Part 22

"MR. PUGH.--Then I understand the senator that the sovereignty can only speak through a constitution, and that it is in the constitution of a State only that the power to admit or exclude slavery is to be exercised. Why, sir, until the year 1820 not a State of this Union, in her constitution, either admitted or excluded slavery, and I do not believe Virginia did until 1850 or 1851. None of the States did it until Missouri when she came into the Union, and she put it into her constitution, not upon the idea that that was peculiarly the place, but for the express purpose of disarming her legislature. It was an ordinary legislative power, nothing else in the world; known and recognized as such and admitted as such by every State in the Union. New York abolished slavery by law, Pennsylvania abolished slavery by law, and in the States where the institution continued, it was fostered, protected, and recognized by ordinary acts of legislation.

"MR. DAVIS.--I am sorry to interrupt the senator again, and I believe this will be the last time. The first instance he will find was that of Massachusetts, who, in her bill of rights, at the Revolutionary era, made a declaration which her supreme court held to be the abolition of slavery; and I think he will find that it has generally been acted on in that way; but he has not the right to assume anything more than I stated. I stated a mode."

JAMES L. ORR.

Col. Orr is of Irish extraction, his ancestors on the paternal and maternal side coming originally from Ireland. His grandfather, a native of North Carolina, was a Revolutionary soldier. Christopher Orr, his father, was a country merchant of considerable means, and who expended them liberally upon the education of his children. James L. Orr was born May 12, 1822, at Craytonville, Anderson District, South Carolina. He began his education at a common school, but was soon sent to the Anderson Academy, at the same time, however, assisting his father in keeping his books. When he was eighteen years old, he was sent to the University of Virginia, where his proficiency in his studies was so great, that he attracted the attention of his tutors, who predicted a promising career for the young student. In 1841, he left college and spent two years in pursuing a course of general reading, of the greatest importance to him in after life.

In 1843, he studied law, was admitted to the bar. He began the practice of law at home, in Anderson, the same year establishing a village newspaper and editing it. It was called the "Anderson Gazette." In 1844, when but twenty-two years of age, his neighbors and friends elected him to the State Legislature, where he began his political career in a quiet, unostentatious manner. Still, he took a very decided position--one which gave an indication of his future policy. It was this: he delivered a speech in opposition to the doctrine of nullification, in reference to the tariff of 1812. He also took democratic ground in favor of the election of Presidential electors of the people. They were then, and are now in South Carolina, elected by the legislature.

In 1848, Mr. Orr became a candidate for Congress. His chief opponent was a Democrat, a lawyer of wealth and talents, and of course the contest was simply one of personal popularity, as both gentlemen held the same political sentiments. After a very lively contest, Mr. Orr was elected by 700 majority over his Democratic competitor. He entered Congress at a time when the country was convulsed with the slavery question, and though such men as Webster, Clay, Calhoun, Cass, and the like, were in Congress, he very soon attracted the attention of the experienced legislators of that time. Not by egotistic speeches, forcing himself, as some men do, upon the attention of Congress and the country, but by delivering, at judicious times, speeches which were full of solid ability. While he was a firm defender of slavery and what are called "the constitutional rights of the South," he condemned the agitation of the question of slavery, and arrayed himself against the ultraists of his section of the country. Col. Orr's constituents were so well pleased with his conduct that they have left him in it till he was, in December, 1857, elected speaker of the House of Representatives.

When the compromise measures were passed, South Carolina for a time seemed to favor a secession from the Union. A Constitutional Convention had been called and a large majority of the delegates were pledged to favor secession. Col. Orr, however, come out very boldly and eloquently against their policy. A General Convention of the disaffected people was held in Charleston, in 1851, and Col. Orr attended as a delegate from the Anderson District. In the Convention he took strong ground against disunion, and introduced resolutions embodying his opinions on that subject. But out of 450 members, only 30 came to his support. But Col. Orr was undaunted by the majority of numbers against him. He appealed to the people by voice and pen, and as the result he and a companion in his disunion views were elected to the proposed Southern Congress over two secession candidates. An apparent admirer of Col. Orr, speaking of this contest, says:

"That the crisis was one full of alarm and danger must be admitted even by those furthest from the scene, and most disposed to deny both the right and power of a State to secede; and that Mr. Orr, in the very opening of a brilliant political career, hazarded his future hopes and prospects to a sense of right and duty, entitles him to the regard of every true lover of the Union. His triumph was highly honorable to himself, and fixed him more firmly than ever in the esteem and affections of his constituents."

The same writer remarks:

"The Congressional career of Mr. Orr, which a want of space prevents us from noticing more in detail, has been both a brilliant and a useful one. Always sustaining his positions with eloquence and force of argument, and exhibiting great fairness in debate, he has commanded attention, and exercised a powerful influence over the questions of the day. His habits of thorough investigation and analysis, and his tenacious adherence to his convictions of right, have frequently placed him at the head of important committees; and his reports are among the ablest in our legislative records. As chairman of the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, during the discussion of the most important and exciting measures, he displayed so much promptness, firmness, and intelligence in his decisions that he won the confidence and respect of men of all parties; and at the commencement of last Congress he was almost unanimously selected by the Democrats as their candidate for Speaker. His party was, however, in the minority, and his election failed. When the present session of Congress opened, Mr. Orr was nominated, without opposition, and elected its presiding officer. So far he has justified the expectations of his friends and of the party which placed him in the chair. In the fulfillment of the duties of his present position Mr. Orr will doubtless add honorably to the reputation he now enjoys. He is too wise a man not to perceive that while fidelity to party was the best ladder for him to rise to his present height, impartial neutrality will now serve his fame and ambition better."

Upon the whole, Mr. Orr made an admirable Speaker to the Thirty-fifth Congress. If he was not always rigidly impartial, the exceptional cases were rare, and when he was swerved from the straight line of duty by his sectional prejudices.

In November, 1855, to go back a little--Col. Orr published a letter in reference to the duty of South Carolina toward the Democratic party of the North. The people of that State were then, as they seem almost always to be, in a state of high excitement on the slavery question. Many leading politicians counselled secession and non-action in reference to the Presidential canvass. But Col. Orr took different ground. In his letter to Hon. C. W. Dudley, dated Anderson, Nov. 23, 1855, he said:

"A convention is merely a method of finding out what the popular opinion is, and giving to it a more conspicuous and imposing expression. It has been steadily and uniformly pursued by the Democracy of all the States (except our own) for fifteen years or more, and the selection of delegates, manner of voting and nominating, has been defined by a usage well understood and acquiesced in, as if regulated by law. Hence, we know that such a convention will assemble in Cincinnati in May next, and that it will nominate candidates for the Presidency and Vice Presidency--adopt a platform of principles--and it is nearly certain that the nominees will receive the votes of the Democratic party of every State in the Union. Shall the Democracy of this State send delegates? It is our privilege to be represented there, and at the present time I believe it to be a high and solemn duty to meet our political allies, and to aid, by our presence and councils, in selecting suitable nominees and constructing a platform, which will secure our rights and uphold the Constitution.

"There has never been a time since the convention policy was adopted--if, indeed, there has been such a time since the government was inaugurated--when the success of the Democratic party in the electoral college was so vitally important as now. If that party should be defeated in the election before the people, every patriot's mind must be filled with gloomy forebodings of the future. The indications now are, that the opposition to the Democratic party, made up of Know Nothings, Abolitionists, and Fusionist, will run two or more candidates: if the Democracy fail to secure a majority in the electoral college over all elements of opposition, then the election must be made, according to the Constitution, by the House of Representatives. Can we safely trust the election of our rights to that body? The House is now elected, and we _know_ that a decided majority of the House are members of the Know Nothing, Fusion and Whig parties; and if the election be devolved on them, the Democratic party will be certainly defeated, and perhaps a Fusionist promoted to the Presidency. Are the people of South Carolina so indifferent to their relations to the Federal Government, that they will quietly look on and see such an administration as we have had since the 4th of March, '53--an administration that has faithfully and fearlessly maintained the Constitution in its purity--supplanted by Know Nothingism or Black Republicanism? That is the issue to be decided in the next presidential election, and that, too, in the electoral college; for if we fail there, then we know now with absolute certainty that we must be defeated before the House. Was it, then, ever so important before that the Convention should be filled with discreet, patriotic men; that there should be the fullest representation of every man devoted to the Democratic faith, and opposed to Fusion and Know Nothingism; that they should commune freely together, and nominate a candidate who will command the confidence of the entire party.

* * * * *

"We have heard much of southern union being necessary to our safety. We now have it in our power, by cordial cooperation with our southern sisters, to secure it--to secure it on such a basis as will permanently preserve our institutions. We can here make our demand, and with a united South, we can offer it to the true men of the North. If we act wisely and present such an ultimatum, I doubt not that thousands, perhaps millions, at the North, will espouse and maintain it; for it is a platform of the Constitution, and there are hosts of conservative men who I know are prepared to maintain the Constitution of our fathers.

"Will we reject it with silent contempt--adhere to our isolation, and stubbornly refuse to fraternize with her, and all the balance of our southern sisters? Who doubts that all the South will be represented there? and can it be said, truthfully, that our voice can be of no avail or weight, when the ultimatum shall be laid down? If we send delegates, who can say that our votes may not secure a reliable nominee and a sound platform? Will the instructions of Georgia to her delegates be more or less potent with the indorsement of all or of only a portion of the South?

"If, indeed, fanaticism is in the ascendant in the North, and cannot be overcome, then what initiative step toward a southern Union, for the last resort, can be more effective than to unite all the South on the Georgia platform and instructions? Our influence in counsel and in action will be increased, whenever we show a hearty disposition to harmonize with our sisters in the South. Have we not heretofore kept aloof from their consultations in every instance, save in the Nashville Convention?--and that was a movement which did not derive any popularity in the South from being suspected of having originated in South Carolina. Sooner or later we must learn the important truth, that the fate and destiny of the entire South is identical. Isolation will give neither security nor concert. When we meet Virginia and Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, in consultation, as at Cincinnati, it is the supremacy of Pharisaism to flippantly denounce such association as either dangerous or degrading. North Carolina, Missouri, Florida, and Texas, will be there represented; and are we too exalted or conceited to meet them at the same council board?

"We shall meet there many liberal men from the North; those who in their section have done good service against political abolitionism. When we insist upon our platform with firmness, and they see we only make a demand of our constitutional rights, they will concede it; and when they go home they will prosecute the canvass in good faith, upon the principles enunciated at the Convention. Concert among ourselves, with the aid of the conservative men at the North, may enable us to save a constitutional Union; if that cannot be preserved, it will enable us to save ourselves and our institutions. Are we alone to have unoccupied seats, when such grave matters are to be decided by the Cincinnati Convention?

"Suppose the Democracy of this State should decide not to send delegates, and the other States of the South should follow her example, who would be voted for? Could the party, _even at the South_, without some concert, which could only be secured by meeting, rally upon the same man? No well-informed person would venture an affirmative answer; what would be the result? The Democratic party would certainly be defeated, and the Know Nothing, or Black Republican party, would as certainly be successful. Our policy, then, would inevitably bring upon us defeat; and if we are to be saved from a free-soil President, it is only to be done by the party in the other States assembling and making a nomination in which we refuse to participate. Even those who are opposing the sending of the delegates, I doubt not, rejoice in the hope that the other States, despite our impracticable example, will meet and nominate candidates.

* * * * *

"The northern Democrats aided us to bring into the Union Texas, a magnificent slave-holding territory--large enough to make four slave States, and strengthened us more in that peculiar interest than was ever before done by any single act of the Federal Government. Since then they have amended a very imperfect fugitive slave law, passed in 1793, and have given us now a law for the recovery of fugitive slaves, as stringent as the ingenuity of man could devise. Since then they have aided us by their votes in establishing the doctrine of non-intervention with slavery by Congress in the territories. Since then they have reduced the odious tariff of 1842, and fixed the principle of imposts on the revenue, not the protective basis. Since then they have actually repealed the Missouri restriction, opened the territories to settlement, and enabled us, if the South will be true to herself, and aid in peopling Kansas, to form another slave State.

"In 1843, a man would have been pronounced insane, had he predicted that slavery would be introduced there by the removal of congressional restrictions. Since then they have adopted the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions and Madison's report--the very corner-stone of State rights--as a part of the Democratic platform. They have by their votes in Congress and Convention given all these pledges to the Constitution since 1843; and if we could then fraternize with them, what change has transpired that justifies the delegates in that Convention, at least, in refusing now to fraternize with northern and southern Democrats?"

The reader will easily see Col. Orr's position from this letter. He is a southern Democrat, and, as such, a defender of slavery and slavery extension, a free trader, and an opponent of all homestead bills, but he does not go with the most ultra class of Southern politicians; in short, he is "a National Democrat." He stands by the Democratic organization of the country, so long as it stands by the South and her institutions as well as it has done in the past. Upon the new issues of intervention for slavery in the territories he has not yet spoken, but he was, of course, a rigid Lecomptonite. But during the debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill he spoke very decidedly. He said: "The legislative authority of a territory is invested with no vote for or against laws. We think they ought to pass laws in every territory, when the territory is open to settlement, and slaveholders go there, to protect slave property. But if they decline to pass such laws, what is the remedy? _None, sir._ If the majority of the people are opposed to the institution, and if they do not desire it ingrafted upon their territory, all they have to do is simply to decline to pass laws in the territorial legislature for its protection."

In Congress, Col. Orr has generally ranged himself with the compromising democracy. He is not born of the old aristocratic stock of South Carolina planters, but was the son of a worker--a country merchant. This fact has never been lost sight of by a portion of the citizens of South Carolina, and they have been, some of them at least, his bitter enemies for years. It is not impossible but Col. Orr, for this reason, has taken a more "national" view of politics, and has refused to go out of the Union for the sake of the slaveholding aristocracy.

In his personal appearance Col. Orr is not, perhaps, prepossessing; though his great, black eye and fine open face show the force and power of his intellect. He is large in person, and not particularly graceful in his actions or appearance. He has a certain dignity, however, which enforces attention if he is the orator of the occasion, and obedience if he is the presiding officer.

JOHN MINOR BOTTS.

We have no extended sketch of Mr. Botts to present to the reader, but a few leading facts in reference to the political man.

Mr. Botts is a native of Dumfries, Prince William County, Virginia, and was born in September, 1802. As early as 1834, he joined the Whig party, and in 1839, he came to Congress as a Whig. He was known in the House as a follower of Mr. Clay, or rather a supporter of Mr. Clay and his peculiar doctrines. Mr. Botts, in other words, was in favor of a highly protective tariff, the distribution of the public lands, and internal improvements. He is to-day in favor of these measures of what he would call reform. So strong was he in his devotion to the tenets of the Whig party, that when President Tyler disappointed his friends by his tariff policy, Mr. Botts, though a friend of years, at once terminated the friendship. He could not hold in respect the man who, it seemed to him, had betrayed his friends.

Mr. Botts was opposed to the Kansas-Nebraska act and to the passage of the Lecompton bill. Nevertheless he is a slaveholder and a defender of the institution as it now exists in Virginia. But he is not a believer in the finality of the present system, nor is he afraid to express his opinions of slavery. This will be seen at once by the perusal of a letter to the "Richmond Whig," from Mr. Botts, from which we quote. It is dated April 18, 1859:

"I have recently received many letters from different parts of the State, asking for a copy of my Powhatan speech, delivered in 1850, which it is impossible for me to furnish, as I have only some half dozen copies left. As the best means of supplying the information so earnestly sought by those friends who are anxious to ascertain _what horrible sentiments I uttered on the subject of slavery_, which have been recently, to a great extent, substituted for the 'free negro' misrepresentation, I have concluded to publish, for the benefit of the Imposition party in particular, everything in that speech that relates to the question of slavery; garbled extracts of which have already appeared in a small portion of the press of that party--many of them, seeming to think there was no great amount of capital to be made out of it, have declined to notice it. The following is the portion objected to. I said:

"'There are, sir, two parties in our country, distinct from all the rest, of whom I wish to say a word. The one in the North, called 'Abolitionists,' and the other, in the South, known as 'Disunionists.' I am not sure for which of the two parties I have the least sympathy or respect; and I am not sure to which attaches the largest share of the responsibility for the chief difficulties with which the nation has been lately afflicted.