Full text of "The public record and past history of John Bell & Edw'd Everett"

4-40
P9

BRECKINRIDOE AND LANE CAMPAIGN DOCUMENT, No. 5.

THE PUBLIC RECORD

AND

HISTORY

JOHN BELL & EDW D EVERETT.

Heretofore, it has been the custom of the political parties which have divided
the country, when they met in National Conventions to nominate candidates for
President and Vice President of the United States, to lay down a platform of
principles upon which they asked the support of the American people. The vote
of the citizen was given in accordance with his views of public policy and measures,
and decided in favor of one or the other party as their principles of political action
agreed with his. Men were supported only as the representative of principle.
In this canvass, however, one of the political parties has deemed it proper or ex
pedient to depart from this salutary custom, and has absolutely refused to declare
the political principles by which its supporters will be guided, or the political meas
ures they will seek to enact, should they be installed in power. We have only a
general and unmeaning declaration in favor of the " Union, the Constitution, and
a faithful execution of the laws/ to which even Abraham Lincoln, the candidate
of the Black Republicans, fully subscribes. They make no issue with any of th&
other political parties, not even the Black Republicans. They refuse to inform
us of their construction of the Constitution whether it warrants squatter sov*-
ereignty in the Territories, or guarantees to every citizen in them the full pro-
j tection of his property. We are left in the dark as to whether, according to their

t interpretation, this Constitution is a Know-Nothing Constitution, or proclaims
civil and religious liberty to every man. Nor are we informed what " laws"
they propose to enact and enforce. All is vague and unmeaning. They differ
from nobody, so as to get the vote of everybody. For all we know, their views
may not materially differ from those of the supporters of Lincoln and Hamlin.
Indeed, if the "past record" of the opinions of their candidates is any index, we
can see no material difference between them.

Nor are their candidates more explicit or disposed to furnish information of
their views upon the exciting questions of the day. They have both refused to
declare their sentiments, but refer us back to their " past history." Mr. Bell, in
his letter of acceptance, used this language :

"The Convention, in disregarding the use of platforms, exacts no pledge from those whom
they deem worthy of the highest trusts under the Government, wisely considering that the
surest guaranty of a man s future usefulness and fidelity to the great interests of the coun
try, in any official station to which he may be chosen, is to be found in his past history con
nected with the public service."

And his home organ reiterates his language, and says : " Mr. Bell can refer
Only to his life and his opinions, already expressed. To these opinions he has

M114773

to add; from iliem he has nothing to take away" The only mod*,
therefore, for the citizen to learn the views of these candidates is to refer to t* -*ir
" past history connected with the public service," to which they are invited. To
the record, then, let us go.

As the slavery question is the paramount issue in this canvass, let us first take
up the record of Mr. Bell in reference to it, before proceeding to other matters.

JOHN BELL ON ABOLITION PETITIONS.

Up to the 23d Congress, Mr. Bell had been the firm friend and supporter of Gen
e*-a! Jackson. JJe represented the district in which General Jacksou lived in Ten
nessee, and the General knew him well. Up to this time he had voted uniformly
with his party against the agitation of the slavery question in Congress through the
presentation of Abolition petitions. But after abandoning General Jackson, anji
consorting with the Abolitionists, Federalists, and disappointed Democrats, in
order to reach the Speaker s chair, all of which will be more fully explained here
after, we find him abandoning, by degrees, his opposition to the Abolitionists, and
at last voting with them, and receiving their plaudits.

During the 34th Congress, the Abolitionists and Federalists of New England
first conceived the idea of annoying Congress by the presentation of large batches
of Abolition petitions, praying for the abolition of slavery in the States, and in the
District of Columbia. Mr. John Q. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Mr Slade, of
Vermont, were their chosen mouth-pieces. These gentlemen would present these
petitions, and then deliver long harangues upon them. To stop this agitation
and waste of the public time, it was usual to lay these resolutions on the table.
Accordingly, on the 18th of December, 1835, when a petition for the immediate
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia was presented, a motion was made
to lay it on the table. Mr. Bell voted in the negative with Messrs. Adams, Slade,
& Co. (See page 34.)

Again, on the 21st of December, when a similar petition was presented, and a
motion made to lay it on the table, which was carried by ayes 140, noes 76, we
find Mr. Bell voting with Adams, Slade & Co., against the motion. (Page
39.)

The frequency of the presentation of these petitions, and the time wasted in
their discussion, to the great detriment of the public interest, called for some de
cisive action on the part of the House. Consequently, Mr. Owens, of Georgia,
moved to suspend the rules, in order to introduce the following resolutions :

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this House, the question of the abolition of slavery in
the District of Columbia ought not to be entertained by Congress.

And be it further resolved, That in case any petition praying the ab olition of slavery in
the District of Columbia be hereafter presented, it is the deliberate opiuion of thi- House
that the same ought to be laid upon the table without reading "

Mr. Bell voted with Adams, Slade, & Co.. and defeated the motion to susp- s-d
the ruies, two thirds being necessary for that purpose. (Page 30.)

In order to dispose of this matter, Mr. Pmokuey, of South Carolina, moved a
resolution providing for the appointment of a committee, " with instructions r o re
port that Congress possesses no constitutional power to interfere in a* y way vntb
slavery in any of the Stages of this Confederacy ; and that in the opiui m ui his
House, Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of
Columbia, because it would be a violation of the public faith, unwise, impolitic, and
dangerous to the Union/ On the monion to suspend the rules for the purpoet? of
offering this resolution, the yeas were 135, noes 65. Mr. Bell voted in the nega
tive. He also voted against ordering the main question to be put so as to bring
the House to a vote on the resolutions, but he yet lacked the aerve to vote against
170, 171,

During tbo month of May, Mr. Pinkney, from this committee, reported a se
ries of resolutions, the first of which was the following :

" Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional power to interfere in any way with
the institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy"

The question then recurred upon bringing the House to a vote on the resolu
tions by ordering the main question to be put, when we find Mr. Bell voting with
Adam*, Slade, & Oo. to stave off a vote. They did not succeed, however, and
the question recurring on the resolution itself, we find Mr. Bell dodging the vote!
tie did not desire to offend his Abolition friends, one of whom (Mr. Adams,) said
in reference to the resolution :

" If the House would allow me five minutes time, I pledge myself to prove that resolu
tion false and utterly untrue." Page 499.

Finding by the above vote that they could not defeat the other resolutions, tho
Aboiitiouisrs then strove to stave off a vote on them by factious motions. They
would move to adjourn, and then while that question was being taken, another of
them, when his name was called, would ask to be excused from voting* The
Speaker decided, while the yeas and nays were being called, no member could
interrupt the proceedings by a motion to be excused from voting. An appeal
was taken from the decision of the Chair, which was sustained, ayes 138, noes
46, Mr Bell voting with Adams, Sladc, & Co. in the negative, against the deci
sion But their efforts did not prevail, and they were brought to a vote upon tho
others of the series of resolutions, the last of which was in these words :

" And whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this subje&lt;$
should be finally arrested, for the purpose of restoring tranquility to the public mind, your
committee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following additional resolution, viz :

" Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in
any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery,
shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further
action whatever shall be had thereon."

Mr. Bell, though in the House, refused to vote, or, in other words, dodged the
vote He would not offend his new Abolition friends by voting for the resolu
tion, and if he voted against it, the people of Tennessee would have laid him on
the shelf forever. So, to get on good terms with both, he dodged the vote ! He
could not conceal his chagrin, however, at being forced to show his hand or dodge,
and he was indignant that his Abolition friends were not allowed to debate the
resolutions, and, by factious motions, stave off a vote upon them. Hear him :

" The minority of the House were tyrannized over, and they were naturally in a refrac
tory, restless, and perturbed condition, and if they could not be heard orderly, they would
do so disorderly." Page 513.

Verily, Mr. Bell is the very model of a law-and-order-mau ! He was willing
to join the Abolitionists to trample down the rules of the House, and set at defi
ance its authority.

For all these proceedings, see Congressional Globe, 1st session 24th Congress.
The pages have been already given.

At the next session, the former order having expired in regard to the disposal
of Abolition petitions, Mr. Davis moved a suspension of the rules, in order to
adopt a resolution that all such petitions be laid on the table, without debate, and
without being read. Mr. Bell voted with Adams, Slade, & Co., in the negative.
Page 82.

On the 23d of January, Mr. Adams, haying presented a number of petitions
for the abolition of slavery in the District, and the Speaker having decided that,
under the order of the House, they were to be laid on the table, Mr. Adams ap
pealed from the decision of the Chair. On ordering the main question to be

tfce yeas were 129, nays 48, Mr. Bell voting with Adams, Slade, & Co., in the
negative. On sustaining the decision of the Chair, the yeas were 145, nays 32,
Mr. Bell dodging the vote !

Mr. Adams then presented another similar petition, and on the Speaker reite
rating his decision, Mr. Adams again appealed, and the Speaker was sustained ;
yeas 170, nays 3. Mr. Bell again refused to vote. Pages 118 119.

This contest went on in this way until the 6th of February, when Mr. Adams
attempted to introduce a petition from slaves asking for the abolition of slavery.
This threw the House into a furor of excitement. Several resolutions were intro
duced in reference to his conduct : one to expel him ; another, to bring him before
the bar of the House to receive the censure of the Speaker ; and still another,
declaring that he was guilty of a contempt, &c. A motion was made to lay these
resolutions on the table, which was voted down, yeas 50, nays 144, Mr. Bell voting
in the affirmative. Another motion was made to lay the whole matter on the
table, which was again negatived, Mr. Bell again voting in the affirmative.

The question then recurred upon resolutions offered by Mr. Patton as an
amendment to the other resolutions. The first declared against the right of offer
ing petitions from slaves. Mr. Bell screwed up his courage to vote for it. The
second, for arresting all further proceedings in the matter, and excusing Mr.
Adams, was voted down, ayes 22, noes 137 Mr. Bell voting with the illustrious
22 to shield and protect his abolition friend !

These repeated insults aggravated the southern members very much; and when,
on the 20th of December, 1837, Mr. Slade presented a petition for the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia, moved its reference to a select committee,
with instructions to report a bill in accordance with the prayer of the petition,
and then proceeded to deliver a most exciting and violent harangue upon the
subject, the House was thrown into the wildest state of excitement. Hon. Thos.
H. Benton thus describes the scene in his " Thirty Years 7 View :"

"The most angry and portentous debate which had yet taken place occurred at this time
in the House of Representatives. It was brought on by Mr. William Slade, of Vermont,
who, besides presenting petitions of the usnal abolition character, and moving to refer
them to a committee, moved their*reference to a select committee, with instructions to re
port a bill in conformity with their prayer. This motion, inflammatory and irritating in
itself, and without practical legislative object, as the great majority of the House was
known to be opposed to it, was rendered still more exasperating by the manner of sup
porting it."

Repeated efforts were made by southern members to prevent the progress of
the speech by calls to order and motions to adjourn; but Slade having the floor,
refused to yield it, and was suffered to proceed. The excitement was intense.
At last Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, made a point of order which the Speaker
sustained, and Slade was forced to give way, still, however, keeping his feet, with
the intention of resuming his speech, if possible. Mr. Rencher, another member
from North Carolina, seized the opportunity thus afforded of getting the floor,
and moved an adjournment. The contest had been bitter and violent to the last
degree, and the House was in a tempest. The South and the conservative men
of the North voted for the adjournment, while Slade and his backers opposed it.
The list of nays was headed by John Quincy Adams, and numbered only 63,
among whom was included the whole Abolition strength in the House. Three
nominal southern men only voted against adjourning, so as to enable Slade to
continue his speech, and one of them was JOHN BELL, of Tennessee.

" This opposition to adjournment," says Mr. BENTON, "was one of the worst features of that
unhappy day s work the only effect of keeping the House together being to increase irri
tation and to multiply the chances for an outbreak. From the beginning, Southern mem
bers had been in favor of it, and essayed to accomplish it, but were prevented 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, being nearly
third of the House, willing to continue it in session."

In order to avoid these scenes, on the next day a resolution was offered that
all abolition petitions should be laid on the table without being debated, printed,
read, or referred. On ordering the main question to be put, in order to bring
the House to a vote on the resolution, Mr. Bell voted in the negative witk
Adams, Slade & Co. The question then recurring on the passage of the resolu
tion, Mr. Bell found it convenient to dodge the vote. Pages 41, 45, Congress
ional Globe, 2d Session 25th Congress.

Again, during this same session, (page 474,) Mr. Adams, in a speech relating
to the annexation of Texas, going off on the right of slaves to petition Congress
for their freedom, and stating that he should have no hesitancy in presenting
guch a petition from a slave, was called to order by the Speaker. Mr. Adams
appealed from the decision of the Chair. The House sustained the decision of
the Chair, every man voting in the affirmative except the Abolitionists, who voted
no, and Mr. Bell, who did not vote at all.

At the next session, being the 3d session of the 25th Congress, Mr. Atherton
brought forward his celebrated resolutions concerning the power of Congress over
the subject of slavery. The last resolution was in these words :

"Every petition, memorial, resolution, proposition or paper touching or relating in aay
way or to any extent whatever to slavery as aforesaid, or the abolition thereof, shall, OB.
the presentation thereof, without any further action thereon, be laid upon the table without
being debated, printed or referred."

Various motions were made to stave off a vote on these resolutions. A call of
the House was moved for the purpose of consuming time, when all but nino
members answered to their names, being a remarkably full House. In order to
get to a vote on the resolutions, a motion was made to dispense with the call,
when Mr. Bell voted with Adams, Slade & Co., in the negative. The call wa*
dispensed with, however, and the House about to come to a vote, when up sprang
Mr. Bell and moved to adjourn, and this, too, when the House had been in ses
sion only one hour and forty minutes. The House refused to adjourn in spite of
the votes of Bell, Adams, Slade & Co. The question then recurred on ordering
the main question to be put, the object of which was to bring the House to a vote
on the resolution. Mr. Bell again voted with Adams, Slade & Co., in the nega
tive. A motion to adjourn was then again made, in order to consume time and
delay a vote on the resolution. And, true to his Abolition friends, we find Mr.
Bell again voting with them in the affirmative. But the House refused to adjourn,
and Mr. Bell had to "toe the mark." All his efforts to stave off the question
and dodge the vote were ineffectual, and he was compelled to face " the music."
He voted for all the propositions until it came to the last one, given above, in
reference to the disposal of abolition petitions. A noted Abolitionist from Penn
sylvania moved to lay this resolution on the table ; Mr. Bell voted in the ainrm-
tive with his Abolition friends, Adams, Slade & Co. But the House refused to
lay it on the table, and the question recurring on its passage, Mr. Bell voted
against it, in company with Adams, Slade & Co. Pages 27, 28,

The next day, (page 33,) Mr. Adams moved to suspend the rules in order to
allow him to offer a resolution to virtually repeal the Atherton resolutions, when
Mr. Bell dodged the, vote !

We come now to the 26th Congress. At its opening, Mr. Wise rose and said,
that " with a view of preventing the strife which had heretofore agitated the
House and country," he now took the earliest opportunity t9 move a suspension
of the rules of the House for the purpose of submitting a resolution that in futuro
all petitions for the abolition of slavery " should be considered as objected to,"
and laid on the table without debate. The point which the

driving at was^to get Congress to admit, inferentially, by the reception of thes
petitions*and their reference to committees, that Congress had power over the
subject, and to open the door for the agitation of the question. These were the
objects at which they were driving, and Mr. Bell was willing to gratify them, for
he immediately rose and inquired whether it would be in order for him to move
an amendment to the resolution of Mr. Wise, " that all these petitions be refer
red to the Committee for the District of Columbia without debate ;" and, being
told that " it would be wholly inconsistent " with the original resolution, replied,
" then I will introduce a new resolution to this effect." Mr. Adams expressed
himself satisfied with Mr. Bell s plan, except that he thought such petitions as
did not relate to slavery in the District should go to a different committee. He
desired " that these petitions should be received by the House, treated with re
spect, and referred to appropriate committees/ Mr. Bell replied, that "it had
always been his opinion that the best mode of disposing of these petitions would
be to refer them to a committee, and hence it was that he had proposed to intro
duce a resolution of the kind before alluded to." Page 89.

The day following, Mr. Wise renewed his resolution to lay all abolition peti-
tiens on the table, and moved a suspension of the rules in order to get his resolu
tion before the House. Mr. Bell dodged the vote, though he voted immediately
before and immediately after. A resolution was then introduced to raise a select
committee, to whom would be referred all abolition petitions, the very thing the
Abolitionists most desired, as it would give them an opportunity to agitate and
discuss the question, and on the motion to suspend the rules for its adoption, Mr.
Bell voted with Adams, Slade & Co., in the affirmative. Two weeks later, Jan
uary 13, 1840, abolition petitions were presented, and their reception moved.
Mr. Johnson, of Tennessee, moved to lay the question of reception on the table.
And on this motion Mr. Bell, though shown to be present by the Journal, did
not vote. Page 119.

On the 15th of January, we again see him voting with Adams, Slade & Co., to
lay on the table a resolution that all abolition petitions be laid on the table with
out being debated, printed, read, or referred.

It had now become absolutely necessary, in the opinion of Congress, to discoun
tenance and prevent any further discussion over abolition petitions, praying Con
gress to do what it had often been solemnly declared it had not the power to do,
and therefore they were not bound upon any principle to consider such petitions.
On the 28 tli of January, 1840, Mr. W. Cost Johnson, a leading Whig member
from Maryland, offered what was afterwards known as the famous " Twenty-first
Rule," declaring " that no petition, memorial, resolution, or paper, praying the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, 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."

Mr. Johnson said, on presenting this as an amendment to the rules of the
House, that "the resolutions which had been presented by others on this subject
were too vague to meet his approbation, and he therefore worded this so as to
leave no ambiguity, so that when a gentleman voted he. could not deceive his con
stituents^ and could clearly define hisposition." " He, (Mr. Johnson, Whig,) called
upon those opposed to the Abolitionists to vote for it, and kill the hydra abolition
in an instant, in such a manner that it could not germinate its species again."

The question was then taken on ordering the main question to be put, which
was decided in the affirmative yeas 147, nays 61 Mr. Bell voting with Adams,
Slade & Co., in the negative. The question then came up on the adoption of the
resolution, when Mr, Bell again voted with his abolition friends, Adams, Slade
Co., against it. It was not to be wondered at, then, that Mr. Bell received the
votes of Adams, Slade & Co., for Speaker at three several Congresses. They

fcnew their man, and the pertinacity with which they stuck to Him during 1 this
^the 26th) Congress, when parties were close, showed that they had confidence
in his fidelity to their designs.

On the 13th of April, Mr. Adams presented an abolition resolution from Mas
sachusetts, on the subject of abolition petitions, when a motion was made to lay
it on the table, which was adopted, Mr. Bell, with Adams, Slade & Co., voting
in the negative.

Shortly after this, Mr. Bell went out of Congress, and did not return again
until December, 1847.

[t thu-* appears by the record, (the volume and page of which we have been
cartful to give, so that every oae may examine for himself,) that upon every
important question involving the rights of slavery, from the time he abandoned
the Democratic party and joined hands with the New England Federalists in
1835 to 1841, when he left the House, he voted uniformly with the Abolition-
i t-*, Adams, Slade & Co., and against the great body of national men, North and
South.

We now propose to show that, with one or two exceptions, when he played the
fire-eater in order to make a show of fidelity to the interests of his constituents
just before an election in Tennessee, he has continued to prove faithless to his
own section, and willing to do the work of the Abolitionists, so far as he dared.

THE CLAYTON COMPROMISE OF 1848.

Representing a slaveholding community, and dependent, so far as local popu
larity was concerned, upon a seeming readiness to sanction and maintain the rights
ind interests of slavery, it would have been the sheerest madness in Mr. Bell
aver to have avowed himself an open enemy to the institution. It matters but
little, ho^wever, to the South what his sentiments are on the subject, so his acts
and his vote*^ have been given to betray the interests and abandon the rights of
the slaveholding States of the Union. His record, as we have already shown,
thus tar discloses with what alacrity, for the bait of the Speakership, he could
consort with the Abolitionists. Let us now follow him in his advent into the
Senate in 1847.

The acquisition of territory from Mexico, and the necessity of forming a Ter
ritorial government for Oregon, as well as New Mexico and California, led to a
heated and bitter controversy on the slavery question. The Federal Abolition
ists of the North, under the lead of Hale, Hamlin, Chase, G-iddings & Co., were
determined to expel slavery from those Territories by the passage of the Wilmot
Proviso. The excitement ran high, and at one time threatened the peace of the
country. In this emergency, the Senate, ever conservative, sought to cast oil
upon the troubled waters, and allay the excitement. They raised a Committee
of eight, consisting of four Democrats and four Whigs, one-half from the North,
and one-half from the South. John M. Clayton, of Delaware, a most distinguished,
- blc. and prominent Whig, was the Chairman of the Committee, and made so,
iio. by a Democrat! 5 Senate, in order to show that they regarded the settlement
of this question hi gh above all party considerations. Besides him, there were on
the Committee the following distinguished Whigs : Underwood of Kentucky,
Hark of Rhode Islajid, and Phelps of Vermont. The Democrats were, Calhoun
of Sourh Carolina, Atchison of Missouri, Bright of Indiana, and Dickinson of
New York. On the 18th of July, 1848, the Committee, through Mr. Clayton,
reported a bill providing Territorial governments for New Mexico, California, and
Oregon. On the subject of slavery, it provided that the Territorial Legislature
should pass no law prohibiting or establishing it ; but that the question should
be referred to the Supreme Court of the United States for their decision. Mr.
Clayton, on presenting the bill, remarked :

" This bill resolves the whole question between the North and the South into a constitu
tional and judicial question. It only asks of men of all sections to stand by the Constitu
tion, and suffer that to settle the difference by its own tranquil operation. * * *
There is no principle sacrificed. Any man who desires discord will oppose the bill. But he
who does not desire to distract the country by a question merely political, will be able by
voting for this bill to refer the whole matter to the judiciary."

Messrs. Calhoun, Atchison, Berrien, Butler, Clayton, Jeff. Davis, Benton,
Borland, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Mangum, King, and ot her Southern
men, expressed their willingness to refer the matter to the Supreme Court, and
abide their decision. So said, also, Bright, Atherton, Breese, Dickinson, Han-
negan, Phelps, and other conservative northern men. Mr. Hale, the noted Abo
litionist from New Hampshire, assailed the bill, stating :

" I have no confidence in the Supreme Court as now constituted, and I am unwilling
that that Court (composed of a majority of slaveholders) should decide the question.
Again, the bill came short of the wishes of the people, who, throughout the whole length
and breadth of the land, were demanding that slavery should be abolished."

Mr. Hamlin, the present Black Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency,
" designated the bill as guaranteeing and perpetuating slavery in the Territories/
Mr. Corwin said :

"You have made the land (Mexico) red with blood under the pretence that you have

gone thither to give freedom to the captive. You have shown, as he had always anticipated,

that this was all hypocrisy, and that you now desire to fasten the iron heel, not only of

peon slavery but of negro slavery upon them. He protested against this course of hypoc-

isy and murder and cruelty, transcending in horror the bloody code of Draco."

On the 26th of July, 1848, a vote was taken on the bill, and Mr. Bell voted
with Hale. Hamlin, and Corwin against it; voted with the Abolitionists, and
against his own section ; voted with agitators and mischief-makers, and against
the great body of conservative men, to defeat a bill whose object and purpose
were to give the South an equal chance in the Territories with the North, and to
end this slavery agitation and restore peace to the country. From the foundation
of the Government until this time, never was a vote given in either House of
Congress more disastrous to the interests of the South and more perilous to the
union of these States than this vote of Mr. Bell. What was the result of that
vote ? Encouraged by his example, eight Southern Whigs joined the united free
soil vote in the House, aad succeeded in defeating it and adopting in its stead a
bill securing a territorial government to Oregon alone, with the Wilmot Proviso
in it, prohibiting the introduction of slavery therein. When it reached the
Senate, it was there amended by adopting the "Missouri Compromise" and
extending it to the Pacific ocean. The House subsequently rejected the amend
ment and sent the bill back to the Senate in its original form. The question now
came before the Senate upon a motion to recede from its amendment, and Mr.
Bell, true to his old habits, while expressing his intention to vote against receding
(doubtless knowing there were enough without him,) argued with those who were
for receding. He said that

"He desired to see the Oregon bill passed, even without this (Missouri Compromise)
restriction; and he could not use it as a means of attack on gentlemen. Whether he could
vote for it or not was doubtful, regarding as he did the feelings of the friends with whom
he was associated. He controverted the doctrine [that had been advanced by the oppo
nents of the Wilmot Proviso] that even if the whole country, North and South, was opposed
to slavery, Congress had no power to legislate on the subject. He thought the Missouri
Compromise HAD settled that point." (See Cong. Globe, 1st ses. 30th Cong., page 1074 5. )

The results of Mr. Bell s vote on this occasion against the Clayton Compromise
were : 1st, the passage of the Wilmot proviso over the Territory of Oregon j
2d, keeping open the slavery agitation in reference to New Mexico and Cali
fornia, and the excitement which thereupon ensued, which so threatened the

peace and stability of this Union as i :ull Mr. OUy from the quiet and repose
of his home, to beat back the tide of fanaticism, and give pea^e once more to a
distracted country; and third, the exclu ion of the South from the whole of Cali
fornia for California finding herself without the protection of this Government,
framed the next year a State Constitution, and in order to gain admission into
the Union, prohibited slavery therein. We entertain not a particle of a doubt,
that had the Clayton Compromise passed, the southern portion of California
would have been to-day a slave State. Thus bv the vote, example, and influ
ence of John Bell, a Senator representing a slav?holding people, was a fair com
promise of the slavery question defeated, the Wilmot proviso thrust down the
throats of the South, the South deprived of a good opportunity of having a slave
State in California, and the slavery question lefc open, to rankle in the public
mind, and furnish fuel for the Aboliiton agitators. Congress adjourned in a few
weeks, and Mr. Bell returned to Tennessee, and engaged in advocating the elec
don of Gen. Taylor to the Presidency; and in a speech a--, Murfreesboro , on the
21st of September, reported in the Nashville Banner, he reviewed rhe action (hat
had been had on the Oregon bill, saying :

" He was not willing to defeat that bill by any direct vote or movement on bis part. Hft
therefore voted agaiust the proposition for postponement, lie was glad the bill had passed,
as be believed its defeat would have done mischief at the North. He did not feel called
upon to vote for it, though he was not clearly certain thai Conr/rens hud no/ the power to dis-
oose of the whole subject. The Missouri Compromise. . c &lt;&gt; long acquiesced in. went -far to
settle that question."

In this same speech he declared :

" What Ins (General Taylor s) opinions were on the subject of the constitutional power
of Congress over the question of slavery in the new Territories, he knew not, nor did lie de
sire to [cno^L ."

It will thus be seen that he abandoned the South upon the first grave question
that came up after he entered the Senate, involving an important constitutional
right, dear to the South, and which was being recklessly warred upon by Corwin,
Hale, Hamlin & Co., and which National Democrats and \Yings, North and
^ ouch, were endeavoring to compromise upon the plan of relerriug to &lt;&gt;nd abiding
by the decision of the Supreme Court a plan which Mr. Cluycon, a good Henry
Clay Whig, said (&lt; any man who desired discord will oppose, but he who does not
desire to distract the country will vote for." And having aided in defeating this
compromise, he then joined the North in favoring the passage of a bill for Ore
gon, with the Wilmot proviso attached, endeavoring to shield himself by simply
recording his vote in the negative, and in favoring an amendment extending the
Missouri restriction, but declaring at the game time, and subsequently, that he
thought the passage of the old Missouri Compromise restriction had determined
the power of Congress to apply the Wilmot Proviso, excluding the slave property
of the South from the common territory. Well might General Zollicoffer, the
Whig Representative in Congress from Mr. Bell s own district, say :

"The open efforts of avowed Abolitionists are impotent for harm, because the masses of
the American people strongly reprobate them as inimical to the Constitution and to the
stability of the Government; but when Southern statesmen, whose patriotic purposes are not
doubted, gravely declare that THEY believe the Wilmot Proviso is constitutional, the politician*
and people of the North are not slow to adopt this theory ; and then the only question left
with them is, Is it expedient to enact the Wilmot Proviso ? Believing, as the masses in the
North do, that slavery is wrong, regarding it as obnoxious, as leading Democrats do, whom
my colleague regards as sound and true statesmen, is it wonderful what demonstrations we
have in the North in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, after the surrender of the constitutional
question by those trusted at the South ?"

TUE COMPROMISE MEASURES OP 1850.

Congress met in December, 1849, under peculiar circumstances. The country
was wild with excitement, disturbing the public peace and threatening a dissolu
tion of the Union. Mad and bad men at the North adhered to r,heir determina
tion to override the constitutional rights of the South, to break down the equality
of the States, and prohibit slavery in the Territories. Party was forgotten, and
good men everywhere were conferring together to prevent the outrage and pre
serve the Government from a bloody issue. Mr. Clay, seeing the great danger
in which the country was, left the comforts of home and retirement, to mingle
once more in the exciting scenes, in order to restore peace and quiet to the Unior;.
It was the last great drama of his life. He came not as the leader of a party,
but as a representative of American patriotism. He brought forward his plan
of adjustmen -., embodied in a series of resolutions. He proposed the adoiist-ion
of California^ the organization of territorial governments for New Mexico and
Utah, without the Wilmot Proviso, aad upon the principle of non-intervention
according to the Clayton compromise- a more stringent fugitive slave law, and
peaceable adjustment of the boundary question between New Mexico and Texas
Instead of falling in with Mr. Clay, and giving him his support, Mr. Bell sough!
to embarrass and thwart the efforts of those friendly to a settlement of the que.s
tion to the satisfaction of the South and the conservative men of the North. Up,
therefore, he jumped, and proposed his plan. Ana what was it? By the terms
of i he annexation of Texas, it was in the power of the people of Texas, whenever
they so desired, to form four additional States out of their territory, making
five in all Their right in this matter Mr. Webster pronounced 4i Complete, final,
and irrevocable/ 1 Yet, John Bell, a Southern Senator, proposed to admit only
two addi.ioDil States, to be formed out of the Territory of Texas; and, said he,
" when admitted they will be the last of their race. They will and must close
the account, in my judgment, of slave States, then and forever, or for as lou^as
this Union lasts." Here, then, his firs ; proposition was to surrender a right,
11 complete, final, and irrevocable," to form four more slave States out of Texav
Did he prove thus treacherous to the South out of ignorance ? Let him answer:

"This number, (two, ns he proposed,) yon will recollect, Mr President, falls far short
of the calculations of Southern gentlemen; of the advocates of the annexation of Texas,
when tls.-it question was presented to the American people. Four or five slave States, it
was estimated, might and would be carved out of that Territory. Four slave States might
be carved out of that Territory, because there is a country extensive enough, rich enough, fertile
enough, to sustain a population that would authorize its division into four States ; but with tht
arrangement now proposed, (his own,] it would be IMPOSSIBLE that such a project should be
ever entertained. * * * Therefore, sir, there can be no prospect of the further admission
of slave States into the Union at any time."

Thus we see Mr. Bell knowingly and wilfully proposing to surrender a tf com
plete, final, and irrevocable" right to the formation of five slave States, to be
carved out of Texas !

His next resolution was aho fatal to Southern rights. He proposed to take
two and a half degrees from Texas, lying north of ihe 34th parallel of north
latitude, and attach it; to New Mexico, with the avowed intention of making it
a free State. But we will let him tell the story in his own words :

" The first point which will be suggested to the minds of honorable Senators by this
resolution is, that here is a surrender of tivo and a half degrees of slave territory to be there
after free territory. * It will be remembered that the Missouri Compromise line is
the parallel of 30 30 . Thus two and a half degrees of slave territory will be given up to
become free, as 1 think will be conceded in the candid judgment of all. * * * While
the present organization of material creation stands, African slavery can never find a foot
hold in Mew Mexico." Cong. Globe, 1st sess. 31st Cong., page 436.

Thus, again, for the purpose of forming a free State and despoiling Texas of
her slave territory, we see Mr. Bell gravely proposing to surrender two and a
half degrees of slave terrkory to "free soil !" Comment is unnecessary.

His next resolution proposed the admission of California.

Not a word is said about tiie fugitive slave law. No; all his -efforts were to
strengtlen the " powerful North" at the expense of the South. His proposition,
together with all others, were referred to the committee of thirteen, of which
Mr. Clay was the chairman, who reported a series of measures known as the
"Compromise measures of 1850." What was the course of Mr. Bell? Tet
nessee had spoken in trumpet tones in favor of those measures, aud instructed
her Senators to vote for them. This placed it out of the power of Mr. Bell to
vote against them, but it did not prevent his speaking against them and seeking
to defeat them. The issue was between the President s (Gen. Taylor) plan ai ;i
the adjustment presented by the Committee of Thirteen. For a better under
standing of the matter, we quote from a speech of Mr. Clay, delivered on the
21st of May :

"Now, what is the plan of the President? I will describe it by a simile in a manner
which cannot be misunderstood. Here are five wounds: one, two, three, four, five bleeding
and threatening the well being if not the existence of the body politic. What is the plan
of the President? Is it to heal all of these wounds? It is only to heal one of the five,
and to leave the other four to bleed more profusely than ever, by the sole admission of
California, even if it should produce death itself. The President, instead of proposing a
plan comprehend-ng all the diseases of the country, looks only at one. His recommenda
tion does not embrace, and he says nothing about the fugitive plave bill or the District bill ;
but he recommends that the other two subjects of Territorial government and Texas bound
ary, remain and be left untouched, to cure therrselves by some law of nature, by the vis
medicatrix naturae, or some self remedy, in the success of which I cannot perceive any
ground of the least confidence. *

"The recommendation of the President, as I have already said, proposes the simple
introduction of California as a State into the Union a measure which, standing by itself,
has excited the strongest symptoms of dissatisfaction in the Southern portion of the Con
federacy. The recommendation proposes to leave all else untouched and unprovided for.
In such an abandonment, what will be the condition of things? The first approximate
Territory to California is Utah, and in what condition is that left by the President s Mes
sage? Without any government at all. Without even the blessing or curse, as you may
choose to call it, of a military government."

"And when you come to New Mexico, what government have you? A military govern
ment by a Lieutenant Colonel of the army! A Lieutenant Colonel a mere subordinate of
the army of the United States holds the government power there in a time of profound
peace ! Stand up 3 Whig, who can stand up, Democrat, who can, and defend the establishment
of a military government in this free and glorious Republic, in a time of profound peace ! Sir,
we had doubts about the authority of the late President to do this in time of war, and it
was cast as a reproach against him. But here, in a time of profound pence, it is proposed
by the highest authority, that this government, that this military government and by
what authority it has continued since peace ensued, I know not should be continued in
definitely, till New Mexico is prepared to come as a State into the Union. There are now
about ten thousand people there, composed of Americans, Spaniards, and Mexicans ; and
about eighty thousand or ninety thousand Indians, civilized, uncivilized, half civilized, and
barbarous people; and when will they be ready to come in as a State? Sir, I say it under
a full sense of the responsibility of my position, that, if to-morrow, with such a population
and such a Constitution as such a population might make, they were to come here for ad
mission as a State, I, for one, would not vote for it. It would be ridiculous ; it would be
farcical ; it would bring into contempt the grave matter of forming Commonwealths aS
sovereign members of this glorious Union."

Mr. Bell replied to Mr. Clay. On the third of July, 1850, he commenced
one of the most extraordinary speeches ever delivered in the Senate, and contin
ued it for three days. In regard to Mr. Clay s plan of adjustment, he said :

" I have up to this moment remained uncommitted to it, as the distinguished chairman
(Mr. Clay) of the committee knows. * * It has at no time met my cordial approval.

* * When the plan u! such u= MtM-ia^i; i uils .--o f.-ir s.iovt of what the Senate and the coun
try itud a I ight to expect .A them, it is u&gt; uio. ut least, i matter of deep regret."

He then proceeded to defend the President s plan in the face of his own former
proposition, and to suggest the most puerile objections to Mr. Clay s adjustment.
lie v/as exceedingly ingenious in his attacks upon it. He sought to array the
ultra Southern men and the Abolitionists aainst h.. To the Southern men he

" it is proposed by the 39th section of the bill, to establish a Territorial government for
.New Mexico * * The extent of the concession to the South, I apprehend, will
!&gt;* found to consist in the mere forbearance to employ odious and obnoxious forms of en
actment, (the Wilraot proviso.) * The principle of non-intervention is not

viol.- ted, and that, it is said, is a great deal. * ** . I confess I do not see any sub-
Htnntinl concession to the South in all this. * # *- Suppose that, contrary to
fill existing circumstances and presumptions, this bill having passed, slavery should be in
troduced into New Mexico, and after the lapse of years, when the inhabitants shall be au
thorized to form a State constitution, and slavery should be recognized by its provisions,
vrij. -.t security has the South that with such a constitution, New Mexico will ever be admit
ted iuto the Union as a State ? None at all."

Vet this very same John Bell proposed only two or three months be/ore... to rake
2^ degrees of slave territory from Texas, attach it to this New Mexico, and hand
UAU over to the free-soilers. Further, in this very speech, towards its close, he
actually proposed, in order to array the North against the compromise, to admit
this very New Mexico immediately as a free St&tel

Speaking to the ultra Southern men, lie again said :

"Besides the settlement of all the questions connected with Texas, I would have adopt
ed the spirit of the Missouri compromise, and set apart some portion of the Territories,
into which the slaveholder might go with his property. This 1 would have considered u
substantial concession to the South a real compromise."

Yet, in his speech from which we have heretofore quoted, delivered at this
same session only four months before this one, we find Mr. Bell saying :

" I know that many southern gentlemen, for whose opinion I entertain a high respect,
cny that the Missouri compromise line whould at all hazards be adhered to. I cannot
agree with them. I will not enter into a discussion now upon that point. I will only say,
that, even if it could be obtained, even if there could be a recognition of slavery south of
that line, it -would be a barren victory, for there would be no slavery there. * * So
that even if this recognition should be conceded by the North, I insist it would be of no
value to the South "

Consistent John Bell ! He next turned to the North, and tried to bring them
into opposition to the compromise. He sets out by informing them that the
Wilmot Proviso is not in the bills, and that it is not clear that Old Zaek would
veto it if it was put there. Hear him :

"I have said that I neither knew, nor sought to know, General Taylor s views upon this
subject during the late canvass. / do not now know what General Taylor would do whethei
he would veto a bill containing the Wilrnot Proviso or not. Nor do I believe the man ir&gt;
iiang who can say, with truth, that he is better informed upon this subject than myself."

Having stated that he did not understand General Cass to have declared what
his course would have been under such circumstances, he added :

"Sir, his objection to the Wilmot Proviso, beiny founded on his opinion of what the Con
stitution authorized, and not upon any opinion favorable to the extension of slavery, it would
have been an act of unusual boldness to hare declared that he would disregard the. former prac
tice of government, and given no weight to the precedents of the Missouri Compromise and
iJ,e Oregon territorial act."

Thus giving the North to understand that General Taylor, should Congress
pass the Wilmot proviso, would not be guilty of an act of such unusual boldness
as to veto it. Not content with thi*. ho draws their attention to the fact that
they are instructed to voj for it. I)? snid :

"Look, sir, to the North and to (he Soutb, and -&lt;?-. who ihoy are who support the plan
of the President. As to those of the North, art, they not pledged and tied to tho Wilmot jpr^r
viso by their instructions 1 And have they not already receded a littlp from their platform
in coining to tho plan of the President? "

Then still further, to alarm and embarrass those Northern men who were dis
posed to go for the compromise, in spite of instructions, and trust to the people to
support them, Mr. Bell said :

" Sir, from the moment you pass this bill, and as long as a territorial government, ac
cording to its provisions, shall exist in New Mexico, the watchword at the North -will bo
repeal, or the application of the Wilmot proviso."

He went still further, and appealed to the cupidity of the North to defeat tho
compromise. Pie held out to them the glittering bait of .another free State in
New Mexico, the inhabitants of which were about forming a State constitution
with a prohibition against slavery. He said :

"Admit New Mexico as a State, or provide for its admission at some future day after
Texas shall have acceded to a settlement of her boundary, and though there may be some
increased excitement at the South for a time, it will soon pass away, and all will be per
manently quiet. * * *

Mr. FOOTK. I state with perfect conscientiousness, and with a complete conviction of
what I say, that if New Mexico is admitted as a State, tho Union cannot continue to exist,"

In reply to Mr. Foote and Mr. Clay s declaration thut he would not vote for
the admission of New Mexico as a State, Mr. Bell said :

* It does appear to me to be a strange and extraordinary position for Senators to take, when
they declare that under no circumstances will they vote to admit New Mexico into the Union a# a

State.

This hasty effort of Mr. Bell to drag another free State into the Union, with a
population, according to Mr. Clay, of about ten thousand Americans, Mexicans,
and Spaniards, and eighty or ninety thousand Indians, a " civilized, uncivilized,
half-civilized, ani barbarous people," must be considered very strange, not to say
monstrous, when taken in connection with his subsequent conversion to Know-
Nothingism, and his zealous co-peration with that party to proscribe and put
down our f jreign-born citizens, m the election of 1855. But this was not all.
lie begged to remind th. northern Senators that there was ro bill for the aboli
tion of slavery in the Di,- act of Columbia, aud then proceeds to show that there
is no constitutional impeo.- :ients in the way. Hear him :

" "With regard to the const rational power of Congress over this subject, I would say th.st
the only doubt I have of the existence of the power, either to suppress the slave trade, or to
abolish slavery in this- District, is inspired by the respect I have for the opinions of so many
distinguished and eminent men, both in and out of Congress, who hold that Congress has
no such power. Reading the Constitution for myself, / believe that Congress has all (hepotver
over the subject in this District which the States have within their respective jurisdictions. * *

" But, however great my respect may be for the opinions of others on the question of
power, there are some considerations of such high account as in my judgment, to make it
desirable that, unless by common consent the project of abolition &hall be wholly given up
and abandoned, the remnant of slavery existing in the District should be abolished at once. At
the present moment, however, the exciting state of public sentiment in the South, growing
out of the territorial questions, may. seem to forbid such a course." *

" I would be glad to see al oaue of disturbance and contention in the District wholly
removed; but let me say th^ f ;,- m-ve: can be done by the abolition of slavery, unless it
be accompanied by some au^ii *. }&lt;!ov,-i.on for the removal or the effective control of the
slaves after they shall be emat&gt;, puit-d. With this qualification, and in order to test the
determination of the North in regard to any further and continued aggression upon
the Southern property, I would BB CONTENT TO SEE SLAVERY in the District ABOLISHED TO
DAY."

After surrendering everything to the North, with his eye on the future, Mr.
Bell begs leave to call their attention to his subserviency to their policy and

views, and that now when they are acquiring power and influence, they must not
forget him. We quote his words :

" I cannot forbear further to remind my northern friends that in the South and South
west there is a body of men, who, for a long period, have continued faithful and just to
them; sustaining them in their FAVORITE POLICY through ercry vicissitude of political for
tune ; a body of men of liberal and catholic views of national policy, who look beyond the
limited horizon of sectional interests, spurn the influence of sectional prejudice, and em
brace the Tvhole Union as liieir common country. *

" While that protracted domination of the South which has been so long and so keenly
felt at the North, wa3 always more imaginary than real, no southern man ever having at-!
tained the Presidency except by the concurrence, oftentimes, of more than half, and always
of a large division of the North ; yet now it cannot be disguised that the period of southern
ascendency if ever it had a real existence approaches its end. Political power and as-.!
ceudency, in a 8crioi;al view, have already passed away from the South forever, and thif*
is so manifest that a Senator who spoke in this debate, could not forbear taunting the South!
with the prospect of their declining fortunes. A great change had takn place in the politi
cal vocabulary : It is no longer, he exultingly exclaims, the South and the North ; it is
now the North and the South. "

For all those extracts see Appendix to Congressional Globe, 1st session 31st
Congress beginning at pages 1088, and 1667.

Ilis efforts to defeat the compromise failed, however. They were passed, and we
find Mr. B -ll votiug for the only feature in it obnoxious to the South, to wit :
the admission of California and voting against the Territorial bill for New
Mexico, and dodging the vote on Utah, which left open those Territories for the
emigration of the southerners with their peculiar property upon an equal footing
with the people from any other section of the Union, leaving the people to deter
mine their domestic institutions for themselves when they shall come to form a
State Government. We repeat, that Mr. BELL voted consistently with the
fanatics of the North for that feature of the compromise which was the most un
just to the South; and with them against that feature, pertaining to the Terri
tories, that did the greatest justice, and was most approved at the South. (See
Appendix to Congressional Globe, volume 21, part 2d, pp. 1573 and 1589 vol
ume 22, part 2d, page 1485.)

THE KANSAS-NEBRASKA ACT.

This brings us to 1854, when governments were to be provided for Kansas and
Nebraska. Early in the proceedings of the Senate, January, of that year, Mr.
Dixon, a Whig Senator from Kentucky, offered an amendment to the bill, repeal
iog, by express words, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 a compromise which
has alwa)s been regarded as unjust to the South, and which the North had uni
formly shown an unwillingness to observe, except when it, operated to their ad
vantage, a compromise which Mr. Bell had himself denounced in 1850, as " of
no value to the South/ and as "a submission of the South a submission fatal
to the interests of the South." The compromise of 1850 had virtually repealed
the Missouri Compromise, and in order to make the present legislation accord
with that, Mr. Dixon brought forward his proposition of repeal. The Legislature
of Tennessee was in session at the time, and with but one dissenting voice in the
Senatorial branch, and unanimously in the House, passed resolutions in favor of
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The amendment of Mr. Dixon was
afterwards offered by Mr. Douglas to the original bill, and when it came up in the
Senate, was voted for by Mr. BELL, in connection with all other national men of
both paries. It was the tirst time for many years that, upon any material ques
tion involving the rights of tho South, he had failed to take ground against the
South, and with his old Federal allies at the North. It was understood that the
enure body of Whig Senators from the South would support the bill as thus
amended. The National Intelligencer, their organ at "Washington, was taking the

contrary course, and fearing that it might create a false impression with the coun
try as to the position of the Whig party in the Senate, a caucus of the Whig
Senators was held, and

"Resolved, That we disapprove of the course of the National Intelligencer upon the
Nebraska bill, and that, in our opinion, it does not truly represent the Whig party of the
South."

The Hon. John Bell was one of the members of this caucus meeting.* " That
resolution/ says the chairman of the meeting, Mr. Toombs, in a speech in tho
Senate, u was adopted without dispute. I did not hear the Senator s (Mr. Bell s)
voice against it." Just before the meeting adjourned, say Mr. Toombs, Mr.
Clayton, and Mr. Badger, in their speeches in the Senate, " it was suggested tla*.
as it would be several weeks before all of us would have an opportunity of speak
ing on the. bill, an authoritati/e annunciation of our position upon it in thp
Senate would promote the objects of the meeting, This was agreed to without
dispute, whereupon the Senator from North Carolina was requested to state, in
substance, that the Southern Whigs were a unit in favor of the bill. The Sen
ator from North Carolina, Mr. Badger, having the floor next day, made the
announcement accordingly. The statement went forth to the country. c&lt; The
Senator from Tennessee," continued Mr. Toombs, " was present when it was
made, but he did not. utter publicly one word in opposition; and I never beard
that the statement of the Senator from North Carolina did not. truly represent
the position of the Senator from Tennessee, until I heard of hia vote against tho
bill when it passed that body."

Senator Clayton, one of the purest men who ever occupied a seat in the Senate,
said :

"The Southern Whigs (in that meeting) were unanimous in favor of the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise. They had consulted with each other, not in a caucus, but we un
derstood from private conversation with each other that we all thought the Mis&ouri Com
promise line ought to be repealed."

Mr. Clayton further said, he understood Mr. Bell himself to take that ground
in his speech. Mr. Badger said, in the Senate :

"I certainly thought 1 was requested by the meeting of Whig Senators, then and there
present, of whom my friend from Tennessee was one not only authorized, but requested
in order to anticipate the delay which must take place before they could either vote or
Bposik on the subject, that whatever course of reasoning we might adopt in bringing us to
the conclusion, in support of the bill, we were all united."

Every other gentleman who spoke confirmed these gentlemen in their state
ments. (Seo Appendix to Globe, vol. 29, pp. 940-41.)

And yet ai *er having voted for the main feature of this measure, the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise, offered as aa amendment by Mr. Dixon after having at
tended a meeting of the Whig members of the Senate, who were all agreed to favor
the bill, and who, from their intercourse with Mr. Bell understood him as being
with them, aiK who authorized one of their number, Mr. Badger, to announce
in the Senate, that- they were a unit, for the Nebraska- Kansas bill, Mr. Bell,
tn.ie to his instincts, abandoned the South, and even his party friends, on this
question ; arid recorded iiis vote with the Abolitionists against it. The following
is the negative vote :

^AYS. Messrs. BELL of Tenn., CHASE of Ohio, DODGE of Wisconsin, FESSENDEN of
Maine, FISII of New York, FOOT of Vermont, HAMLIN of Maine, Houston of Texas,
JAMES of Khode Island. SEWARD of New York, SMITH of Connecticut, SUMNER of
Massachusetts, WADE of Ohio, WALKER of Wisconsin. 14. Ayes 37.

What new light broke in upon him between his vote for Mr. Dixon s amend
ment, in accordance with the instructions of his Stats, and his vote against the

bill ? What inducements were hold out to him by the Abolitionists which in
clined him to violate his instructions, stultify his own record, and return to their
embraces? We will see. When, in 1856, meeting with the general disapproba
tion of his outraged constituency, it was rumored that he intended to resign and
come home, the leading Black Republican organ of the North, the New York
Tribune, contradicting the report, said :

" He KB as robust and hale to-day as when he bearded and conquered the old lion, ANDREW
JACKSON, in his den, and as resolute and as ready to do service as when SINGLE HANDED Ac
bravely eneounted the WHOLE SOUTH upon the Nebraska Bill, and CARRIED TERROR INTO THEIU
RANKS. The wisdom and experience of a man so eminent and pure are of no ordinary value
at this time, when the country is convulsed with the wars of faction and the spirit of sub
jugation is abroad, threatening to overshadow a new land of promise, (Kansas.) Let us
hope they will be long exercised in the Senate or in some higher capacity, where the coun
try may equally enjoy their advantage."

But we must hurry on. And this brings us to the

ADMISSION OF KANSAS AS A SLAVE STATE.

Iii 1857 Kansas applied for admission as a slave State. Her constitution was
formed by a convention legally convened, and the question of slavery or no sla
very was submitted to a vote of the people, and they decided in favor of slavery.
Gen. Zollicoffer, the Whig Representative in Congress from Mr. Bell s own dis
trict in Tennessee, truly said :

The great mass of those who oppose the admission of Kansas into the Union, oppose it
because it comes with a pro-slavery constitution."

The issue was made up. The time was come to test the question whether the
Black Republican doctrine, "No more slave States/ should prevail. Tennessee,
true to herself and the South, through her legislature, instructed Mr. Bell to
vote tor the admission of Kansas or resign. What did he do ? He gets up in
the Senate, and insults the people of Tennessee by saying :

"1 undertake to say, that at this day (1858) there are not hve hundred men in Ten
nessee who understand the Kansas-Nebraska bill. * * In my own intercourse "With, the
people, 1 have yet to find the first man who understood that question properly."

And then, to still further mark his contempt for the people, he voted with
Hale, Seward, Sunmer & Co., against the bill. He and Mr. Crittenden, of Ken
tucky, were the only Senators from the slave States in the Senate that, on that occa
sion, had the hardihood to desert their own section, and attach themselves to the
Abolitionists of the North, and they have both been hurled by an indignant and
betrayed constituency from their seats in that august body.

In his speeches upon the question, Mr. Bell objected to some informalities and
charges of fraud which had been thrown out by the Abolition Senators against
the action of Kansas. He forgot that he had voted to admit California, with all
her informalities, irregularities, and frauds. She had not had even a territorial
government before. The convention that made her constitution was called to
gether by a military Governor; the question of convening it was not even sub
mitted to a vote of the people. There was no law directing who should or should
not vote. All was chaos. The military Governor was the supreme authority,
and evidences cf astounding frauds were filed before Congress, undenied and
undeniable. Mr. Bell himself admitted that the rights of the United States to
the mineral lands were not guarded in her constitution. Yet he voted and
spoke for her admission she was a free State he could then overlook the in
formalities, irregularities, and frauds. He went further. He was willing to
admifc New Mexico, with her uncivilized and semi-barbarous people, as a free
State. But as soon as a slave State comes up for admission, and Giddings, Hale,

Seward, Sunnier & Co. start off, in accordance with their Abolition anti-slavery
views, in full howl against it, Mr. Bell, tender, conscientious soul, sees informal
ities in every act, irregularity at every turn, and fraud at every corner. The
" powerful North," that NOT th with whom Mr. Bell had so long co-operated;
that North which he had sustained in its favorite policy through every vicissi
tude of political fortune ; that North with whom he had formed a sacred alliance
at Hartford and at "Boston, when be betrayed the Democratic party in 18o6;
that North with whom he had co-operateci in reviving ail the Federal measures
of John Quiucy Adams administration; that North with whom he had labored
for a United States Bank and a high Protective Tariff; that, North, vritL whouj
he had combined to defeat the acquisition of Southern territory in the adm: -MUM
of Texas ; that North, with whom he had joined hands in denouncing the Mexi
can war and in impeding its vigorous prosecution ; that North, with whir. ; "?
jad voted, almost uniformly, against his own section upon every question ;:&gt;. .;\-
ing the rights of slavery ; that North, whom he had aided in opening tb&lt;. tours
of Congress for the reception of Abolition petitions, in applying the Wi t;.ui pro
viso to the Territory of Oregon, and in making it a precedent against iu\s South
in future legislation; in defeating the CLAYTON compromise, which secured to ibe
slave States whatever constitutional rights the Supreme Court should determine
them entitled to ; in endeavoring to defeat the compromise measures of 1850,
and adopt in their stead a plan of settlement which would have debarred the
South from every inch of the newly acquired territory ; that North, with whom
he stood shoulder to shoulder in their efforts to defeat the Kansas bill, and sub-
teQuently in prohibiting her admission into the Union under a slavery constitu
tion ; that North was now getting the ascendency by numerical force, not by any
newly acquired constitutional rights, and Mr. Bell could not afford to brea,k \vitA
them. On the contrary, he desired to remind them, as he saw the scale turning,
that in their future triumphs they must not forget those in the South and South-
west, " ichofor a long period have continued faithful and just to them, sustain
ing them in their favorite policy through every vicissitude of political fortune.*" 1
He pointed back to his votes for the reception of Abolition petitions : iind his
declaration in favor of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and
then adds :

" / hold the same sentiments now. I do not find the least occasion to change them. "

Pie also goes on to endorse the heretical doctrines of the Abolitionists on the

DEED SCOTT DECISION,

that it was not binding or obligatory upon them. The Supreme Court had de
cided, in the Dred Scott case, with remarkable unanimity : 1st, that a negro was
not a citizen ; 2d, that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, and that
Congress had no power to prohibit .slavery in the Territories; and 3d, that slaves
were property, and that the citizens of all the States had a right to go into the
Territories with their property the right to which could not be impaired by either
Congress, or the Territorial Legislatures, they possessing alone "the power coupled
with the duty to protect it."

Mr. Seward, Mr. Hale, and all the other Abolition agitators denounced the de
cision in the .most unmeasured terms. They threatened to re-organize the court,
nd proclaimed that they would not obey the decision. Mr. Douglas, who had
been fighting side by side with them, told the people of Illinois :

" It matters not what way the Supreme Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract question,
whether slavery may or may not go into a Territory under the Constitution, the people have the
lawful means to introduce or exclude it as they please. - * *

JVb matter what the decision of the Supreme Court may )&lt; on that attract question, still the

right of the people to make a slave Territory or a free Territory, is perfect and complete under
the Nebraska Hill."

Abraham Lincoln, the Black Republican candidate for the Presidency, on the
same occasion said :

If I were in Congress, and a vote should come up on a question, whether slavery should
be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote 4 ,ha-t it
should."

Now, listen to John Bell, in the Senate of the United States :

" Whatever may be the decision of the Supreme Court on the power of Congress to in
terfere with the question of slavery in the Territories, and however clear and well founded
in principle and authority its decisions may be, I have supposed that inasmuch as it is a ;
question of constitutional construction or interpretation, and relates to thj jurisdiction "
and power of a special department of the government a department always more or less
under the influence of political considerations, THK QUESTION WOULD NOT BB REGARDED AS
PERMANENTLY SETTLED ; and that whenever in future, as heretofore, Congress shall be
called upon to legislate concerning a Territory, the question will again become the subject oj
decision, and such decision as the majority shall think proper to declare. Congress was never
swayed by the opinion of the Supreme Court on the question of its powers to establish a
National Bank ; nor will it be controlled by any of its opinions on questions involving political
considerations"

Now, what is the difference be-tween Bell, Douglas, and Lincoln ? All of them
agree in setting at defiance the decision of the Supreme Court, declared by the
Cons.-itiuiun of the United States to be " the supreme law of the land ;" they
proclaim the same dangerous and infamous doctrine, that Congress, and if Con
gress, then ihe citizen also, will not be bound by the decision of the highest tribu
nal known to the Constitution to interpret the laws of the country. If this is
not counselling a contempt of the courts, and resistance, instead of obedience, to
the constituted authorities of the Government, we cannot understand the force of
the English language. Such a doctrine, of contempt for the laws and the courts
would, u instiled into the minds of the people, inevitably lead to the disruption
of the Government. He is not a scund statesman, nor a good man, nor a patriot,
who loves his country and her institutions, who would thus seek to loosen the
respect of the people for the judiciary and laws of their country.

THE PRAISE OF THE ABOLITIONISTS.

No wonder, then, the Abolitionists were loud ia their praises of Mr. Bell.
During a loag and eventful history, he had never forsaken them. He had given
himself wholly up to their " favorite policy/ He had voted to receive, print,
and refer their abolition petitions; he had voted agtanst the Clayton compromise,
and i-poke in favor of the Wilmot Proviso ; he was willing to vote to admit free
States, and"*had voted against the admission of a slave State; he had spoken
against the Compromise measures, and voted against the Kansas-Nebraska bill ;
he had proclaimed the power of Congress, and his own desire, to abolish slavery in
the District of Columbia; and now he had joined the Abolitionists to weaken
the force of the decision of the Supreme Court. In view of all this, well might
Mr. Seward, that arch-traitor of New York, alluding to Mr. Bell, say :

* Al last a new voice issues from your own region, FROM THE SOUTH, from the slave States,
and protests against your further persistence, in this mad enterprise, [of extending slavery,] and |
admonishes you /hat it must and will fail. The cohorts are gathering FROM THE SOUTH; the \
men of moderation and conservatism, who, as they have HERETOFORE MODERATED IN FAVOR OF
SL/VVKT^Y AND AGAINST FREEDOM, will noiv be obliged, in consistency with their just and well
established ch-.iracf.er and their patriotism, TO MODERATE AGAINST YOU IN FAVOR OF FREEDOM,
AND [USE UP UNANIMOUSLY AGAINST SLAVERY."

Well might the notorious Burlingame he who blasphemously declared that
"the times demand, and we mus^ have, an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-
slavery Bible, and an ami-slavery God," thus bespatter Mr. Bell with praises :

" Sir, it was a proud day to me when I heard the speech of the venerable Senator from
Kentucky, (Mr. Crittenden.) The molody of his voice and his patriotic accent still eound
in my ears. I was glad to hear him denounce fraud ; I was gLul to hear him stand for the
truth. * * I also felt proud to hear the speech of the distinguishe d Senator from Ten
nessee, (Mr. Bell.) * * I trust that this may be an ompn of what may happen in the
future: As to what may happen, it is not for me to prophesy. Let time and chance
determine."

Horace Greeley, of the New York Tribune, w.is also loud in his praises of Mr.
Bell. Hear him :

" Most certainly we should prefer an original Republican Gov. Seward or Gov. Chase
for instance but we shall heartily and zealously support oue like JOHN BELL, Edward
B ites, or John M. Botts, provided we are well assured that his influence, his patronage,
his power, if chosen President, will be used not to extend slavery, but to confine it within
the States that see fit to uphold it."

And again, in reference to who should be their candidate :

"A speech, a vote, a proposition of the right stamp, and made at the right moment, may
indicate him so that the clear-eyed can no longer doubt. And that man, whoever he may
be, whether Seward, or Chase, or McLean, or Banks, ur Fremont, or Bissell, or Collarner,
or Bates, or Fessenden nay, should he not have hitherto been regarded as technically a
Republican, such as Gen. Soott, or JOHN BELL, or Horace F. Clark, or John M. Botts, or
Henry Winter Davis, provided he be openly and unequivocally anti-slavery-extending, anti-
Cuba-stealing, anti-Fillibuster we shall heartily support both -his nomination and his
election. We give fair notice that a practical triumph over the sham Democracy and its
master, the slavery Propaganda, is the end for which we labor and to which we hold not
only personal aspirations but party names wholly subordinate."

Again, in a long article on the policy of taking up a Southern man, after laying
down the platform of the Black Republican party, Greeley said :

"Looking to the North, we regard as coming within the scope of the organization Ave
have indicated, all such Democrats as John Reynolds, Horace F. Clark, Garnett B. Adrain,
John W. Forney, and John Hickman ; and all such Americans as Nathaniel S. Bcnton,
Daniel Ullman, James H. Campbell, Henry M. Fuller, and William Millward. AT THE
SOUTH, UNLESS WE MISUNDERSTAND THEIR POSITION, IT WOULD EMBRACE SUCH MEN AS JOHN
TiELL, EDWARD BATES, H. WINTER DAVIS, JOHN M. BOTTS, EMERSON ETHERIDGE,
AND KENNETH RAYNER.

" Cannot they combine to overthrow the Nullifiers and Propagandists of the Calhoun
school in their efforts to override the Constitution and make Negro Slavery the dominating
interest of the country? ARE NOT THESE THE ISSUES UPON WHICH THE PRES
IDENTIAL CONTEST IS TO TURN? lo japt v William II. Seward and JOHN BELL,
Salmon P. Chase and Edward Bates, Scluiyler Coifax and John Hickman, Henry M. Fuller,
and Horace F. Clark, HOLD PRECISELY THE SAME SENTIMENTS IN RELATION
TO THESE? And shall these gentlemen, and those who think with them, unite and give
EFFICIENCY TO THEIR COMMON OPINION in the next National Administration, or
by warring on each other, insure a triumph to their common joe? "

The New York Times, the organ of Senator Seward, discussing the probabili
ties as to the Chicago nominee, said :

" The candidates prominent before the Opposition, are Senator Cameron, SENATOR SEW
ARD, William L. Dayton, SENATOR BELL, Senator Critteaden, Governor Banks, ABRA
HAM LINCOLN, JOHN C. FREMONT."

And in continuation of all this, the Times proceeded to detail a conversation
between several "prominent Republicans," who aoui^d :

"That, notwithstanding they were personally in favor of Seward, yet that it would be
more politic to nominate a Southerner, so that it might not be said it was a sectional strug
gle for power. It was further uryed that BELL, of Tennessee, was the most available candidate
for them"

Even the National Era, the ultra Abolition paper, published at Washington
City, was willing to take Mr. Bell, but did nat like the abuse of the Republicans
by the Nashville Banner, which was kept up to throw dust in ihe eyes of the
people of Tennessee. The Era said :

"The Nashvi l" Itciniblicun Banner . the orgun of Jet IN BKLL, is spoiling nil the fine pros
pects of that gentleman for the Presidency by its coarse abuse of the ; Black Repuplicaris.
While Mr. Bell if hob-nobbing with the Republicans and semi- Republican? of Pennsylvania and
New York, his organ id denouncing -Black Republicans as being uo better than the Black
Democracy, and the great original sin of each of these parties, according to the Republican
Banner, is the fact that they trace their origin to THOMAS JEFFERSON, Who is denounced as
an accomplished and ineffable demagogue."

So intense wa& the love of the Abolitionists for Mr. Bell, tha- we see them,
with Horace Grtcley ar, their head, tendering. him .the co.-t plitnent of a public
ciinu -T.

\\V submit the question* to the heart and conscience of ever} 1 Southern man:
It&gt; thib man, whose life and course have been *o opposed to Southern interests and
Southern rights, as ro receive the plaudits and approval of sueb Abolition leaders
as Sewurd, Bnrlmgame, Greeley, Raymond Co., a safe man f&lt;r the Presidential
chair? Would you be willing to trust }our rights and interests in his keeping
for four years? Does he deserve the support of the South, and can a troe-hearred
Southerner give hi 1 - vote to one who has been so regardless o&gt; Southern rights? if
it had not been for the German element in the Republican party demanding rha*
no one who had justified Know-Nothingism should be nominated -^ Chicago,
John Bell wouiu have been to-day their nominee instead of Abraham Lincoln

JOHN BELL S ABUSE OF HENRY CLAY.

John Bell, at one time, was a most ardent supporter of General Jackson. Bur,
he was not content with supporting Jackson ; so ho*, was hia zeal, that he must
needs attack ah those who opposed his favorite, Mr. Adau*s had been elevated
to ihe Presidency ra 1824, through Congress, ov^r General Jackson, and the cry
had gone forth that this act had been consummated through n. a corrupt bargain
aiid intrigue" between Mr. Adams and Mr. Cay Mr. Bcil maoe haste to ie-
iteratc the charge of bargain and intrigue " against Mr Clay On the lli u &gt;-t
October, 1826, he addressed a letter to his constituents, from whk-h we qu te :

"Appealing, then, to those who know mo best, for the proofs of my consistency upon
the subject of the formation and character of the present Administration of the General
Government, these are my views, and these the reasons upon which they are founded:
]Vhe.n ihe late election for Chief Magistrate devolved on the lionise of Representative s in Con
gress, the choice of the people, the favorite of the nation, was indicated through a thousand chan-
rels and by the most infallible signs : in the elevation, therefore, of the present incumbent over
him, 1 consider that the first and best principle of that Constitution was violated and trodden
underfoot. The sovereignty of the people was denied. The noble fabric of American liberty wnn
ndanyered by the example, and the authors of it owe an atonement. The national safety Jc-
inandis that the atonement should be their f alt from power. Ij I here had been no violation of mi
important principle in the late- election, I should have been opposed to an administration which
owes its existence to a union of discordant and hostile interests, brought about by the ARTS OF
POLITICAL MANAGEMENT AND INTRIGUE. These are arts Jit only to be. employed hy
the minions and ministers of princes, whose thrones arc supported by the prostitution of pnbiic,
morals. When those arts reach their maturity in this country, the Republic perishes. The
American masters, the people, who will decide for themselves in the next / residential elect ion. intt
reject the. services of those who win thdr war/ to ojfir.c by PRACTICES THAT TEND TO COR
RUPTION, and threaten destruction to the. Government.

" When Fuch an administration is to be opposed, it is fortunate that there exists such a
man as Andrew Jackson, to be the instrument, in the hands of the people, of its overthrow.
A man whose purposes are admitted to be always pure ; whose mind seems lormed for
great emergencies, and whose splendid services place him. in deserving public favor, at mi
immeasurable distance in advance of all others. To aid in placing such a man, from any
part of the Union, at the head of affairs, particularly f o aid in elevating such a man from
my native State, is not only in accordance with my private inclinations, but would be felt
tu i/i; a part of my public duty."

But this is not all. At a dinner given to Gen. Jnckson, at Vauxhall Gardens,
in XashvilK on ihc 4 h of July, 3"827, Mr. Bel! proposed a mast, in which he
designated Henry n.\\ as ?h-. guil y t-taifsnian " The following is the toast:

" THE JNDIGSANT .Mi. ioirti* .vujo!; VX.NU; sc:- A nvrcit;; !,t*ri:cr r rniANOK or A
BUT INSULTED pKOi J.ii s WILL Monu T*: ;;u ; m.r. ro rm; &gt;nni ; &lt;/a&lt;t y;n- K THAN TKK BATTLK S
DIN ou THE TEMPEST S UAGK."

But he was not yet dene with Mr. Clay. On the 7th of September, 1827. ho
prepared another letter ibr the y.. .)iic, in which, alluding to Mr. Adams elec !,"-ra
to the Presidency, and the appo. atment oT Mr. Clay as Secretary of State, he
said :

" / liavf. seen the. Iiiylivi a-ndmn.it r m.?. -&gt;rlar..t office in, (lie. Government filled bif mea?is find iir,dr.r
circumstances affording ALL TUB i:vmiir ;;r.s or A COAMTIO.V FOIIMKD UPON THR BASIS o 1 y.r-
TUAL BENEFITS to L&gt;e received and conferred, independently of any controverted pnint in &gt;/. &lt; &lt;/,?-
tails, t lint the Government can never expect Ike liyhi of, in any combination that has hew. &lt;ir m&lt; ,./
be enter id into, to defeat the wiU of the people. Ambitious ami fispiriny politicians &gt;rha , /.,
great characters t&lt;&gt; s-usiain, and sense enough to guard against the common blunders offaii PH. NO
TICED ADEPTS IN Till; A1ITS OV INTRIGUE AND MANAGEMENT IN FORMING COALITIONS. J / hul

seldom expose themselves to l!ie danger of deifciion from positive proof. It is not. thc-rr / "/r, .//
my vien\ of so much importance to consider ich ether a possibility of innocence can be c/ /.;;.,/&lt;&lt;/
in favor of the parties* implicated, as to determine- ivhether ike PR "SUMPTION TO TUK CONTT. I;Y
in not so great in the present, instance that their continuance would be incompatible with t/i* wf-.-t ii
and well-being of our political institutions.

" Geucr.il Jackson had beon presented & &lt; andulate for tbo first office in the gil r. 01 tl .
people I may say, for the highest office in li^nor and ditinity in th world, f r tb^ i .! . -&gt;&lt;ni
that it is t.bc gift of a nation of freemen. Tin ejectors of r ne people, nctinjr in refercr.-co ? o
their wishc?, iiad pointed to him as the uhjoet of their preference. Thvir opinion" h: -!
been fiiirly e.x pressed fully indicated; yet when the quest on \va-; fully brought t. ine
CGCvideration of Congresf. (he preference thus manifested u&gt;as disregarded and a selection i.nro f
contrary to {he Irishes of those who had a right to direct and govern; of this the freemen &lt;/;/ //.&lt;!
United States had a right to explain, and they did complain ; nor will they, I iru&l, cruxc ;
do so until f hey shall hc;vt&gt; vindicated those rights u~hich v:&lt; re thus outraged and vms fed from
them."

Yet, after these denunciations of Mr. Clay, and the most fulsome eulogies of
General Jackson, which we have not the space to quote, he became. t&lt;&gt; suit his
purposes, the most ardent admirer and eulogist of the man he had so grossly
abused, and the most bitter reviier and defamcr of the other he had formerly be
spattered with praise. It was not in his nature to continue long as the friend
of any man, and accordingly, after eulogizing Mr. Clay for a number of years, he
deserted him for (Jenerai Taylor, because ho thought Mr. Clay s star was in its
wane, as he had done with General Jackson. Be came out in favor of General
Taylor s nomination, over Mr. Clay, for the Presidency in 184H, and ;is there
were then Whigs in Tennessee wedded to Mr. Clay, be made a speech at Mur-
freesborough, in that State, which was published in his organ, the Nashville Ban
ner, to convince them that they ought to give up Clay and take Taylor. Yv e&gt;
have room only for a short extract :

" He believed that hostility to Mr. Clay had become a fixed sentiment with many. His
idrniration of Mr. Clay s talents t7as not less than that of those who thought his claims
should have been preferred. He had prejudices in regard to him to overcome like many
ithers, but many others had not yet overcome them. He was for Taylor because he
.bought the honest and patriotic of all parties could unite upon him. He had heard of
Borne Whigs who had rather sink with Clay than swim with Taylor. That was not his view
of the du,ty of a patriotic Whig. In giving up Mr. Clay he knew that all did not agree
with him. A movement had been made in New York lately, by Whigs, who still thought
Mr. Clay the only proper representative of Whig principles. He did not think the Whig
party so poor that they could boast but one man who deserved their support."

Again, in 1850, after his extraordinary effort to defeat the Compromise meas
ures, Mr. Clay thought proper, among the opponents of the adjustment, to class
Mr. Bell with the Northern Abolitionists, and to say that all they wanted was
the Wilmot Proviso incorporated in it. Whereupon Mr. Bell thus replied :

" I am aware of the vast control the honorable Senator has over the will and sentiments
of men. especially in the Whig ranks; and this he has had for years. But, when the hon-

orable Senator so indignantly denounces military authority, is rrE UNCONSCIOUS THAT HE
is HIMSELF A GREAT MORAL DESPOT? t knew something of these moral despotisms.
I have had to encounter them in my time."

Is there a man in the T nkod States, who reveres the memory of Henry Clay,
can give his vote for his most bitter reviler John Boll ? What say you, Whigs
of Kentucky the legitimate custodians of the fame and honor of your great
leader? You who clung to him in every emergency, and never deserted him
He sleeps in the bosom of Kentucky s soil, among those whom he so much loved,
and who so much loved him ! Wht say you; will the vote of Kentucky be cast
for his defamer? What say you, Whigs of Tennessee, of Maryland, of the Union
who rallied around his banner so gallantly in days of yore, will you now cast you
votes for his calumniator ? Answer in November next.

MR. BELL S ABUSE OF GENERAL JACKSON.

We have said that Mr. Bell was at one time the firm supporter and eulogis!
of General Jackson. So he was up to the 23d Congress, when upon the resig
nation of Mr. Stevenson, the Federalists and Abolitionists tendered him the
Speakership in order to beat James K. Polk, the Administration candidate. Mr.
Bell s " easy virtue" could not withstand the temptation, and he yielded to theii
desires, became their candidate, and through a coalition of the Federalists, Abo
litionists, Whigs, and disappointed Democrats, he was elected. Yet, he still
claimed to he a friend of General Jackson, and returning to Tennessee, by his
fulsome eulogies upon the Old Hero, so deceived the Democrats that they re-
elected him. Having failed to get into General Jackson s Cabinet, for which he
was warmly urged by his friend, Judge White, he became a candidate for re-elec
tion to the Speakership, and in order to reach that station, we find him making
" fair weather " with all the aspiring candidates for the Presidency Judge
White, of Tennessee, Mr. Van Buren, and Colonel R. M. Johnson, of Kentucky.
In the fall of 1834, he wrote to the Hon. C. P. White, the bosom friend of Mr.
Van Buren, that :

" As YET TENNESSEE HAS TAKEN NO ACTIVE, DECIDED COURSE ON THIS QUESTION, BUT
THE SAGACIOUS POLITICIANS AMONG US ARE GOING IN FOE MR. VAN BUREN."

The editor of the Kentucky Gazette, a friend of Colonel Johnson, in answer
to a letter, made a publication in which he said :

" In the month of August or September last, (1834,) I think it was, Mr. Bell did write a
letter to Colonel Johnson of the character which you describe, and which I saw. I do not
remember, if, in that particular letter, he (Mr. Bell) urged Colonel Johnson to become a
candidate for the Presidency or not ; but I know very well that he had pressed him, and
the means of success were to be based upon the grounds to which you allude, (support oi
the Bank.)"

It is difficult to trace the tortuous course of Mr. Bell at this time. He was for
the administration of Gen. Jackson, and against the administration of Gen. Jack
son; he was for the United States Bank, and against the United States Bank;
he was for Mr. Van Buren, and against Mr. Van Buren ; he was for Col. John
son, and against Col. Johnson ; he was for Judge White, and against Judge
White; lie was for John Bell all the time, and never against John Bell, as will
be seen by the following paragraph from a letter addressed by him, May llth,
1835, to Charles Cassidy, esq. :

" To defeat me for the Speaker s chair is the main interest which Mr. Polk and Johnson
have in this whole contest, as I believe.

" It would not do to ask Polk to vote for me against himself, but he might be made to
pledge himself for me against any other candidate. My course in appointing him Chairman
of the Committee of Ways and Means could be used to show that I have not been influenced
by personal considerations against him, where the country is concerned."

It will thus be observed, that however tortuous may have been Mr. Bell s
course upon all other matters, he had but one opinion (to which all other opin
ions were subordinate) upon the propriety of his own election to the Speakership.

But Mr. Bell received but little encouragement from the friends of Col. John
son, Mr. Van Buren, or Mr. Polk. It had become too evident that he was in
triguing with the Opposition and forming new party alliances with the view of
greater certainty of future political promotion.

Mr. Polk defeated him for the Speakership, however, though he received the
whole opposition vote. Yet still he smothered his wrath, and did not attack
Gen. Jackson openly. That would not have done, for the very reason he after
wards himself gave that

&gt;k The impression is current and general, that a man who dares to make a direct issue,
right or wrong, upon any matter of complaint with the President, must go down in public
estimation."

He was too sly a fox to run in the face of public opinion, and besides General
Jackson s term of office would not expire for two years longer, and he wanted
some favors at his hands. So he went, home, and took to President-making.
With the exception of Gen. Jackson, no man stood so high in the esteem and
confidence of the people of Tennessee as Judge White, then a Senator from that
State in Congress, and an ardent Democrat and supporter of Gen. Jackson s ad
ministration. Gen. Jackson s preference wa3 known to be for Mr. Van Buren
Mr. Bell attached himself to Judge White, and brought him out as a candidate
for the Presidency, not, however, as in opposition to Gen. Jackson. He was too
cautious for that. In a speech delivered at Nashville, on the 23d of May, 1835,
l;c said :

Gen. Jackson has been eminently successful and triumphant in all his measures. It is one
(.i i he happy consequences of his GREAT SUCCESS that the friends of his Administration may
choose from among his friends, &c. lie yet possesses a vast and undoubted control and
influence in the country. * The friends of Judge White, therefore, upon

grounds of policy, if upon no other and better ones, will not seek to disturb the tranquillity
of Gen. Jackson s administration, or to defeat or unsettle any of (hose great measures upon
which he has acquired so much of his present power and influence. * But,

gentlemen, the friends of Judge White will adhere to Gen. Jackson and his administration,
from consistency ttttd refpecl for their own character, and because they will be supporting their
own principles."

At a caucus of the friends of Judge White, Mr. Bell drew up a paper in which
he stated that if by running Jud^e White, o ir party " would be divided, " we
ought not to take him up." The old hero of New Orleans was not ro be cheated
or fooled. He had a high opinion of Judge White, but he appreciated the un
fairness and injustice of Tennessee again cliiming the Presidency, after having
had it for eight years. He also appreciated John Bell, as the following letter,
dated May 10, 1835, to Gov. Blount, of Tennessee, will show:

" 1 would to God that our old friend, Judge White., would soon disentangle himself from
the false position that he has been placed in by Bell, Crockett & Co. If he does not, he will
be politically lost, since John Bell has turned a good Whig, and put him up as the candidate
of the opposition."

The old hero knew the vacillations and intriguing disposition of John Bell.
He was not to be deceived by his loud-mouthed asseverations of his fidelity to
the party and its principles. He had watched his course i;. Congress, and had
seen him coalescing with the opposition for the Speakership. He knew his man;
and time, that unerring test, showed that he was right. Mr. Vim Buren received
the nomination, but instead of taking him off, Mr. Boll insisted on running
Judge White as an independent candidate. And tnen commenced his abuse of
Gen. Jackson. It was the last year of his Presidential term j the old hero was
about going out of office, and would soon be unable to dispense those services and

favors which he had, hi tvtotore, 1 ivished on Mr. Bell ; this was a favorable op
portunity to display tin gratitude and gratify his malignant feelings. In three
set speeches, covering 54 closely printed p:iges in the Congressional Globe, he
assailed Gen. Jackson in the most vindictive nianrer. Listen to a few extracts:

"But, again : Is not the Senate, which was intended by the Constitution to be in itself a
standing check and limitation upon the use ami abuse of the Executive patronage to that
extent, and as regards that purpose of its institution, actually expunged, and that, too, by
Executive power and influence ? I demand of gentlemen to answer me, and say if there
exists at this moment, practically, any controlling power in the Senate over the will of the
Executive? Is not the Constitution itself, for the time being, abrogated, subverted, over
thrown? All men must now see, and acknowledge that the duty of sending nominations of
public etlicer.s to the Senate, for advice and confirmation, is reduced in practice to mere
form. Have we not a Senate of the United States notoriously replenished and organised
upon thfl principle of non-resistance, and of passive obedience to the Executive will and
authorr.y ? And how, sir, has this state of things been brought about V The State Logis-
Imuie.-, those sentinel towers, as they have heretofore been supposed, upon the ramparts
of the Constitution and of the public liberty, have been boldly entered, and by Executive
injluencs seduced and prostituted to purposes of federal powsj- and domination. * * * Sir,
I may add that the legislative proceedings of State Assemblies have been interfered with,
and many of those bodies have already been reduced to the condition of mere dependent
and co-ordinate portions of the great party machinery by which it is supposed this country
may hereafter be governed the supple and convenient instruments of tho federal Execu
tive ! &gt;;

This slander not only upon General Jackson, but, upnu the Senate of the United
States, finds a full answer in the statement thai it was c mi posed of a majority of
opponents to the Administration, and among them we u nd the names of Henrv
Clay, Daniel Webster, John M. Clayton, Cnttenderi, Mangum, White, Calhoun,
John Tyler, and others, while among the friends of General Jackson were James
Buchanan, Silas Wright, Thomas H. Beriton, Isaac Hill, and others all of them
men not likely to be supple instruments in the hands of any man.

The assault upon the State Legislatures is equally as unfounded, and shows the
contempt of Mr. Bell for the opinions and views of the people. Those State Leg
islatures hud instructed their Senators on the questions of expunging the resolu
tion of censure against General Jackson, and in relation to the removal of the
deposited. It was to these matters Mr. Bell alluded.

He then goes on in this same speech to charge the President with trying to in
fluence the elections, and the choice of his successor, and assailing those opposed
to him, by sending scurrilous articles against them under his own frank, and
through the agency of the office-holders. And then closes thus :

"Sir, with the powers and influence of the Executive, as at present exercised, this Gov
ernment is an elective monarchy. It is well that we no longer deceive ourselves with names.
IT IS THIS DAY AN ELECTIVE MONARCHY."

In these speeches Mr. Bell accused General Jackson of striving to re-enact the
sedition law of 1798, because he thought Congress ought to devote itself to its
legitimate duty of legislation instead of engaging in President-making ; of over-
aweing and tyrannizing over Congress ; of concentrating in his person the sword
and the money of the Government ; of squandering the public money in objects
of internal improvements; of creating a war panic, and disarranging the business
of the country ; of controlling the people by "a series of pretenses and impos
tures;" of corrupting the public press, and the people; and of corruptly plunging
the country into Indian wars withont cause. (See Appendix to Congressional
Globe, 1st session, 24th Congress, pages G37, G51.) And all this from the man
who but one year before had spoken of u the happy consequences of General Jack
son s great success" and professed such devotion to him and the party. As was
to be expected these assaults led to the appointment of an investigating commit
tee, moved by the enemies of General Jackson in order to defame his administra-

tion, and to justify a process of impeachment, as suggested by Mr. Bell in the
following extract from his speech :

" Ay, sir, the President may not only be IMPEACHED by this House, but it is its bounden
and sacred duty to impeach him for adequate cause"

The resolution fixing the duties of this committee was enclosed by the Chair
man in a note to the President. Old Hickory promptly replied :

" If, after all the severe accusations contained in the various speeches of yourself and
your associates, you are unwilling of your own accord to bring specific charges, then I will
request your committee to call yourself and your associates, and every other member of
Congress who has made the general charge of corruption, to testify, before God and our
country, whether you or they know of any specific corruption or abuse of trust in the Ex
ecutive Departments ; and if so, what it is. If you are able to point to any case where there
is the slighest reason to suspect corruption or abuse of trust, no obstacle which 1 can re
move shall be interposed to prevent the fullest scrutiny by all legal means. The offices of
all the Departments will be opened to you, and every proper facility furnished for this
purpose."

This was the language of an innocent man, who courted and defied investiga
tion. Mr. Bell was summoned before that committee to make good his charges
against General Jackson, and the following question asked him :

"Do you of your own knowledge know of any act by the President or either of the heads
of the Executive Departments, which is either corrupt, or a violation of their official
duties ?"

After protesting against subjecting him to an examination of this character,
and admitting that he knew nothing of his own knowledge, he proceeds to state
his " beliefs," thus :

" I consider every appointment or employment made or confirmed by the President, or
any of the heads of the Executive Departments, as the consideration of services and in
fluence in any election, as a gross violation of official duty. I believe that most of the ap
pointments made of late were made chiefly with that motive.

11 The interference of the President, and other public officers, with his knowledge and
connivance, in elections, I believe to be one of the most mischievous and dangerous prac
tices of the existing Administration.

" I believe there has been a gross violation of official duty under the present Administra
tion in the appointment, by the President or the heads of the Departments, of numerous
officers as agents of the Department, and in annexing to such appointments stated salaries
and allowances, without authority or warrant of law." (Mr. Bell certainly could not have
read the revenue law of 1798, which authorizes the employment of agents of the Depart
ment.)

Concerning the Indian wars, without giving any facts, Mr. Bell testified to
his impressions thus :

"I therefore feel well warranted in my own mind, in attributing to the imbecility, CULPA
BLE NEGLECT, or the CORRUPTION of the Administration, all the blood and expenditure
which have attended our recent hostile relations with the Creek Indians, and much of the DISHONOR
which must attach to the country by the reason of speculations in their lands."

He then concludes by saying that he " considers" that the President was
guilty of "a gross violation of official duty, in failing to inquire" into the
abuses of the Post Office Department,

The committee in reference to the testimony of Mr. Bell and others, re
ported :

"They were called upon as the best source te furnish the committee with proofs, or with
the names of witnesses ; and, instead of doing so, they make complaints against the com
mittee and the President, as if they were the authors of the charges, the movers of the
resolution of inquiry, and the promoters of this whole question of investigation. They
testify to no corrupt act that they know, but to much that they "have been informed of
and verily believe," but give no names of informers or witnesses, who know the alleged
acts of corruption in official duty." App. to Gales & Seaton s Register, voL 13, part 2,
s 189.

.26

Thus was Gen. Jackson vindicated, and his defamer, John Bell, covered
with confusion and shame. A man of feeling would have shrunk from the
public gaze, and sought oblivion in retirement. But not so John Bell.. The
very next year he had the audacity and impudence to arraign Gen. Jackson
before the country, and declare that he ought to have been impeached ! Heal
him:

"It has been my opinion, and I have not yet parted from it, that the late President
(Gen. Jackson) did trample upon some of the most important and vital principles of the
Constitution. That no impeachment was actually moved against him, way not because there
was any doubt that the Constitution was invaded and trampled upon, nor because the sub-
ject escaped attention at the time; for, sir, I, for one, did call the attention of this Huu r
to the subject, and declared my solemn conviction to be, that until a great example *h&lt;&gt;u &lt;i
be exhibited of the power and justice of this House by impeachment, the evils of which
we most complained would be progressive. And 1 questioned whether any other a&lt;iequ:ie
remedy could be applied, under the Constitution, But, sir, I did riot think of moving ?m
impeachment against the late President, because, considering his great popularity (:n ;
influence with the people that, during the last years of his administration, and which
were clearly the worst, he was sustained in all his conduct by a great majority in this
House and in the Senate I held that to provoke, without the power to restrain, wou d
only aggravate the evils of the times, and bring additional injury upon the country and it*
institutions. An impeachment, under such circumstances, was not to be thought of by a
prudent statesman." App. to Cong. Globe, 2d sess. 25th Cong., page 560.

Friends of Jackson ! who followed his proud banner through the thickest of
the fight, and who loved the old soldier when he was alive, now that he is
dead and gone to his silent grave, will, you not rebuke this calumniator of his
honor, his integrity, and his fame? Answer at the ballot-box on the ides of
November next !

HIS OPPOSITION TO THE MEXICAN WAR.

The people cannot have forgotten the vehemence with which the Mexican war
was denounced, especially by the Abolitionists of the North. One of then-
Senators, Mr. Corwin, encouraged the Mexicans to greet our soldiers " with
bloody hands and welcome them to hospitable graves/ Amos Tuck, of Neve
Hampshire, in his abolition frenzy said : " Let the same vote that declared the
war unnecessary and unconstitutional, starve it to death by withholding sup
plies." Abraham Lincoln, now the Black Republican candidate for President,
rising in his place in the House of Representatives, denounced it as a wai
in which the Mexicans were in the right and the Americans in the wror v
declaring that the President " feels the blood of this war, like the blood
Abel, crying to Heaven against him/ 7 Where stood John Bell? Side by ;
with Lincoln, Corwin, and Tuck, in opposing the prosecution of the war iw
resisting the recommendation of the President for an increase of the miliuu^
force. He voted with the Abolitionists against the Ten Regiment bill L
went farther, and in his speech defended the course of these men, and c&lt;n.
selled the President to withdraw the army. Here is his own language :

"I hold, sir, for one, that gentlemen who believe this war to be unjust and iniqu &lt;
or, whether just or unjust, that the further prosecution of it is likely to inflict upo
country greater evils than can be compensated by all the territorial acquisitions which tin
courage and resources ot the country may achieve, have a perfect right to arraign t x
authors and advocates of it at the bar of public opinion, and to THWART THEM l.y il
the means of speech, writing, and voting which the Constitution warrants. I hold, sir",
that to deny them the exercise of this privilege by law would be an act of despotism umh-i
legal forms; and to seek to forestall the exercise of this privilege by intimidation and tht-
Influence of official denunciation by charging those who avail themselves of this privilege
as the allies of the public enemy and their auxiliaries in the war, is an attempt at moral
despotism only to be excused ae an emanation of excessive and over-heated zeal, in which
neither the judgment nor a proper regard for the institutions of freedom have had much

"But, sir, should the tone of remonstrance against this war rise so high in this chamber

AS TO PENETRATE EVEEY VALE IN MEXICO, REVERBERATING AMONG HER MOUNTAINS, AND

ROUSE THE WHOLE COUNTRY TO A SPIRIT OF RESISTANCE to the attempt to sub
due them to our dominion, there are those who believe that a greater calamity may befall
this country in the further prosecution of the war than even such a result as that.

"Sir, if any should now desire to know my poor opinion upon the proper mode of termi
nating this war, I say to them to make the best treaty with any existing government you
can. If you must have the Territories of New Mexico and California, get a cession of
them; if you cannot do that, come back to the Rio Grande, to the boundary you claim title
to, and thus save your honor.

My advice is, slop the war! FLEE THE COUNTRY AS YOU WOULD A CITY DOOMED TO DE
STRUCTION BY FIRE FROM HEAVEN !"

It will thus be seen that Mr. Bell was unwilling that an outraged public senti
ment should shame into silence the moral treason of the Abe Lincolus, Tom Cor-
wins, Amos Tucks and others, but that they should be permitted to go on in their
efforts to " thwart" the Government in its prosecution of the war, " by every
means of speech, writing and voting," even " should the tone of remonstrance
rise so high as to penetrate every vale in Mexico, reverberate among her moun
tains, and HOUSE the whole population to a spirit of resistance." What mat
tered it to him that Americans were there in deadly conflict with the enemy of
their country ? No blood of his coursed the veins of an American soldier.

JOHN BELL ON KNOW-NOTHINGISM.

After helping to throw over Mr. Clay, in 1848, and in 1850 proposing the
admission as a State of New Mexico, with a population composed principally of
44 civilized, half-civilized, uncivilized, and barbarous" Indians, Spaniards, and
Mexicans, we find Mr. Bell, in 1855, engaged in performing funeral obsequies
over the death of the old Whig party, which he, more than any other one man,
had contributed to kill, and in organizing a "new" (Know-Nothing) party in its
stead. In September, 1855, he proceeded* to Knoxville, Tennessee, and delivered
a set. speech, which was afterwards printed in pamphlet form, and distributed
through the country. We make the following extracts from it :

" I have said that the Whig banner no longer floats over the stand in political assemblies
in Tennessee. Tkat is true ; but it has given place to another ensign, under which, I trust,
all true and conservative patriots of both the old parties will rally, and make it equally
glorious and more triumphant than the one which it has supplanted ; and, that it may never
have to be lowered or resign its place to any other, less signiiicant of patriotic purposes
and stern determination to maintain the national character and institutions against all
who would change the one or undermine the other. *

"The councils of the American Order are denounced as secret political societies, fraught
with and tending to all the mischiefs and atrocities of the Jacobin clubs of Paris in the
French revolution ; yet since the order has become a political party all their alleged secret
proceedings are known, almost upon the instant, to the public. The oaths administered
on initiation of members, are denounced as immoral and amounting to a surrender of all
freedom and independence in the exercise of the elective franchise; yet the oaths admin
istered in various other secret societies, or voluntary associations in this country, pass
without notice or censure; and it is well known to these assailants, that any member of the
Order can set aside the obligation of the oath he takes, so strongly objected to, at discre
tion, by withdrawing from the Order. The exclusion of Roman Catholics from the offi
cial pale is denounced as prescriptive, and an attempt to establish a religious test, in vio
lation of the constitution. The exclusion of naturalized foreigners from all official stations
is denounced as prescriptive and likewise a violation of the constitutional rights of that
class of citizens. To propose an amendment to the constitution by which Romanists shall
be excluded from office, might justly be considered an attempt to establish a religious test;
and to propose to exclude naturalized foreigners from office, by an amendment to the con
stitution, might, with truth, be saii to be an attempt to proscribe them ; but the organiza
tion of a political party, upon the principle or policy of withholding the support and suf
frages of the members of that party in the public elections from Roman Catholics and
naturalized citizens and that is all the American party proposes to do cannot, by any

fair reasoning, or ingenious sophistry, be shown to be an attempt to establish a religions
test r to proscribe any class of citizens; nor, in regard either to Romanists or naturalized
citizens, can the argument be maintained that the American party, in -withholding from
them their support in elections, is guilty of a violation of the constitution, in letter or
spirit ; unless the practice and maxims of both the great parties, which have so long con
tended for the possession of power in this country, in elections and appointments to and
removals from office, be admitted to be in violation of the constitution, or its spirit. * *

" The very name of the new party American, struck terror into the leaders of the De
mocracy. The prestige of the name of the Democratic party, which had been a tower of
strength to it, they foresaw, was likely to be so no longer, and they made haste to seize
whatever advantage, by way of indemnity for the loss, they might expect to derive from
the new issues presented by the new party, and if they could not destroy it in its birth,
they calculated that by the violence of their assaults upon its policy, and their zealous ad
vocacy of the cause of foreigners and Romanists, at least to secure their undivided support
in future elections ; and thus establish the relation of patron and client in our country,
between the Democratic party and the foreign population, founded on the basis of protec
tion on the one side, and support on the other ; a formidable alliance truly! but if the
American party shall succeed in cutting off the perennial supply of fresh recruits to the Demo
cratic standard, derived from the annual influx of the half million of foreigners or more, the
Democratic leaders may still find that they will have to fight their future battles with diminished
chances of success. But whatever alliances the Democrats may form with foreigners and
Roman Catholics, however the leaders may fret and rage, with whatever obstinacy of
purpose they may seek to resist or crush the American party, they will fail to defeat the
great end and fundamental policy of that party.

" The fears of the timid have been appealed to, by the assailants of the American party,
and their co-operation invoked, in putting it down, on the alleged ground that its policy in
regard to foreigners tends to provoke riot and bloodshed. It is said that this new party
has been stained with blood in its very birth, and that from this we may augur a bloody
future. Yes, blood has been shed, and it may foreshadow a bloody future. I will not stop
to inquire who provoked the shedding of blood in Louisville, and other places ; but this I
will say, that whatever party may have given the provocation, it is better that a little blood
should sprinkle the pavements and sidewalks of our cities now, than that their streets
should be drenched in blood hereafter ; or that the highways and open fields of our coun
try should drink up the blood of its citizens slain in deadly conflict between armed bands,
it may be between disciplined legions native Americans on the one side, and foreigners,
supported by native faetionists, on the other. And this will be our future unless, now
and before it is too late, we erect sufficient, barriers to arrest the torrent of aliens and
strangers which threatens in a few years more to flood the whole land."

We have made full extracts from this speech. We wish to do him no injus
tice. We have given him the full benefit of his argument. Look at it I Read
it ! Study its import and its meaning ! Was such a cold-blooded speech ever
before delivered in this country ? We know that there were many well-inten
tioned but unreflecting men decoyed into this new and now odious organization,
who, while sanctioning its principles of hostility to a supposed dangerous increase
of the foreign element in our country, yet loathed and condemned the bloody
persecutions which reigned in some of our large cities. But not so with Mr.
Bell. A. man of mature years, when the passions are supposed to have subsided,
and of long experience in the public service, we see him stepping forward not
only to endorse the principles of this " new " party, but also to justify its acts of
bloodshed, and, as a consequence, to incite the lawless men who had engaged in
it to still further acts of murder and rapine. Was such a spectacle ever before
presented to the people of this country ? " Better that a little blood should
sprinkle the pavements and sidewalks of our cities !" To what did he allude ?
To the horrors enacted in Louisville on " Bloody Monday." Has this scene
passed from the recollection of the people ? It occurred on the 6th of August,
1855, only about a month and a half before Mr. Bell made his speech. Is it
necessary to rehearse the horrors of that day to tell that the corpses of twenty
dead men were picked up on the pavements, whose blood had sprinkled the side
walks to recite how five men were penned up in a building and roasted to death
tb depict the horrors of the brefwery scene, where, after the building was fired,

cannon was stationed so as to prevent the egress of the inmates, and how from
its ruins was dragged the charred remains of a woman hugging her infant to her
breast? Our heart sickens at the bare thought of such horrors; and yet this old
man John Bell gets up in a public meeting, and in the coolest manner, tells
his audience that it is "better" such scenes should occur; " better that a little
blood should sprinkle the pavements and sidewalks," than that this "new" party
should not rule America. We cannot trust ourselves to comment upon such con
duct.

We might go on and show that, after announcing in the Senate that if
the people of Tennessee decided against him on the Kansas-Nebraska bill he
would resign, he proved recreant to his promise, after they had at three elections
condemned his course, and the Legislature, in obedience to the popular will, had
requested him to resign ; that he has been for and against a national bank, for
and against a protective tariff, for and against the distribution of the proceeds of
the public lands among the States, for and against internal improvements, and
river and harbor appropriations, in short, for and against every measure that was
canvassed during his political life ; but we forbear. We have presented enough
to show what manner of a politician he has been. We now leave him to the
judgment of the people.

EDWARD EVERETT.

The position of candidate for Vice-President, although always important, is
rendered now not even second in importance to that of the candidate for Presi
dent, if we are to believe the predictions of the supporters of Bell and Everett.
They argue that the election is sure to go into the House of Representatives,
and their hope is, in case the Black-Republicans will not come to their aid, as
they say they have promised to do, and elect Mr. Bell, that they can succeed in
giving enough electoral votes to Everett to place him ahead of General Lane, and
second to Hamlin ; and that as the Senate, according to the Constitution, is com
pelled to choose between the two candidates receiving the highest electoral votes,
they will be compelled, as a choice, to take Mr. Everett. According to their
ideas, the position of Mr. Everett then becomes as important as that of Mr. Bell.
In order, therefore, to show the southern people what sort of a President they would
have in him, should the hopes of his followers be realized, we invite their atten
tion to

HIS RECORD ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

Mr. Everett was in the House of Representatives with Mr. Bell, and voted,
like him, for the reception, printing, and reference of Abolition petitions.

On the 14th of October, 1837, Hon. Wm. Jackson, of Newton, Massachusetts,
wrote to Mr. Everett a long letter containing the following questions :

"Do justice, humanity, and sound policy, alike require that the slaves of this country
should be emancipated ?

" Is it the right and duty of the citizens of the non-alaveholding States to require of the
general government the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia ? .

"la it just or safe, with regard to our foreign relations and domestic compact, to admit
Texas into the Union?"

To these inquiries Mr. Everett replied :

"BOSTON, October 31, 1837.

" SIR: I have duly received your communication of the 14th instant, in which you desire
to be furnished with my views on certain questions therein propounded. Under other cir-

eumstanees I should deem it proper to preface my answer with some preliminary remarks,
but my engagements at the present time compel me to reply as concisely as possible.

"In answer to the first question, I observe, that slavery being, by universal admission,
A SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND MORAL EVIL OF THE FIRST MAGNITUDE, it is required by justice,
humanity, and sound policy, that the slaves should be emancipated by those having consti
tutionally the power to effect that object, as soon as it can be done peacefully, and in a
manner to better the condition of the emancipated.

" In reply to the second question, I would remark, that all the considerations in favor of
emancipation in the States apply with equal force to the Distpict of Columbia. My opin
ions on this subject are fully expressed in the resolution adopted by the Legislature last
winter, with a near approach to unanimity, in the following terms :

" Resolved, That Congress having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, pos
sesses the right to ABOLISH SLAVERY in the said District, and that its exercise should
onlj be restrained by regard to the public good.

" The last question propounded by you refers to the annexation of Texas. It presents
the subject of slavery, in most of its bearings, in a new light.

"The whole subject has been so ably discussed by Dr. Channing, in his recent letter to
Mr. Clay, that it would be superfluous to enlarge upon it. I will only say, that if, at this
moment, when an all-important experiment is in train, to abolish slavery by legal and
peaceable means in the West Indies, the United States, instead of imitating their example,
or even awaiting their result, should rush into a policy of giving an indefinite extension to
slavery over a vast region incorporated into the Union, we should stand condemned before
the civilized world. It would be in vain to expect to gain credit for any further professions
of a willingness to be rid of slavery as soon as possible. No extenuation of its existence,
on the ground of its having been forced upon the country, in its colonial state, would any
longer avail us. It would be thought, and thought justly, that lust of power and lust of
gold had made us deaf to the voice of HUMANITY and JUSTICE. We should be self-
convicted of the ENORMOUS CRIME of having VOLUNTARILY given the greatest pos
sible ENLARGEMENT to an evil, which, in concert with the rest of mankind, we had af
fected to deplore, and that at a time when the public sentiment of the civilized world,
more than at any former period, is aroused to its magnitude.

" I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant,

"EDWARD EVERETT."

"Hon. WILLIAM JACKSON."

In 1839, the following interrogatories were propounded to Mr. Everett, by
the Hon. Nathaniel Borden, of Massachusetts :

1. Are you in favor of immediate abolition by law of slavery in the District of Columbia,
and of the slave traffic between the States of the Union ?

2. Are you opposed to the admission into the Union of any new State, the constitution
of which tolerates domestic slavery ?

The following is his reply :

WASHINGTON, Oct. 24, 1839.

"DEAR SIR: On Saturday last only I received your letter of the 18th, propounding to me
certain interrogatories, and earnestly requesting an early answer.

You are aware that several resolves on the subject of these inquiries and their kindred
topics, accompanied by a very able report, was introduced into the Senate of the Common
wealth year before last, by a joint committee of the two Houses, of which the late la
mented Mr. Alvord was chairman.

Those resolves, after having been somewhat enlarged by amendment, were adopted by
the Legislature. They appear to cover the whole ground of your two interrogatories.
Having cheerfully co-operated in the pannage of the resolves, and concurring in the gen
eral reasoning by which they are sustained in the powerful report of the chairman of the
committee, / respond to both your inquiries in tlie affirmative.

The first of the three subjects embraced in your inquiry, is the only one of them which
came before Congress while I was a member. I voted in the negative on the motion to lay
upon the table. the petition of the American Anti-Slavery Society, for the abolition of sla
very in the District of Columbia, and on other motions of the like character introduced to
cast off the consideration of this class of petitions.

I am, dear sir, very respectfully, your friend and servant,

EDWARD EVERETT."

Hon. NATHANIEL A. BORDEN.

Those "resolves" referred to were a set of resolutions adopted by the Ma#-

f^clmsetts Legislature during the year previous, when Mr. Everett was Gov
ernor of the State, and are as follows :

P; : solved, That Congress has, by the Constitution, power to abolish slavery and the slave
trade in the District of Columbia, and that there is nothing in the terms or circumstances
f the. acts of cession by Virginia and Maryland, or otherwise, enforcing any legal or moral
re-lraint. on its exercise.

iie.solved, That Congress ought to take measures to effect the ABOLITION OF SLAVERY
IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Resolved, That the rights of humanity, the claims of justice, and the common good, alike
demand the suppression by Congress of the slave trade carried on in and through the Dis-
nvict of Columbia.

Resolved, That Congress has, by the Constitution, power to abolish slavery in the Territo-
m of the United States.

. csolved, That no new State shall hereafter be admitted into the Union whose constitution
r t,,i government shall permit the existence of domestic slavery therein.

Resolved, That Congress has, by the Constitution, power to abolish the traffic in slaves be-
ween the different States of the Union.

Resolved, That the exercise of this power is demanded by the principles of humanity and
justice.

Mr. Everett, by his letters and votes, now stands pledged to these doctrines :
Ut The power and the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of
Columbia; 2d. The power and the duty of Congress to abolish slavery in the
Territories of the United States ; 3d. The power and the duty of Congress to abol
ish the slave trade between the States; and, 4th. The admission of no more slave
States. He lias never taken back or recanted these opinions. We defy any of
his supporters to point to the letter or speech in which he has taken back one of
these doctrines, or even intimated that his mind has undergone a change in refer
ence to them. We affirm that no such document can be produced. Is it any
wonder, then, that that infamous Abolitionist, William Lloyd Garrison, he who
declared that " the American Constitution is a league with the devil and a cov
enant with hell/ bespattered Mr. Everett with praise, and hoisted his name for
Governor, in 1839 ?

In 1841, when Mr. Everett was nominated by General Harrison as Minister to
England, it appears that his confirmation was delayed in the Senate, and it was
whispered that he would be rejected. Instantly the whole Abolition press was in
a furor of excitement.

One of them, the Boston Free American, was very indignant at " Southern
arrogance and impudence assuming a censorship over Northern opinions." In
deed, so well known was Mr. Everett as an Abolitionist, that the legislature of
Georgia passed, in 1841, a resolution censuring one of their Senators, Mr. Ber-
rien, for voting to confirm his nomination.

Mr. Everett was in the Senate in 1854, and ppoke against the Kansas-Nebras
ka bill, and voted against the clause repealing the Missouri Compromise. He
was absent when the vote was taken on the bill, but afterwards, in the Senate,
stated that u lfl had been here my vote would have been recorded in the nega
tive on the passage of the bill." Congressional Globe, 1st session, 33d Congress,
page 550.

We come down to a later date, to the Presidential election of 1856. The
notorious and infamous Abolition Senator from Massachusetts, Charles Sumner,
rose in his place in the Senate chamber, and delivered the vilest and most vin
dictive, malignant, and brutal attack upon the southern people, calling them
" hirelings, picked from the drunken spew of an uneasy civilization," and assail
ing Senators Butler and Mason in the coarsest language. Speaking of Kansas,
he ^aid : " It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful em
brace of slavery." And then, swelling with his subject he thus launched forth :

rt JKrea^ythe nrasfcw had J*agpun&gt; The strifte is no linger local, but national. Even DOTF

while I speak, portents hang on all the arches of the horizon, threatening to darken the
broad land, which already yawns with the mutterinys of CIVIL WAR. The fury of the propa
gandists of slavery, and the calm determination of their opponents, are now diffused from
tho distant Territory over wide-spread communities, and the whole country in all its ex
tent marshalling hostile divisions, an 1 foreshadowing a strife, which, unless happily averted
by the triumph of freedom, will become WAR FRATRICIDAL, PARRICIDAL WAR with
an accumulated wickedness beyond the wickedness of any war in human annals."

And all this because Congress would not sanction the doings of a set of rebels
and lawless men in Kansas, who, in defiance of the legal authorities, had met at
Topeka, and set up a Government of their own, and claimed the admission of
Kansas as a free State under their lawless authority ! We have not space for
extended extracts from this miserable document, and will, therefore, only give
one more :

" In offering herself for admission into the Union as a free State, she presents a single
issue for the people to decide. And since the slave power now stakes on this issue all its
ill-gotten supremacy, the people, while vindicating Kansas, will at the same time OVER
THROW THIS TYRANNY. Thus does the contest which she now begins involve not only
liberty for herself, but for the whole country."

This speech created a perfect furor of indignation. General Cass denounced it
in his place in the Senate as "the most un-American and unpatriotic that
ever grated upon the ears of the members of this high body." No one can
forget the chastisement administered to Sumner for his abuse, by Mr. Brooks,
of South Carolina. There was-a man, however, in this country, who could denounce
in a speech at Taunton, Mass., the course of Mr. Brooks as " an act of lawless
violence, of which I know no parallel in the history of constitutional govern
ment," yet had no other than words of praise and approval of Mr. Sumner
and his speech. That man was EDWARD EVERETT. Listen to him :

" I have condemned from the outset, and still most decidedly condemn the policy of the
late administration towards Kansas. I opposed the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the Territorial
Committee, of which I was a member. I voted against the amendment toHhe bill by which
the Missouri compromise was repealed. With these views of the subject, though, as I
trust, for reasons higher than any effect on party politics, I FULLY CONCURRED in the
main line of argument in Mr. Sumner s speech. Abstaining, however, habitually myself
from all personalities in debate, and believing that, they always irritate and never persuade
or convince, I could not of course bestow my unqualified approbation on the manner in
which he treated the subject."

Disapproving alone of the personalities, Mr. Everett " fully concurred" in
Mr. Sumner s assault upon the South and her. institutions, and the " over
throw" of those institutions. Can any man point out the difference between
Edward Everett and Hannibal Hamlin ? And is this the man whom the South
ern people would feel safe in supporting ?

WASHINGTON

ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

McQiu, & WITHEROW, Printers.

JUN 8

LIBRARY USE

RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

TIME

: __

f 72 -4 PNT

Stf

LD62A-30m-2, 71
(P2003slO)9412A-A-o2

General Library

University of California

Berkeley

Gaylamount
Pamphlet

Binder
Gaylord Bros.. Inc.

Stockton, Calif.
T. M. Reg. U.S. Pat. Off.

U. C. BERKELEY LIBRARIES

CDT35S3T5M