1860 JOHN BROWN. Confederate Secretary of State Argues John Brown an Invasion. Pro-Slavery.

Rare drop title imprint by later Secretary of the Confederate States under Jefferson Davis, Robert Hunter of Virginia; his scathing response against Republicans and Abolitionists in the aftermath of John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry. 

One of the most sophisticated defenses of Southern slaveholding we have ever read. He intends to convince the Senate that Southern slavery is not only critical to the South, but that it is a conservative and stabilizing institution for the entire United States economy, social order, and constitution. 

Mr. President, is it surprising that these bitter seeds of sectional hate and alienation, which have been sown so industriously, should have borne their blood fruit in the raid of John Brown? Is it surprising that men who were taught to look on us [slaveholders] as accursed of man and God, and as sustaining institutions which are incapable of paliation or defence, feel that they are justified in attacking us by all the means in their power, no matter what the consequence? . . . it is to be remembered that the Republican party at this session chose for its candidate as Speaker of the other House a man who had indorsed a book which preached precisely what John Brown practiced; which recommended that they should get up servile war and dissension between the different classes of whites . . . [* i.e. Hinton R. Helper, The Impending Crisis of the South. How to Meet It, 1857-1860 eds.]

* * * * *. * * 

I say, therefore, that it is a moderate estimate to suppose that there are from three to four million human beings in the northeastern States who owe their livelihood and subsistence to the commerce of the South, who but for this commerce would either be forced to emigrate or to starve . . .

* * * * *. * * 

Has not [slavery] been eminently conservative [of the present national stability and Constitution]? Must it not be from the nature of things? The slaveholder, owning both capital and labor, represents both, and is interested in doing justice to both; and, therefore, he comes in as an impartial arbiter, so far as he has influence, to settle those disputes between capital and labor which occur in every civilized Government. Being, as the South is, a minority power in this Confederacy; having a great interest which is constantly assailed, and which it can only protect within the Union under the Constitution, its interests, as well as its principles, have made it the watch-dog of the Constitution, and the defender and the guardian of all the limitations and restrictions on the absolute will of the majority. Contributing as it does, more to the public fisc than it receives in return in the shape of appropriation, its interest leads it to economy of expenditures in the General Government. And are not these functions, which are undoubtedly performed by the South, eminently conservative? Are they not of great value and use to every section and every interest in this Confederacy [i.e. the entire Union]

* * * * *. * * 

Why, sir, its [the abolitionists] series of propositions looked directly to a moral war, to be waged through the Government, and on the floors of the common Congress of the Confederacy, against this institution of the States, against their peace and safety. In defiance of the Constitution, the proposed to abolish slavery in the arsenals, in the dock-yards, in the District of Columbia, and, worse than all, they proposed to abolish the slave-trade between the States.

* * * * *. * * 

But, sir, as the [abolitionist - Republican] party increased, it proceeded to take still more dangerous grounds; we heard it boldly announced that the guarantees given to the slaveholding interest in regard to fugitive slaves . . . were annulled by the obligations of a higher law. How they practiced upon this precept, we have seen in the list of shameful evasions of this constitutional obligation which was given us the other day by my friend from Georgia, Mr. Toombs, in the course of his masterly speech, when he referred to personal liberty laws of so many of the non-slaveholding States of this Confederacy [i.e. the United States]. 

* * * * *. * * 

I ask, then, again, why this agitation, and why this war upon us? I am told that it is because slavery is a sinful institution - yes, sir, that the institution is a sin, and abhorrent to man and to God. Has now experience shown that when the black and the white race are thrown together, if you establish the relation of master and slave between them, that such a society is capable of a great development, morally, socially, and politically; that such an organization is best for the happiness of both races; and has it not been proved, by actual experiment, that if you destroy that relation, both races decline, and industry decays? Can that state of things be wrong which leads to the happiness of both races?

* * * * *. * * 

Now, sir, if the negro race can be equal to the white race, as the Abolitionists maintain, it will vindicate its equality by its improvement . . . but if, on the contrary, he be an inferior, as I maintain and believe he is, then experience has shown that the happiest relation which you can establish between that race and the white is the relation of master and slave. 

* * * * *. * * 

Mr. President, when I think of what it is that may be destroyed by this narrow spirit of sectional hate and bigotry, I turn away from the contemplation with a feeling of an almost indignant despair; but I will not, as yet, despair of my country. I will yet hope that the great army of northern Democrats and conservatives will arise in the might of a noble cause, and expel the intruders from the seats of power. I will trust in the influence of truth, whose empire is felt in every human heart when once it has touched it. I will put my faith higher yet - in Providence, for it cannot be that God will permit such a scheme of Government as this, freighted, as it might have been, with the highest hopes of humanity, to be wrecked in the wild orgies of madmen and fanatics. But, sir, if I should fail in these hopes, I may, then, indeed despair of the Union; but I will not despair of the ability of my constituents and of my fellow-citizens of the slaveholding States to throw off a yoke which will be doubly accursed and galling for having been laid by hands that ought to have been friendly; nor would I doubt their ability to establish for themselves a confederacy which may become and remain great, glorious, and free; and it will be to that Government that I shall then look for the protecting shadow under which I may repose in peace and safety for the remainder of the days that are allotted to me upon earth.

He goes on the argue that the master - slave relationship is more humane than the capital labor relationship in that the master has a vested interest in the health of the slave that ensures shelter, food, and care are received. Free market labor offers no such protections. 

And, perhaps most "innovatively," he argues that national growth means someone needs to be the cheap labor ground under progress' wheels and that the presence of negro slaves makes white people more equal to each other and diminishes class strife among them. 

[John Brown, Civil War] Hunter, Hon. R[obert] M. T. Hunter. Speech of Hon. R. M. T. Hunter, of Virginia, on Invasion of States. Delivered in the Senate of the United States, January 30, 1860. Washington. Lemuel Towers. 16pp. 

Very good. Original drop title imprint, untrimmed and unbound. A bit folded at uneven foredge. else crisp and clean.