Secession Era Editorials Project

Club Law in the Senate!

Columbus, Ohio, State Journal [Republican]

(23 May 1856)

Read the telegraphic despatches from Washington. The arguments of Mr. Sumner have aroused the anger of the Slavedrivers. They could answer them only in one way, by brute force, in the same way they hold arguments on their plantations. This brute, Brooks, is a member of the House, we infer, from South-Carolina, -- a fit companion for Rust, of Arkansas, who assaulted Greeley, -- and of Herbert, of California, who murdered the Irish servant the other day.

In calling attention to this brutal and blackguard assault in the Senate, we do not propose to make an inflammatory appeal, or to excite wonder by the use of capitals, in announcing the fact -- leaving it to the sober judgment of each man to make his own comment, while we shall briefly make our own.

It has been apparent for years -- ever since the Nullification Disunionists succeeded in getting possession of the Government under Polk -- that, like the old Alien and Sedition Federalists, the Slave Power was determined either to "rule or ruin". The annexation of Texas and the outrages that succeeded, for a season aroused the public attention, and resulted in the election of Gen. Taylor. The events that have followed are too recent to need recapitulation, embracing the compromises of 1850, the election of Pierce, and the abrogation of all restrictions on Slavery -- in fact the adoption by the powers that be, of the declaration that Slavery is to be recognized as one of the fundamental principles of our Government, and that its existence and propagation is one of the missions assigned it under the constitution.

How this principle is to be carried out, and how this mission is to be fulfilled, we have an illustration in what has followed the repeal of the Missouri compromise. What cannot be done by Fraud and shallow presence is to be accomplished by violence, by brute force. Witness the scenes that are now enacting in Kansas. Witness the personal violences in Washington, all intended to suppress evidence -- to silence complaint -- to subdue resistance. The case is a clear one. It needs no argument to illustrate the object, or to expose the means. There stand the facts, avowed, -- confessed -- admitting but one interpretation -- "We will subdue you!".

Shall they do it? Shall we become Slaves to the Slavedriver? Shall the population, the Free Laborers and Free Thinkers of the Free States, surrender like cowards to a handful of Aristocrats? We say, No! most emphatically. What then would you counsel? Need we reply to such an interrogatory?" Under such circumstances, and in such a cause, we would slay the man who would attempt by violence to restrain our free action or our free speech, precisely as we would slay the mad brute that blocked our passage on the highway. And, were we a Member of Congress, we would go armed, in self-defence, for the purpose of repelling violence and protecting our person. We have read of men, during Revolutionary times, legislating with arms in their hands. We would imitate them --and, if necessary, in a case like this of Sumner's, we would use them. That's all.