ANALYZED AND ILLUSTRATED.
BY JOSIAH QUINCY.
BlOSTON,
PHILLIPS. SAMPSON AND COMPANY,
1856.





~<The ensuing work has 'been prepa red on the
spur of the occasion. The topics touched demand a
fuller development, which, if circumstances hereafter
permit and require, may be attempted.
BOSTON, 27th OCTOBERP, l85 6.





WHIG POLICY
ANALYZED AND ILLUSTRATED.
No MAN, who regards with fear, or with shamne, the long and
uninterrupted ascendency of slaveholders, in this Union., can
observe the proceedings of the " Whilg. State Convention," on. the
3d of September last, without sorrow.-a~t-. the spirit evinced, nor
without melancholy at the acknowledgment, which had the aspect
of lamentations. " An old flag,." it was said, "cwhich has floated in
triumph over this Commonwealth for a quarter of a century past.,
and once gathered under its folds an army of seventy thousand
voters, can now rally, hardly more than a respectable color guard!"
What could induce a body of wise men, to muster for display
under such circumstances, and close up their broken and deserted
rank~s for service, might seem mysterious; but parties, like individuals, have an instinctive horror of dissolution. They have been,
characterized as "the madness of many, for-the gain of a few."
The few, therefore, naturally keep the hallucination alive, until
every hope of gain is extinct.
In the pending crisis of our country, neither names, nor virtues.,
nor personal esteem, nor private friendship, ought to have any
weight in the scale against plain and incumbent duties. These
whig acknowledgments are melancholy, because they are true, but
they have omitted to acknowledge what is equally true, and more
melancholy. Fromn the time "1whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary," the political influence of Boston, with
scarcely an exception, has controlled that of Massachusetts. The
whigs _have, by th 'eir own showing, been -the leading power of the
State., at least a quarter of a century. How mujch of the old
hereditary influence of Boston over the other towns of the State,





4


they now possess, it would be difficult to calculate. That for years
it has been gradually diminishing, and for more than two, absolutely lost, is beyond question. Whether the ancient influence of
Boston is ever regained, so long as the whig party insist upon
being a political existence, is doubtful. 'But certainly never, so
long as the same spirit and principles are their guides, which,
during the last eight or ten years, have inspired their policy.
The whig party has possessed, and yet continues to possess, in
full proportion, according to its numbers, all the principal elements
which, in a republic, might be expected to retain influence and
command power;-talents, wealth, exemplary private virtue, accompanied by many evidences of an inherent disposition to acts of
charity and public munificence. Under such circumstances, the
continuance, and even extension of their power, might have been
anticipated.  Their loss, therefore, of both positive and relative
power, demands an earnest and solicitous inquiry into its cause.
There is a tendency, in all parties, to think well of their own
course, and to cast the blame of loss of influence elsewhere. Selfexamination and self-knowledge are quite as important to parties
as to individuals.  In the judgment of "a looker on " upon events
and results, during the whole existence of the whig party, this
loss of influence is chiefly, if not wholly attributable to the fact,
that at almost every stage of their existence, their policy has not
been in unison with the moral principle and moral feeling of the
great body of the people of Massachusetts. And notwithstanding
many of the most worthy and talented members of the whig party
were dissatisfied with its course, yet, through the influence of local
interests, their voices were powerless, and the opinion became
generally prevalent, that the whig sympathies favored the extension
of slavery and the perpetuation of the slaveholders' ascendency.
It may be proper and useful here, to state what were the moral
principles and moral feelings, which the political course of the
whigs have so long and generally offended.
Daniel Webster, in his speech of March, 1850, "for the Constitution and the Union," so called, states, that "at the time of the
adoption of the Federal Constitution, in both the South and the
North, slavery was equally held an evil, but that the great ground
of objection to it was POLITICAL." As it respects Massachusetts,
both recollection and history justify me in asserting that this was





5


not the fact. My memory extends back, on many subjects, with
sufficient clearness, to the year 1778, and from thence to 1788,
when the process of forming the Federal Constitution commenced.
Particular circumstances, both in Boston and in Andover, the place
of my education, combined to make a deep and lasting impression
on my mind, in boyhood and youth, of the detestation in which
negro slavery was held, and of the universal determination to get
rid of every trace of this colonial inheritance. The influence of
the clergy, among whom there were, in that day, no " south-side
views of slavery," and the increasing intelligence and civilization
of the age, placed in strong relief before the people, the incompatibility of that institution with the principles of the American
Revolution.  So that, before the formation of the Federal Constitution, every negro within the State, with but few if any exceptions, had been emancipated. This was the result of moral prin7
ciples and feelings. Political it could not have been. It was
before political considerations, on this subject, had begun to have
influence. The census of 1790, the first under the Constitution,
is conclusive on this point. Massachusetts had then the glory,
shared by no other State, of returning, c" SHE HAD NO SLAVE."
In the Convention of delegates of Massachusetts, in 1788, on
the adoption of the Federal Constitution, an antipathy to negro
slavery was distinctly manifested. In the gallery of the church in
Federal Street, I witnessed the debates of that Convention; and,
though a young man, was even then deeply impressed with the
difficulties, which the friends of the constitution had to encounter
to force down that nauseous drug;-how it was kept out of sight,
not.being so much as named in the constitution;-how, by way of
sweetening the dose, representation and taxation were mixed up
together. By this, it was pretended to compensate the North, for
its loss of political power, by the taxation of slaves in the South.
By the effect of this, it was said that " five negro children in South
Carolina would pay as much tax as the three Governors of New
Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut."   Finally, the base
concession was justified by the exciting hallucination, that by the
passage of the constitution, " slavery would receive its mortal
wound and die of a consumption! "  At the present day, if it die
at all, it will be of a plethora.  It cannot be questioned, that the
belief that it would put an end to slavery was among the most





6


powerful causes of the adoption of the constitution in Massachusetts.
By the passage of that provision she sold her birthright-equalityfor a mess of poisonous pottage.    Like Issachar, a strong ass,
crouching between two burdens, she saw that rest was good, and
the land pleasant, and bowed her shoulders to bear, and became
a servant for tribute.'  Had a prophetic spirit made known to that
convention, that, instead of annihilating, it contained the germ
of a policy, which would spread slavery from    the Ohio to the
Equator;-that its influence would corrupt the spirit of liberty in
the free States themselves;-that new States, in countries foreign
to the Union, would be admitted into it for the sole purpose of
extending the area of slavery;-that Congress, in defiance of the
limitation of the constitution, for this end, would assume to itself
political omnipotence;-that compromises would be broken, insult,
threat, intimidation and violence resorted to, even in the halls of
legislation, in order to make slavery triumphant;-that the authors
of these enormities would be applauded by legislatures and the
chiefs of the slave States, and find individuals base enough to
countenance and encourage them in the free States;-the provision
of the constitution sanctioning slavery would have been rejected,
as a disgrace and a dishonor, without a dissentient.
Such was the state of moral principle and moral feeling among
the people of Massachusetts, on the subject of negro slavery, at
the time of the adoption of the constitution.    Soon after that
event, a change in this feeling, began to spread, in the free States,
in which, from envy, jealousy, rivalry, ambition and other passions,
parties arose, of which the slaveholders had the tact to avail themselves.  An alliance was soon     formed, between   slaveholding
aristocrats, and Northern and Middle State democrats, on the basis
of compensation and service; the former to ensure pay, place, and
promotion, the latter to yield obedience, and blind, unhesitating
submission.  Under the auspices of this coalition, the most malignant misrepresentations, falsehoods and calumnies were invented
and issued from Southern and Middle State presses, countenanced,
spread and exaggerated by those of the democracy in the North,
against the administrations of Washington and Adams.    By these
means the friends of both were driven out of power, and the
dynasty of slaveholders, under Jefferson, commenced. During
this period, two principles came into vogue, the one apparent, but





7


not avowed; the other avowed and acted upon. Thae_.od, approved
maxim. of.. early times, in Massachusetts-" Every man for his
country, and God for us all,'-was superseeded, and a new_.version
practically became predominant,--'  Every manfor himself, and as
to gods, ours are money and power, to be worshiped and secured,
at whatever sacrifice."  The other maxim avowed and acted, upon
was, c Every thing is fair in politics,"--than which there is no
more demoralizing principle, in a Republic. It includes perversion
and concealment of truth, misrepresentation, calumny, falsehood,
insult, abuse, cheating at elections, and every effective principle
for the extension of slavery.
I have illustrated, in a recent publication, the manner in which
foreign States were admitted into the Union, without the consent
of the old States, by an usurpation of power by Congress, so unconstitutional, that Jefferson himself, slaveholder as he was, started
back. He warned his partisans that Congress had no such power,
that its consequences would be an annihilation of the obligations
of the constitution and make it 'a dead letter.' Yet, being apprehensive that if the question was submitted to the free States, the
opportunity of making slave States in the new territories might be
lost, he omitted to apply his veto to the bill for the admission of
Louisiana; warning, at the same time, his partisans to do their
utmost to keep the consequences of that usurpation concealed from
the free States.  From this moment the slave States knew that all
the limitations in the constitution were annihilated, that Congress
was thereafter omnipotent, and the area of slavery might be extended at their will. To this object their policy has, ever since,
been unceasingly directed; with what uninterrupted success,
history will tell.
It was the mutual interest which resulted from     the alliance
between slavery and democracy, that at first softened, and, in time,
changed, in Massachusetts, the early, inherent detestation of negro
slavery. This change did not extend beyond the democratic party.
But after the lapse of twenty or thirty years, another element of
slaveholders' influence was introduced.  In the course of these
years, theprofits arising from  the cultivation of cotton in the
Southern States, changed the opinion of the rich planters concerning the evil of slavery, which at first began there to be considered as a good, and then subsequently as a chief good.   A like





8


change, contemporaneously, came over the free States, in certain
localities, where cotton-spinning and cotton-weaving began to be a
source of wealth, and consequently of political power. This interest acquired strength with time and prosperity, and began to be a
predominating influence, about the period the whig party was
formed, constituting in truth the chief part of its cement.    It
was formed out of the broken materials of the old parties, which
timeand circumstances had dissolved, and was composed of recently fledged politicians, with a mixture of some democrats and
some federalists, who joined the new party, not because its principles were to their mind, but because it was the best in the
field.  It took the name of Whigs, not from any affinity with those
of the Revolution, but because the name had a savor of liberty,
and thus formed a convenient cover for those whose interests led
to the support of slavery; being, in respect of liberty,--" lucus
a non lucendo," a name without the thing. Boston became one of
these localities, where the head-quarters of the whigs was established, and of course became identified with the cotton-spinning
and cotton-weaving interests. Here, therefore, the interests of the
slaveholder were espoused with zeal, under the guise of upholding
the constitution of the United States, of which the provision for
returning runaway slaves, through the self-deception of interest,
began to appear a most important feature.
The next enlargement of the area of slavery, after the establishment of the whig power in Massachusetts, was the annexation
of.... Texas.. The slaveholders made no concealment, that their
object was to create new slave States; that two would be immediately annexed, and that the territory acquired would afford space
for more. A treaty with Texas having that object, having been
rejected by the Senate of the United States, Congress at once
overrode the treaty-making power, and admitted Texas by the
authority of the two branches. The atrocity of this usurpation
awakened the sleeping    patriotism  of the whigs.   Under their
auspices, a convention was called in Faneuil Hall, in which leading whigs uttered their anathemas against the attempt, denouncing
it " a plain violation of the constitution; that its object was to
extend the area of slavery and make that institution permanent,
declaring that Congress possessed no power to add foreign territory
to the Union, except through the medium of the treaty-making





9


power; that the project was iniquitous, and a deliberate and monstrous machination to secure the unlimited spread of slavery, that
scourge and curse of the human race." Resolutions of like temper and tenor passed the whig legislature of Massachusetts.  But
with this clamor the courage and patriotism  of the whigs oozed
away. Texas was admitted by Congress by virtue of its own
usurped authority.   The constitution proved, in the hands of
Congress, to be of India rubber materials, and was readily stretched
over Texas. The patriotism of the whigs proved equally elastic.
They at once declared, by language and acts, that they were ready
to take the Union, however bounded.
This unqualified acquiescence in the policy of slaveholders was
an assurance to them   that the patriotism  of the whigs would
stretch as far as the growth of cotton could be extended. On the
basis of this encouragement, they immediately put in train a war
with Mexico, for the farther extension of the area of slavery.  At
the first notice of this design, the patriotism, of the whigs took
fire, and blazed out in flames, crackling with  violated constitutions," " dissolutions of the Union," " perpetuation of slavery,"
and "the duty of the free States not to submit."  In defiance of
these wind-guns, war with Mexico was declared. And notwithstanding the air yet" resounded with the roar of those mimic thunderbolts, the whigs did submit. A whig Governor of Massachusetts assisted the slaveholders with volunteers.  Victories were
obtained, and a whig House of Representatives of Massachusetts
voted thanks'for them to General Taylor, which a remnant of oldfashioned patriotism led the Senate to reject.  With these successive displays of whig spirit, the people of Massachusetts, who
were not identified with cotton, or democracy, were naturally disgusted.
Similar feelings were excited by the subsequent course of the
whigs, under the apparent lead of Daniel Webster.        I shall
refer to these events with reluctance.  No man can have less disposition to diminish the lustre of his name.  No one can have a
more fixed determination to speak freely and fearlessly truths, important and useful to be known, concerning his public course and
character.  Mr. Webster was ten years my junior.     He entered
Congress, from  New   Hampshire, in 1813; the same year I resigned my seat, after having served, as Representative from the town
2





10


of Boston, eight years. Our first official connection occurred in
1819, when we were elected members of a committee, appointed
by the inhabitants of Boston, to prepare a memorial to Congress
on the subject of the prohibition of slavery in the new States,
caused by the proposed admission of Missouri. The memorial
prepared was either wholly, or chiefly drafted by Mr. Webster.
But whether so, or not, his name was subscribed to it, and it had
his unqualified assent. In it the following principles were asserted
and maintained by able arguments.
1. That Congress had the constitutional power to prohibit slavery in the new States, and that to make such prohibition was both
just and politic.
2. That the inconvenience and danger of a slave population had
become apparent, and that it became the justice and wisdom of the
national councils to prevent the further progress of this great and
serious evil.
3. That by opening extensive and fertile fields as a new market
for slaves, government would become parties to a trajic which, by
many acts, passed successively, for many years, it had denounced as
impolitic, unchristian and inhuman.
4. That a strong feeling existed in Massachusetts of the injustice of any toleration of slavery, which circumstances had entailed
on a portion of the community, but which to permit, in a new country, would be to encourage fraud, rapacity and violence.
In my conversations with Mr. Webster on the construction of
that memorial and on other occasions, our concurrence in opinion
on the subject of slavery was manifested; and I was highly gratified by his repeated expressions of direct-approbation of my language and course in Congress, in 1811, on the passage of the bill
for the admission of Louisiana into the Union. Our coincidence
in opinion on this subject, was confirmed by the tenor of all his
public discourses, for more than thirty years. During that period,
I witnessed with pleasure and admiration the evidence of his
talent, and the triumphs of his genius. I regarded him as aluminary of the first magnitude, destined, in due time, to become the
ruling star of our Union,  Had I been asked, on the morning of
the 7th of March, 1850, how my opinions, on the subject of





11


slavery, coincided with his, I should have deemed myself justified
in replying with mingled pleasure and pride that "they were identical." And on that day had I seen Orion or Arcturus fall from
heaven and turn to dust and ashes at my feet, I could scarcely have
been more astonished than at the sudden descent of Mr. Webster
from the lofty station he had always before occupied, as the champion of the free States. The discrepancy of that speech with his
previous political course and opinions, combined with the approximation, at no distant period, of an election of President of the
United States, and also with the well known strong desire of Boston whigs to see him in possession of that station, led many to
entertain the idea that this change of course and policy was nothing else than a headlong dash at that office. The presses and
language of the slaveholders manifested the same opinion; but I
thought too highly of the intellectual greatness of Mr. Webster,
and of his own consciousness of it, to coincide in these sentiments.
I attributed the change in lis political course to his obligations to
the party which supported him. Like too many of our public
men, he combined professional relations and interests, with those of
the statesman,--an union which, when known, never fails to weaken
the public confidence in the independence of his course; leaving
it doubtful, in the public/ mind, whether the interest of clients or
of the clique which rewards him, predominates over his political
path, and rendering it difficult even for the individual himself to
determine, whether public interest or private obligations most
influence his course.  Self-reliant as Mr. Webster was, he never
would have ventured on such a change in his language and views,
as a public man, unless he had been previously assured of support
from those,' to whom he wished to make his course accceptable.
Accordingly, immediately after the speech of the 7th of March,
1850, it was publicly asserted, in this vicinity, generally believed,
and has never, as I have heard, been contradicted, that previous to
its delivery Mr. Webster addressed by letter to one or more leading whigs, or through the telegraph, the following direct question:
"How far may I go on the subject of slavery, and be supported by
the whigs? " and that the reply returned was, " Go as far as you
please, and you may be assured of our support." Whether these
were the exact terms of the question or the answer, I am not able
to state; but this report reached me through such channels that I





12


have never doubted it was in some degree true. Its entire accuracy is unimportant to my present purpose.
That speech did receive the unqualified approbation and support
not only of most of the leaders, but apparently of a great proportion of the whigs.   A  paper expressing that approbation and
support, was circulated and signed not only by the elite of the
whigs, but by nearly a thousand others, who, dazzled by the splendor of the speaker's talents, were unwilling to refuse to join the
multitude in approving a speech the bearings and consequences of
which, events have proved, they could not have sufficiently considered and did not understand. A justly esteemed gentleman of the
bar, was found willing to congratulate Mr. Webster, in the presence
of an enthusiastic multitude, assembled in Bowdoin Square, on the
wisdom and patriotism of that speech. To which he responded
amid the applauses of the crowd assembled on the occasion, with
appropriate expressions of thankfulness, which were unquestionably heartfelt. He well knew the nature and probable consequences of that speech and was glad enough to go down to future times
with so many responsible endorsers; many of whom had, by their
signatures, nailed themselves down to the counter for many things
it contained, which though current at the time, would not be
received as true coin by posterity. Notwithstanding these demonstrations of approval and of fellowship of opinion by such multitudes, that speech, in my judgment, was at that time, and is at this
day, regarded by a majority of the people of Massachusetts as neiter that of a statesman or a patriot; and that such will be the
decision of future times, when the passions and influences of the
present day shall have passed away, I cannot doubt. I leave the
truth of this opinion to the test of time. My present object only
is, to adduce the unqualified support by the whigs of this speech. of
Mr. W7ebster, as onb  ijcipminent cause of that loss0Qf.p.opularity and
power, which they acknowledge. To more recent demonstrations
of the wvhigs;,tending to the same result, I shall only briefly allude.
The first of these is their course in respect to the Nebraska and
Kansas act, and the repeal of the Missouri compromise, both of
which, according to the allegations of slaveholders, were included
in the compromise of 1850; of which Mr. Webster's 7th of
March speech of that year was the ground-work. On the avowal
of this policy, the whigs, as on former like occasions, broke forth





13


in remonstrances, resolutions, indignant denials that any authority
for those acts were derived from the fugitive slave law of 1850, or
from the proceedings under it.
To these verbal demonstrations, acquiescence soon succeeded,
and the whigs are apparently now preparing to stretch their elastic
patriotism  so as to take in Kansas as a slave State, if Buicihnan
gets possession of the Presidential chair.   Their nomination of
Fillmore withdraws votes from    Fremont as effectually as if they
voted for Buchanan, and enables them to escape from the odium of
being subject to the influence of slaveholders, and to unite with
them in the cry of sectionalism. Their speeches and caucus resolutions manifest a comparative indifference to the outrages on Mr.
Sumner and the free citizens of Kansas.  All these facts are symptomatic, and have compelled, it is believed, a majority of the citizens of Massachusetts to the conclusion, that the present remnants
of the whig party are no longer true supporters of constitutional
liberty, but, in truth, representatives of the united interests of cotton-growers and cotton-spinners, and being nothing else, in this
Union, but the northern wing of the slave power.      The nature
and origin of this interest resulting from cotton, is graphically set
forth in Mr. Webster's speech of 7th of March, 1850, as it
respects the South, and it also happily shadows forth the nature
and growth of the twin cotton interest in the North.     "At the
time of the adoption of the Constitution," Mr. Webster states, in
that speech, " there was entire coincidence and concurrence of sentiment on the subject of slavery, between the North and the South"c in both it was regarded as a moral and social evil;" but " slavery is not regarded in the South now, as it was then."-" It has
now become an institution, a cherished institution, in that quarter;no evil,-no scourge,-but a great religious, social and moral blessing."   This statement of Mr. Webster is true,-perfectly so. The
cause of this change of opinion, on the subject of slavery, he
attributes, and justly, " to the rapid growth and sudden extension
of the cotton plantations of the South, which gave a new desire to
promote slavery,-to spread it, and use its labor."      Of consequence, says I1r. Webster, " there grew up an eagerness for other
territory,-a new area, or new areas for the cultivation of the cotton crop, and measures leading to this result, were brought about
rapidly, one after another, under the lead of Southern men at the
It





14


head of the government, they having the majority in both branches
of Congress to accomplish their ends."  After such a statement
of the origin and progress of slavery, it might have been expected
that a Senator from Massachusetts would have said something of
the iniquity and injustice of this policy; something concerning
the counterbalancing of the profits of cotton by the moral effects
of slavery on the character of the master, on the social improvement and civilization of the human race, and on the resulting
duties and dangers of the free States.
But instead of such views or sentiments, he thus proceeds:
" There is no generation of mankind whose opinions are not subject to be influenced by what appears to them their present emergent
and exigent interests. I impute to the South no particular selfish
view in the change which has come over her. I impute to her no
dishonest view.  All that has happened has been natural. It has
followed those causes, which always influence the human mind and
act upon it."  I make no comment on this apologetic extenuation
of the extension of slavery. I refer to it only because, in this
graphic statement of the progress of slavery in the South, he gives
an equally graphic delineation of its growth in the affections of the
inhabitants of particular localities in the free States. With the
multiplication of cotton plantations in the slave States, spinning
jennies multiplied in the free States, particularly in the North.
According to Mr. Webster, self-interest "always influences the
human mind and acts upon it. This is natural; of course there
is in it nothing selfish, nothing dishonest," in keeping a whole
race of men slaves, because it is for the interest of the South.
For the same reason, there is nothing disgraceful or anti-patriotic in
the North, in giving aid to the slave States; seeing that the cottongrowing and cotton-spinning interests are identical. That a change
of feeling and opinion in certain localities in the North, concerning the institution of slavery, did take place, about the same time
that the extensive culture of cotton raised the value of slave labor
in the South, was apparent to any one who looked independently
upon the course of events and opinions; and that this change did
create a strong disapprobation among that part of the people of
Massachusetts, among whom the cotton influence did not operate,
is undeniable. The party called the whigs, confident in their
talents, their wealth, and their private virtue, were active in meas




15


ures tending to aid and encourage the slaveholders, and thus deepened and strengthened the belief in the people of Massachusetts,
concerning the identity of their respective interests.
I have been led to these animadversions, and subsequently, to
this publication, from a deep and irrepressible sense of public duty,
resulting from the conduct of the whigs, and of the language
used, and the measures adopted in their several recent conventions,
having for their objects, to guide and influence the people of Massachusetts in their approaching Congressional and State elections.
Their conduct in bringing forward Mr. Fillmore as candidate for
the Presidency, and Mr. Donelson, an embodiment of the slaveholders, as Vice President, under circumstances in which they
dared not openly support Mr. Buchanan, with no other purpose
than that of forming a nucleus, around which democracy might
unite with congenial whigs, and thus give efficient aid to the
slaveholders, without any appearance of subserviency to them,their general silence in all their conventions, in relation to the
outrage upon Mr. Sumner, and the readiness with which some of
them adopted the views and language of slaveholders, in respect
of that outrage, and those at Kansas, combined with their studied
endeavors, in their several conventions, to keep both out of the
sight and minds of the people of Massachusetts, are sufficiently
indicative of their policy; of which their language, in those conventions, are corroborative evidences. I shall allude only to two
instances. One of their leaders, (Mr. Stevenson,) on the 3d of
October, expressed the hope that "Boston would be represented, in
the next Congress, by a man who, while giving expression to the
sentiments of Massachusetts in national affairs, will not give offence
to others." Another whig leader, (Mr. Lord,) on the 8th of
October, referring to Mr. Burlingame's reply to Brooks, said, " We
need not send men to Congress as bullies and blackguards, but men
who will neither be insulted themselves, nor will say any thing that
will give insult to others." These expressions of these known
leaders of the whig party, taken in connection with the subsequent
proceedings of these whig conventions, render it obvious that
these insinuations were intended to apply to Mr. Burlingame, and
perhaps to Mr. Banks, both of whose political paths have been
obnoxious to cotton-growers and cotton-spinners.    The   plain,





16


undeniable policy of the whigs being to remove one, if not both
these men from Congress, and to suggest a general tone of policy
to the electors of the other districts, to send to that body, as their
representatives, men who will be acceptable to the slaveholders,
and to avoid all such as possess the same truth and fearlessness of
temper and spirit.  Now there is no duty more plain and incumbent, on the free States, at a crisis like the present, than to send
men to Congress who have no peculiar interests in common with
slaveholders;-men faithful to the great interests of liberty and
humanity, and who, if doomed to meet " blackguards " on the
floor of Congress, will not flinch from fulfilling their duties, in
language adapted to the subject, their adversaries, and the occasion.
I have been chiefly led to these animadversions and to this publication, from a deep sense of the wrong and injustice done to one
or both of these Representatives from  Massachusetts, in the plain
insinuations made against them in those whig conventions and the
course of proceedings founded upon them. I have no personal
acquaintance with Mr. Banks, nor Mr. Burlingame; and have no
recollection of having ever seen either of them.  I have no affinity
with their previous political course.  But there are certain great
principles, which lie at the foundation of National prosperity and
State character, which, if any people deliberately violate, their
punishment is certain, and the justice of Heaven will not long be
delayed. One of these great principles, applicable to Republics,
is, that if a people would be well served, they must be true to
those who serve them; when representatives are faithful to their
duties, their constituents must be faithful to their representatives,
and not permit rival interests and rival aspirants to make them
unmindful of their obligations to those who have honorably upheld
the true interests and character of their country.  No man can
doubt that the insinuations included in the language above quoted,
were intended to apply either to Banks or Burlingame, or to both,
implying as the ground for their being superseded, that they
had given just offence to the slaveholders, to propititiate whom
others must be sent.
I think I do no injustice to those -two whig leaders, when I
take it as indubitable, that those insinuations were intended to be
applied to one or both of these Representatives.     Under this
impression, I use the right, incident to every citizen in a republic,





17


to express opinions, in direct opposition to the charges those insinuations imply.   Mr. Burlingame being the individual apparently
the most obnoxious to these leaders, I shall exclusively adapt my
defence, to the language used by him in his speech, delivered in
Congress, on the 21st of June last, to which those insinuations
most evidently were intended to apply.    In opposition to which, I
maintain that that speech, in the circumstances under which it was
delivered, was timely, just, appropriate and honorable, and which,
if the people of Massachusetts, at the ensuing elections, fail to
support, they will, thus far, in my judgment, be disgraced, in all
time, present and future.  In it, Mr. Burlingame defends Massachusetts against gross misrepresentations and slanders, with equal
truth and ability; refuting both, with reference to past history and
the present times, evidencing research, judgment and tact.     In it
he speaks of freedom and slavery, in a spirit and in terms in
which they ought to be spoken of everywhere. He arraigns
President Pierce before the bar of public opinion, in language at
once severe, appropriate, just and parliamentary. He spoke of Kansas and the Emigrant Aid Society according to truth and in a right
spirit.  He turned into well deserved ridicule the abusive rodomontade directed by slaveholders against the farmers of Massachusetts and the operatives in her manufactories, doing full justice and
giving ample praise to those faithful, intelligent and laborious
classes, whom slaveholders are accustomed to decry and speak of
as inferior in the scale of being as their own negroes. Is it for a
speech so full of truth, of justice, of power, that Mr. Burlingame
is to be discharged by his constituents?    Shall South Carolina
honor with rewards and ovations, Brooks, for being the champion
of slavery, whom history will record as being, in principle and act,
but little above the level of an assassin?    Shall Massachusetts
dismiss, in disgrace, Mr. Burlingame, who has proved himself the
champion of liberty, the faithful defender of her character and
honor?   If such be the result of the ensuing elections, there will
be no need of further evidence, that the spirit of the fathers of the
revolution has evaporated in transmission.     The speech of Burlingame was timely, faithful, appropriate, and as a citizen of Massachusetts, my hope and prayer is, that he may be returned to
Congress, at the coming election, and with him, as many more of
like temper and spirit, as can be obtained.





18


A sense of public duty has compelled me to present to my
fellow-citizens these important truths, to be considered and weighed
by them now and in future, concerning the identity of the cottongrowing and cotton-spinning interests.  Of this last I consider, at
this time, the whig party little else than an embodiment. Under
its influence, Massachusetts has been led into a course of policy,
which has made her the reproach and ridicule of slaveholders,
while she has been a pander to their power and contributed to
their success.
For many years, though not connected with politics, I have on
all State questions voted for whig candidates. I recognize, in that
party, many valued friends, the excellencies and exemplariness of
whose private virtues I acknowledge; among whom I gladly include the individual whom the whigs have selected as the rival
candidate of Mr. Burlingame, and of whom   I rejoice to speak as
eminent in all the qualities and virtues which do honor to the man
and the citizen; and from whom I have received evidences of
friendship, which I have pleasure in acknowledging.
If, as it is said, the hope of whig success, in this nomination, is
the expectation of aid from the democratic party, to whom, as well
as to the slaveholders, the disgrace of Burlingame would be highly
gratifying; then, I affirm, no event could be more symptomatic of
the corrupted spirit of the times. In a Republic, there can be no
more certain omen of the deteriorated spirit of liberty than the
uriion of capital with democracy, in support of the power and
interests of slavery.  History impresses no truth more universally and forcibly, than that the first stage of moral deterioration,
in a free State, is that period when wealth becomes the predominating influence, and takes the control of public affairs.  When
wealth comes into power, the spirit of liberty never fails to go out.
No man can have watched the course of events in this Union for
the past fifty years, without perceiving that the great prosperity
of the free States has gradually diminished and deteriorated that
love of freedom which was bequeathed to them by the founders of
the Republic.
May the result of the coming election prove that the spirit of
the fathers still presides over the destinies of their sons!