and yet he referred to this household character, while acting as agent of our fathers in England, as above suspicion,—and this was done that he might give point to a false contrast with the agent of Kansas, not knowing that, however the two may differ in genius and fame, they are absolutely alike in this experience: that Franklin, when intrusted with the petition of Massachusetts Bay, was assaulted by a foul-mouthed speaker where he could not be heard in defence, and denounced as “thief,” even as the agent of Kansas is assaulted on this floor, and denounced as “forger.” And let not the vanity of the senator be inspired by parallel with the British statesmen of that day; for it is only in hostility to freedom that any parallel can be found. But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibilities of the senator are particularly aroused. Coming, as he announces, from a Stately, sir,Zzz from South Carolina,—he turns with lordly disgust from this newly formed community, which he will not recognize even as “a member of the 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, forget its shameful imbecility from slavery, confessed throughout the Revolution, followed by its more shameful assumptions for slavery since. He cannot forget its wretched persistence in the slave-trade, as the very apple of its eye, and the condition of its participation in the Union. He cannot forget its constitution, which is republican only in name, confirming power in the hands of the few, and founding the qualifications of the legislators on “a settled freehold estate of five hundred acres of land and ten negroes.” And yet the senator, to whom this “State” has in part committed the guardianship of its good name, instead of moving with lackward-treading steps to cover its nakedness, rushes forward in the very ecstasy of madness to expose it, by provoking comparison with Kansas. South Carolina is old; Kansas is young. South Carolina counts by centuries where Kansas counts by years. But a beneficent example may be born in a day; and I venture to declare that against the two centuries of the older “State” may be set already the two years of trial, evolving corresponding virtue, in the younger community. In the one is the long wail of slavery; in the other, the hymn of freedom. And it we glance at special achievement, it will be difficult to find anything in the history of South Carolina which presents so much of heroic spirit in an heroic cause as shines in that repulse of the Missouri invaders by the beleaguered town of Lawrence,. where even the women gave their effective efforts to freedom. The matrons of Rome who poured their jewels into the treasury for the public defence; the wives of Prussia who with delicate fingers clothed their defenders against French invasion; the mothers of our own Revolution who sent forth their sons covered over with prayers and blessings to combat for human rights,—did nothing of self-sacrifice truer than did these women on this occasion. Were the whole history of South Carlina blotted out of existence, from its very beginning down to the day of the last election of the senator to his present seat on this floor, civilization night lose—I do not say how little, but surely less than it has already gained by the example of Kansas in that valiant struggle against oppression, and in the development of a new science of emigration. Already in Lawrence alone are newspapers and schools, including a high school; and throughout this infant Territory there is more of educated talent, in proportion to its inhabitants, than in his vaunted “State.” Ah, sir,
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.