Open main menu

Page:Register of debates in congress, v6.djvu/51

This page needs to be proofread.

Jan. 25, 1830.]
Mr. Foot's Resolution.

tleman from New Jersey, on this subject, may have ground to stand upon, as well as he, I move to strike out of the resolution, the words "in the possession," and to insert, in lieu thereof, the words "within the reach;" and to strike out tlic words, "the Cherokee, Creek, and Choctaw nations of Indians, east of the Mississippi," and to insert, in lieu thereof, the words, " the Indian nations within the United States;" and also, to erase the two last words of the resolution, (those nations} and in their stead to insert the word "them."

Mr. F. proceeded to state that he wanted all the information which could be procured respecting the condition of all the Indians, and that he wished to do justice not only to those who dwelt in the southwest part of the United States, but to all those residing' in any part of the country. So far as he, (who was unfortunately the only representative of Georgia now in the Senate) could undertake to say, we seek to do nothing which has not been already exercised by the majority of the States of the Union. Mr. P. concluded by saying, if the gentleman from New Jersey wished to take time for the consideration of his amendment, he would move to lay both the resolution and amendment, for the present, on the table.

Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN did not assent to this course, but suggested to the gentleman from Georgia to propose his amendment in the form of a new resolution. He repeated what his object was in proposing the resolution, and said, if the gentleman from Georgia would consent to the adoption of his resolution, he would not object to the adoption of a resolution embracing the same matter as the present amendment.

Mr. FORSYTH made no reply; and

The question on amending the resolution was then put, and carried in the affirmative, by the casting vote of the President, the ayes and noes being equal. The resolution, as amended, was then adopted, as follows:

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be requested to furnish to the Senate any information within the reach of his Department, respecting the progress of civilization, for the last eight years, among the Indian nations within the United States, and the present state of education, civil government, agriculture, and the mechanic arts, among them.


The unfinished business of Thursday, being the order of the day, was then resumed; and the question being on the motion of Mr. WEBSTER to postpone, indefinitely, the resolution proposed by Mr. FOOT, concerning the public lands,

Mr. HAYNE rose, and, in continuation of his reply to Mr. Webster, addressed the Senate for two hours and a half.

[The following are the remarks of Mr. H. as delivered on Thursday and to-day.]

Mr. HAYNE began by saying that when he took occasion, two days ago, to throw out some ideas with respect to the policy of the Government in relation to the public lands, nothing certainly could have been further from his thoughts than that he should be compelled again to throw himself upon the indulgence of the Senate. Little did I expect [said Mr. H.] to be called upon to meet such as was yesterday urged by the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster.] Sir, I questioned no man’s opinions; I impeached no man’s motives; I charged no party, or State, or section of country, with hostility to any other; but ventured, I thought in a becoming spirit, to put forth my own sentiments in relation to a great national question of public policy. Such was my course. The gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Benton] it is true, had charged upon the Eastern States an early and continued hostility towards the West, and referred to a number of historical facts and documents in support of that charge. Now, sir, how have these different arguments been met? The honorable gentleman from Massachusetts, after deliberating a whole night upon his course, comes into this chamber to vindicate New England, and; instead of making up his issue with the gentleman from Missouri, on the charges which he had preferred, chooses to consider me as the author of those charges; and, losing sight entirely of that gentleman, selects me as his adversary, and pours out all the vials of his mighty wrath upon my devoted head. Nor is he willing to stop there. He goes on to assail the institutions and policy of the South, and calls in question the principles and conduct of the State which I have the honor to represent. When I find a gentleman of mature age and experience, of acknowledged talents and profound sagacity, pursuing a course like this, declining the contest offered from the West, and making war upon the unoffending South, I must believe, I am bound to believe, he has some object in view that he has not ventured to disclose. Why is this? [asked Mr. H.] Has the gentleman discovered in former controversies with the gentleman from Missouri, that he is overmatched by that Senator? And does he hope for an easy victory over a more feeble adversary? Has the gentleman’s distempered fancy been disturbed by gloomy forebodings of “new alliances to be formed,” at which he hinted? Has the ghost of the murdered Coalition come back, like the ghost of Banquo, to “sear the eye-balls” of the gentleman, and will it not “down at his bidding?” Are dark visions of broken hopes, and honors lost forever, still floating before his heated imagination? Sir, if it be his object to thrust me between the gentleman from Missouri and himself, in order to rescue the East from the contest it has provoked with the West, he shall not be gratified. Sir, I will not be dragged into the defence of my friend from Missouri. The South shall not be forced into a conflict not its own. The gentleman from Missouri is able to fight his own battles. The gallant West needs no aid from the South to repel any attack which may be made on them from any quarter. Let the gentleman from Massachusetts controvert the facts and arguments of the gentleman from Missouri—if he can; and if he win the victory, let him wear its honors: I shall not deprive him of his laurels.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, in reply to my remarks on the injurious operation of our land system on the prosperity of the West, pronounced an extravagant eulogium on the paternal care which the Government had extended towards the West, to which he attributed all that was great and excellent in the present condition of the new States. The language of the gentleman on this topic fell upon my ears like the almost forgotten tones of the tory leaders of the British Parliament, at the commencement of the American Revolution. They, too, discovered, that the colonies had grown great under the fostering care of the mother country; and I must confess, while listening to the gentleman, I thought the appropriate reply to his argument was to be found in the remark of a celebrated orator, made on that occasion: “They have grown great in spite of your protection.”

The gentleman, in commenting on the policy of the Government, in relation to the new States, has introduced to our notice a certain Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, to whom he attributes the celebrated ordinance of ’ 87, by which he tells us, “slavery was forever excluded from the new States north of the Ohio.” After eulogizing the wisdom of this provision, in terms of the most extravagant praise, he breaks forth in admiration of the greatness of Nathan Dane—and great, indeed, he must be, if it be true, as stated by the Senator from Massachusetts, that “he was greater than Solon and Lycurgus, Minos, Numa Pompilius, and all the legislators and philosophers of the world,” ancient and modern. Sir, to such high authority it is certainly my duty, in a becoming spirit of