policy which shall secure us respect abroad
and peace at home ; having completed the circle of his country's honor and filled the mea-
sure of his own renown, this faithful servant of the people and guardian of the constitution
will fold around him the robes of self-approval, and, retiring forever from the servioe of the
republic, will say, with the best of the Roman rulers, " My countrymen ! if I have acted
well my part, give me your applause."

27

APPENDIX.

Bark Pona case :

On Wednesday, Sept. 11, 1850, the day after Mr. Fremont took his seat as a senator,
Mr. Underwood called up the bill for the relief of the American Colonization Society, stat-
ing that the claim had been favorably reported on two years before.

Mr. Turney asked for the reading of the report.

The report sets forth that a liberal construction of the act of Congress of March 3, 1S19,
would require that the Government should provide for the support of those recaptured
Africans for a reasonable time after they had been landed in Liberia, and that it is beneath
the dignity of the Government to devolve this duty upon the Society. The petition of
the executive committee of the Society, which the committee incorporated in their report,
states that on the 16th of December, 1845, the United States ship Yorktown, Commodore
Bell, landed at Manovia, in Liberia from the slaver Pons, seven hundred and fifty recap-
tured Africans, " in charge of the agent of the United States for recaptured Africans, in a
naked, starving, and dying condition," all of them except twenty-one, being under the age
of twenty-one.

The United States made no provision for their support,after they were landed. By the con-
struction given to the act of 1819 by President Monroe, the United States were bound to
support these recaptives, but by a narrower construction given to the act, subsequently a
contrary course was pursued, and the Government was considered to have disdharged its
duties under the act on landing them in Liberia. In the support, education, &c, of the
seven hundred and fifty persons, a large expense was devolved upon the Society, which they
ask shall now be refunded to them ***** |

**********

These services were not required to be performed by the Society, under their constitution,
but the alternative was for these recaptured Africans to starve and die, and the Society
therefore cheerful y took charge of them, relying upon the Government of the United States
to refund the cost "to them.

After some discussion and amendment the question was taken on the engrossment of the
bill for a thud reading, and resulted — yeas 29, nays 16. — Vide Congressional Globe, vol.
24, part 2, page 1805.

Among the nays were Messrs. Atchison, Butler and Fremont.

Sept. 12. The Senate having under consideration the bill for the suppression of the slave
trade in the District of Columbia, Mr. Seward offered a substitute doing away with slavery
forever in the District of Columbia, and appropriating S290.000 to pay the damages to
owners, provided the people of the District at an election to be holden for that purpose,
should accept the bill, if not, the bill to le null and void.

The substitute was lost by a large ma ority, and among the nays were Messrs. Atchison,
Fremnot & Co. — Congressional Globe, vol". 1, part 2, page 1810.

September 18. The bill punishing persons for enticing slaves from the District of Colum-
bia, having been read a second time, and considered as in committee of the whole, Mr.
Hale moved that the bill be committed to the District of Columbia, with instructions to
amend it so as to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. ' Lost by a large majority
among the nays Atchison, Fremont & Co. — See Congressional Globe, vol. 21, part 2,
page 1850.

The Fugitive Slave Latv — The Great li Republican" Gun forever
Spiked — Mr. Fillmore fully Vindicated and more than Vindicated
hj the united Testimony of his Adversaries. \

It is well known to the whole country that in all the Northern States, the vehemence and

28

vituperation with which Mr. Fillmore has been assailed, rests upon the single and solitary
reason that he signed the Fugitive Slave Law.

It has been in vain that his friends have accumulated fact on fact, that they have piled
argument on argument to prove that Mr. Fillmore is wise, moderate, firm and patriotic, —
all this was supposed to be neutralized by the fact that he signed the Fugitive Slave Law.
It has been in vain that we have pointed to the virtues which adorn his private life, we have
still been met witl the perpetually iterated assertion that he signed the Fugitive
Slave Law. When we have explained the reasons and necessity for this act, his enemies
have turned a deaf ear to all our statements, and exclaimed, as if it involved a sentence of
final and irreversible condemnation, " he signed the Fugitive Slave Law." Read the pa-
pers conducted by his traducers, and it is the Fugitive Slave Law, and the Fugitive Slave
Law, and the Fugitive Law. It has been in vain that we have pointed to the Constitution,
which requires that fugitives shall be delivered up on the claim of their owners ; it has been
in vain that we have pointed to the example of Washington who signed a Fugitive Slave
Law, which forbade hospitality to the negro, and withheld from him trial by jury; it has
been in vain that we have quoted the opinions of able jurists and constitutional lawyers who
belong to the Republican party, like Judges McLean and Conkling; it has been in vain that
we have pointed to the doctrine formerly held by the Whig party, to which Mr. Fillmore
belonged, respecting the use of the veto power. All these arguments have been met by
crazy declamation on the awful atrocity of signing the Fugitive Slave Law.

The time has now come when all this vituperation will be silenced and put to shame. Mr.
Fillmore stands justified before the country not merely by the united testimony, but by the
united example of his most reckless and virulent enemies. " Actions which speak louder
than words," declare that the Black Republican party, in spite of all their bitter vituperation
against Mr. Fillmore, Jiave themselves passed the very same Fugitive Slave Laic which they
condemn him for signing, and have applied it tvhere it was not required by the Constitution.
A few brief quotations and a simple statement of tacts, will carry conviction even to those
who have been argument-proof before.

First, we ask attention to the following :

•' No person held to service in one State under the Laws thereof, escaping into another ,
shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be
due." — U. S. Constitution, Art. IV. Section 2.

It will be seen that this provision of- the Constitution relates only to a slave escaping into
a State, and makes no requirement respecting fugitives in the territories. When, therefore,
a fugitive slave law is extended over the territories, it is not as in the case of the States,
because the Constitution positively commands it. Bearing this in mind, read the extract from
an act which passed the House of Representatives on the 29th of July, 18.3(3, by a vote of
88 yeas to 74 nays ; seventy-six of the eighty-eight yeas being given by members of the Re-
publican party. The part which we quote is known as Dunn's amendment :

Provided, however, That any person lawfully held to service in said Territories shall not
be discharged from such service by such, repeal and revival jpf said eigyth section, if such per-
son shall be permanently removed from such Territory or Territories prior to the first day of
January, eighteen hundred and fifty-eight ; and any child or children born in either
OF SAID territories, of any female lawfully held to service, if in like manner re-
moved WITHOUT SAID TERRITORIES BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THAT DATE, SHALL NOT BE,
BY REASON OF ANYTHING IN THIS ACT EMANCIPATED FROM ANY SERVICE IT MIGHT HAVE
OWED HAD THIS ACT NEVER BEEN PASSED .

^ And provided further, THAT ANY PERSON LAWFULLY HELD TO SERVICE
IN ANY OTHER STATE OR TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES, AND ES-
CAPING INTO EITHER THE TERRITORY OF KANZAS OR NEBRASKA, MAY
BE RECLAIMED AND REMOVED TO THE PERSON ORPLACE WHERE SUCH
SERVICE IS DUE, UNDER ANY LAW OF THE UNITED STATES WHICH
SHALL BE LN FORCE UPON THE SUBJECT.^

It is only necessary to subjoin the names of the Republican members of the House, by
whose votes this waspassed, and the nail is driven and clinched. Here they are :

Charles' J. Albright, Ohio ; John Allison, Penn. ; Lucian Barbous, Lid. ; Samuel P. Ben-
son, Me. : Philemon Bliss, Ohio , Samuel C. Bradshaw, Penn. ; Samuel Brenton, Ind. ;
James Buffinton, Mass. ; James H. Campbell, Penn. ; Lewis D. Campbell, Ohio ; Calvin C.
Chaffee, Mass. ; Schuyler Colfax, Ind. ; Linus B. Comins, Mass. ; John Covode, Penn. ;
William Cumback, Ind.; William S. Damrell, Mass.; Sidney Dean, Conn.; Jonn Dick,

29

Pcnn. ; Edward Dodd, New York ; Nathaniel B. Duvfce, R. I. } John R. Eddie, Penn. ;
J. Reaee Emrie, Ohio , Thomas T. Flagler, N. Y. ; Joshua It. Giddings, Oliio ; William A.
Gilbert, N. Y. ; Amos P. Granger, N. Y, ; Galusha A. Grow, Penn.; Robert B. Hall,
Mass. ; Aaron Horlon, Ohio; David P. Holloway, Inch; Thomas R. Norton, N. Y. ; Valen-
tine B. Norton, Ohio. ; Jonas A. HughstonJ N. Y. ; William H. Kelsey, N. Y. ; Rums H.
King, N. Y. , Chauncey L. Knapp, Mass. ; Ebenpzer Knowlton, Me. ; James Knox, 111. ;
Jahn C. Kunkel, Orasmus B. Matterson, N. Y. ; Killian Miller, N. Y. ; Edwin B. Morgan,
N. Y. ; Justin S. Morrill, Vt. ; Matthias H. Nichols, Ohio ; Jesse 0. Norton. Ill ; Andrew
Oliver, N. Y. ; John M. Parker, N. Y. ; Guy R. Pelton, N. Y. ; John J. Perry, Me. ; John
U. Pettit, Ind. ; Benjamin Pringle, N. Y. ; Samuel A. Purviance, Penn. ; David Ritchie,
Penn. ; Alvah Sabin, Vt. ; Russel Sage, N. Y. ; William R. Sapp. Ohio ; John Sherman,
Ohio ; George A. Simmons, N. Y. ; Francis E. Spinner, N. Y. ; Benjamin Stanton, Ohio. ;
James S. T. "Stranahan, N. Y. ; Mason W. Tappan, N. H. ; Benjamin B. Thurston, R. I. ;
Lemuel Todd, Penn. ; Mark Trafton, Mass. ; Edward Wade, Ohio ; Abram Wakeman, N.
Y. ; David S. Walbridge, Mich. ; Henry Waldron, Mich. ; Cadwalader C. Washburne, Wis. ;
Elihu B. Washburne, 111. ; Israe- Washburn, Jr., Me. ; Cooper K. Watson, Ohio ; William
W. Welch, John M. Wood, Me. ; Joan Woodruff, Conn. ; James H. Woodsworth, 111.

fe

fe t fe &

6

6

t

At the time of writing the article which we republish, it had escaped our notice that all
the Republican members of the Senate had likewise voted for the fugitive slave law. We
have before us a record of the proceedings in the Senate on the 2d of July, 1856. A ter-
ritorial bill for Kansas being under consideration, Mr. Collamer, a Republican Senator from
Vermont, offered an amendment in the following words, as an aditional section to the bill :

"Aid be it further enacted, That until the people of said Territory shall form a constitu-
tion and State government, and be admitted into the Union under the provisions of this
act, there shall be neither skvery.nor involuntary servitude in said Territory, otherwise than
in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been fully convicted : Provided, al-
ways, That any person escaping into the same from whom labor or service is law-
fully CLAIMED IX ANY STATE, SUCH FUGITIVE MAY BE LAWFULLY RECLAIMED AND CON-
VEYED TO THE PERSON CLAIMING HIS OR HER SERVICE OR LABOR AS .AFORESAID."

The yeas and nays were ordered on this amendment ; and being taken resulted as follows :

YEAS — Messrs. Bell of .Yew Hampshire, Collamer, Fessenden, Foot, Foster, HALE,
SEWARD, Trumbull, WADE, and WILSON— 10.

NAYS — Messrs. Bayard, Bell, of Tennessee, Benjamin, Biggs, Bigler, Bright, Brodhead,
Brown, Cass, Clay, Clayton, Crittenden, Dodge, Douglas, Evans, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Hunt-
er, Iverson, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Mallory, Mason, Pratt, Pugh, Reid, Sebastian, Slidell,
Stuart, Thompsofi, of Kentucky, Toombsj Toucey, Weller, Wright and Yulee — 4.3.

It will be seen that all the Republican members of the Senate voted for the fugitive slave
law, which one of their own members had moved as an amendment to a bill!

0