sectionalism the very epithet which designates himself.
The men who strive to bring back the government to its original policy, when freedom and not slavery was national, while slavery and not freedom was sectional, he arraigns as sectional.
This will not do; it involves too great a perversion of terms.
I tell that senator that it is to himself, and to the organizationalZZZ of which he is the “committed advocate,” that this epithet belongs.
I now fasten it upon them.
For myself, I care little for names; but since the question is raised here, I affirm that the Republican party of the Union is in no just sense sectional, but, more than any other party, national; and that it now goes forth to dislodge from the high places that tyrannical sectionalism of which the senator from South Carolina is one of the maddest zealots.
Replying to Butler
's charge of fanaticism, he named on the one hand benefactors of mankind to whom the epithet might as well be applied as to the opponents of slavery; and on the other, characters badly eminent who had been zealous for persecution and tyranny.
And in this last ‘dreary catalogue,’ he said, ‘faithful history must record all who now in an enlightened age, and in a land of boasted freedom, stand up in perversion of the Constitution
and in denial of immortal truth, to fasten a new shackle upon their fellow-man.
If the senator wishes to see fanatics, let him look round among his own associates,—let him look at himself.’
He then replied to Butler
's statement that the North
had engaged in the slave-trade and helped to introduce slaves into the Southern States
,—admitting it in the main, but denying that the acknowledged turpitude of a departed generation should become an example for us, and saying of Butler
's charge: ‘And this undeniable fact he proposed to establish by statistics, in giving which his errors exceeded his sentences in number.’
He then passed to Douglas
, of whom he said:—
As the senator from South Carolina is the Don Quixote, so the senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas] is the squire of slavery, its very Sancho Panza, ready to do its humiliating offices.
This senator, in his labored address vindicating his labored report,—piling one mass of elaborate error upon another mass,—constrained himself, as you will remember, to unfamiliar decencies of speech.
Of that address I have nothing to say at this moment, though before I sit down I shall show something of its fallacies; but I go back now to an earlier occasion, when, true to native impulses, he threw into this discussion, “for a charm of powerful trouble,” personalities most discreditable to this body.
I will not stop to repel imputations which he cast upon myself; but I mention them to remind you of the “sweltered venom sleeping got,” which, with other poisoned ingredients, he cast into the caldron of this debate.
Of other things I speak.
Standing on this floor, the senator issued his rescript requiring submission to the usurped power of Kansas; and this was