Ji 2 to have control over him; and then it was that he made this celebrated attack on me, assailing my reputation as a gentleman of veracity: “ With regret, I come again upon the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] who, omnipresent in this debate, overflowed with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas had applied for admission as a State ; and, with incoherent phrases, discharged the loose expectoration of his speech, now upon her representative, and then upon her people. There was no extravagance of the ancient parliamentary debate which he did not repeat; nor was there any possible deviation from the truth which he did not make, with so much of passion, I am glad to add, as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration. But the Senator touches nothing which Redoes not disfigure—with error, sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He shows an incapacity of accuracy^ whether in stating the Constitution or in stating the law, whether in the details of statistics or the diversions of scholarship.- He cannot ope his mouth, but out there flies a blunder. Surely he ought to be familiar with the life of Franklin ; and yet he referred to this household character, while acting as agent of our fathers in England, aa above suspicion; and this was done that he might give point to a false contrasf with the agent ofJCansas—not knowing that, however they may differ in genius and fame, in this experience they are alike : that Franklin, when intrusted with the petition of Massachusetts Bay, was assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker, where he could not be heard in defense, and denounced as a ‘ thief,’even as the agent of Kansas has been assaulted on this- floor, and denounced aa a‘forger.’ And let not the vanity of the Senator be inspired by the parallel with the British statesmen of that day ; for it is only in hostility to freedom that any parallel can be recognized. “ But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibilities of the Senator are particularly aroused. Coming, as he announces, ‘ from a State’—ay, sir, from South Carolina —he turns with lordly disgust from this newly-formed community, which he will not recognize even as ‘ a body- politic.’ Pray, sir, by what title does he indulge in this egotism? Has he read the history of ‘the State’ which he represents ? He cannot surely have forgotten its shameful imbecility from Slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, followed by its more shameful assumptions for Slavery since. He cannot have forgotten its wretched persistence in tire slave trade as the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in the Union. He cannot have forgotten its Constitution, which is republican only in name, confirming power in the hands ot the few, and founding the qualifications of its legislators on r a settled freehold estate and ten negroes.’ And yet the Senator, to whom that ‘ State’ has in part committed the guardianship of its good name, instead of moving, with backward treading steps, to cover its nakedness, rushes forward, in the very ecstasy of madness, to expose it by provoking a comparison with Kansas!” * He charges the Senator from Massachusetts with garbling, misquoting, and misconstruing the constitution of South Carolina; defends the State and her revolutionary history from the aspersions of Mr. Sumner, and proceeds: But, sir, the Senator undertakes to say that, because I have advocated here the constitutional rights of the South and the equality of these States, I subjected myself to an imputation which I shall not read myself. It bears his own handiwork. Mr. Secretary, I beg your pardon for asking you to read such a thing as this, but it is your duty, not mine. The Secretary read the following extract from Mr. Sumner’s speech of May 19: i “But, before entering upon the argument, I must say something of a general character, particularly in response I to what has fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence on this floor in championship of human wrongs ; I mean the Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Butler,] and the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Douglas,] who, though unlike as Don QuixSte and Sancho Panza, yet, like this couple, sally forth together in the s^ime adventure. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat; but the cause, against which he has run a tilt, with 1 such activity of animosity, demands that the opportunity of mon weal th, whilst, perhaps, the Senator who had been the cause of their introduction ought not to deserve my notice, and would not have received it. Well, sir, days passed, and those resolutions were not presented. Now, they have been presented, and presented in a different way from any that I have ever known to be submitted from any Commonwealth before. They were not presented by one of its Senators, but were sent directly to the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, I waited for some time with the expectation that, when these resolutions should come, I would acquit myself of the painful task which circumstances had devolved upon me. They did not come until yesterday— more than tw'o weeks after their adoption. In the mean time — on Monday last — I gave notice that I would address the Senate to-day, under the confident belief, not that the present Senator [Mr. Wilson] would be here—because I have nothing to do with him—but that the Senator who has been the aggressor, the criminal aggressor, in this matter, would be present; and if 1 give credence to the testimony of Dr. Boyle, I see no reason why he should not be present. For anything that appears in that testimony, if he had been an officer of the Army, and had not appeared the next day on the battle-field, he would have deserved to be cashiered. In proceeding with his preliminary remarks, .‘he expresses his surprise that the Senator from ^Massachusetts should have aimed his assaults at [Mr. Butler] individually and at South Carolina, and continues: Now, sir, I proceed to make my points; and I shall show that what the Senator said of myself, and’South Carolina, was not in response to anything which I said; that he has gone outside the record to bring into the debate matters which did not legitimately belong to it by association or connection. I will maintain these three propositions so certainly that, in my opinion, there will not be one mind here, unless it be disposed to morally perjure itself, which will not acquiesce in them. I will show that his remarks upon me and South Carolina were untrue and unjust; the language used was licentious; the spirit which prompted it was aggressive; and the whole tenor and tone of the speech dras malignant and insulting. In no speech which I have made during this session did I name Massachusetts or South Carolina. Tiiis is a most remarkable thing con- ; sidering the nature of the debate. I have culled what I said, and I have not introduced South Carolina by name into the debate, nor have I ..brought in Massachusetts. Yet, sir, this Senator . alludes to me in two paragraphs. I should like to know why he did not finish my picture in one sketch on the first day, when he spoke of me as being “ Don Quixote in love with slavery as a . mistress, because she was a harlot.” I dislike to repeat the obscenity of his illustration. When he had me under review then, why did he not ■finish me in that general sketch? He took another night; and during that night the chaotic concep- ,tions either emanated from his own mind or were suggested io it by those busy people who seem 7^-7077^
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=