”t. J “N FL ABSTRACT A HHETURICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPEAKING OF ROBERT A. TOOMBS OF GEORGIA by Larry V. Lowe This study describes, analyzes, and evaluates the congressional speaking and speeches of Robert Toombs of Georgia during the period lShS - 1861. A twofold approach was taken to the study; first, an investigation of his general craftsmanship as a speaker; and second, detailed analysis of selected speeches given by Toombs in Congress. The study was deve10ped in three parts: PART I -- comprising Chapters I - V - presents the historical and biographical background necessary for a study of this type, PART II —- comprising Chapters VI - XIII - gives treatment to the oratorical craftsmanship of Toombs as revealed through his speaking and Speeches, and PART III - comprising the Conclusion - reveals the findings of the study. This first approach consisted primarily of a review of the literature on the history of the time and the role played by Toombs through his use of the art of public address. The second approach consisted of first, establishing certain criteria.from which six representatives speeches were selected for analysis from among the eighteen major addresses given by Toombs in Congress; second, case studies were made of the six representative speeches in terms of arrangement, invention (logical, ethical, and emotional proof), style, ~2- Larry V. Lowe and reactions; third, based on the findings of these analyses, certain conclusions were drawn. The primary sources include selected speeches taken from the Congressional Globe, personal interviews, letters, and personal papers. Secondary sources include biographies, general references on the history of the period, newspapers, periodicals, and pamphlets. The findings of the study reveal that Toombs spoke upon four major issues: (1) international problems, (2) financial matters, (3) military matters, and (h) state rights. The major issue was state rights, with sub-issues underneath of equality in the territories and slavery. Of the eighteen major addresses, twelve dealt either directly or indirectly with the issue of state rights. The study further reveals that Toombs did not speak from a prepared manuscript but composed his remarks in the act of delivery. He drew his materials primarily from his wide knowledge of the issues involved as well as from his diversified reading, together with a unique intellectual and mental capacity for retention of such material. The reactions to his speeches varied but in general were of a favorable nature from his southern colleagues and unfavorable from his northern colleagues, an understandable situation in view of the events of the time and the position eXpressed by Toombs in his speeches. Although his views were generally rejected by the North, it was noted that his ability as a speaker was equally recognizedaand appreciated by both northern and southern members of Congress. In arrangement, Toombs employed a definite introduction, body, -3- Larry V. Lowe and conclusion to his speeches. His introductions varied in length and content but always expressed his purpose. The body consisted of clearly stated points followed by support materials. His conclusions varied in length and placement. He used primarily historical development with some evidence of distributiveaind logical development. In logical proof, he made primary use of examples and explanations with occasional use of opinion, testimony, analogy, quotation, and restatement. He employed principally deductive reasoning in the development of his points. In ethical prggf, he presented his cause as virtuous, noble, and desirable, while associating the opposition with the non-virtuous, ignoble, and undesirable. He attempted to establish his character in a favorable manner while apparently questioning the character of the opposition. His competency rested heavily upon a broad familiarity with the issues, and his goodwill was fostered by his straightforward approach but hindered at times by his lack of tact and moderation in the rebuttal of the opposition's arguments. In_3motional proof, he presented his cause as preserving and conforming to the Constitution and laws of the land, while associating the opposition with the non-preservation of, and non-conformity with, the Constitution and laws of the land. In addition to the appeals to preservation and conformity, he also appealed to justice, equality, pride, unity, change, and fear. In st le, his speeches before 1850 are sometimes deficient regarding clarity, a situation probably due to the inaccuracies of congressional reporting. However, in those after 1850 no questions of -h— Larry V. Lowe clarity were in evidence. He appeared to use directness, description, forcefulness, and effective word choiceaand arrangement to present his lines of thought in an understandable manner. 1i RHETORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SPEAKING or ROBERT A. TOOMBS or GEORGIA by LARRY V. LOWE A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Communication Arts -- Department of Speech 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my appreciation to the members of the guidance committee.for their assistance in the preparation of this study. Special recognition is due Dr. Kenneth G. Hance for his in- valuable suggestions and assistance during every phase of the study. Also, I would like to express my appreciation to the staff of the Special Collections Division of the University of Georgia Library, especially to Mr. John W. Bonner, Jr., for their expressed interest in the study and the assistance given me during my research. Further appreciation is expressed to Mr. William I. Thompson, Mr. William W. Brewton, Mr. and Mrs.Bolling S. DuBose, and the Alabama State Department of Archives and History. DEDICATION This study is dedicated to my wife, Marsha Lowe, whose patience, sacrifice, and encouragement played a major role in its completion. iii :16 K N C! ”LE DGNLL‘J PETS O o o o o o O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 O O 0 INTRODUCTION 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. II. III. TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I. THE MAN AND THE TIMES FROM BIRTH TO ENTRY INTO THE GEORGIA STATE ASSEMBLY, 1810-1837 . Q o Q Q o o o a o o o 0 Youth and Formal Education Toombs the Lawyer . . . . . Summary.....o.... TOCMBS IN THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE, 1837-18hh Member of the Whig Party Financial Conservative . . . . . . PN‘Slavery o o o e o o o o o o o 0 Railroad and Supreme Court Issues . "stmp" orator. O O O O O 0 O O O 0 Summary 0 o o o e o e o o o e o o o TOOMBS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES lBShoo-oeooooooooeoo TheWhigParty 00000000 Early Issues Faced in the House Territorial Issue . . . . . . . Union or Disunion . . . . . . Final Years in the House . . 5111mm........... TOOMBS IN THE SENATE, 185h-1861 . Sectional Fire Rekindled The Boston Speech . . . . Widening of the Breach 3300331011 0 o o o o o 0 Summary . . . . . . . . THE DECLINING YEARS, 1861-1885 . . . The Confederacy . . Post war Period . . . . . . . . Z : mnooooooooooooeo iv ’ O O O O O 0 18th- . O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O Page ii vii 1h 20 22 22 23 27 28 30 3h VI. VII. VIII. IX. PART II. THE CRAFTSMANSHIP OF TOOMBS SPOKESEAN CF THE SOUTH . . . . . . . . . Issues Spoken Upon . . . . . . . . . . Preparation, Organization, and Delivery Speeches . . Reactions to Speaking and Summary 0 e o o e o o o 0 PRELIMINARIES FOR ANALYSIS Textual Sources . . . . . Selections for Analysis Method of Analysis . . Summary 0 o e e o o o 0 CASE STUDY #1: SPEECH ON THE 18h6 o e e o e o o o o e o o o o o o o o 8 0. Immediate Setting Arrangement 0 o e o e o e o o e o o o e o Invention . . . . . . . . . O . . . . . . Logical PTOOf o o o o o o o e o o c o 0 Ethical PrOOf o o o e o o o o o e o o e EmOtional PrOOf o o o e e e e o o o o 0 Style a e o o o o o o o e o e o o o o e o ReaCtionS o o o o o e o o o o o o o o o 0 mary o o e o O o o o o o O 0 o o o o 0 CASE STUDY #2: SPEECH ON THE HEXECAN ISSUE lab? 0 o o o o o o o e o o e o o o e e o 0 Immediate Setting and Occasion . . . . . Arrangement 0 o o e o o o o o o o o o o o Invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Logical PrOOf o o e e o e o o e o e o 0 Ethical PrOOf o o o o o o o e o o e o e EmOtional PTOOf o o e o o o o o o o o 0 Style 0 o o e o o o o o o o o o e e e o e RCBCtiOHS o o o e e o o o o e o o o o o o summary 0 e o e o o o o o e o o o o e e 0 CASE STUDY #3: SPEECH ON THE CALIFORNIA Occasion oascou ISSUE, ISSUE, 1850 e e o e e o o e o o o e o o 0 Immediate Setting and Occasion Arrangement 0 o o o o o o o e o o o o o Invention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Logical PTOOf o o o e o e o o e o o 0 Ethical PrOOf o o o o o a o o o o e o Emotional Proof . . . . . . . . . . . Style 0 o e e o o o o o o o e o o o o o ReaCtions o o o o o o o o o e o o o o 0 Summary 0 o o o o o o o o o o o e o o 0 U Page 106 107 111 120 127 129 129 135 lhO 1&2 th lhh 1h? 1h? 151 153 156 159 161 162 162 16h 168 168 171 176 180 18h 185 187 187 188 192 192 193 196 199 202 20!. XI. CASE STUDY #u: _ msbRAsxA ISSUE, 185u Reactions . . . . Summary . . . . . XII. CASE STUDY #5: Immediate Setting and Occasion . . . . Mmmmmmnt.. ... ... ... ... Invention o o o o o o o o o e o o o 0 Logical Proor o o o o o o e o o e o 0 Ethical PrOOf O O O O O O O O O O O O Emotional Proof . . . . . . . . . . . StyleoooooeoooooOoooo ReaCtiOnS....o....o..... swam. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O XIII. CASS STUDY #6: SPEECH ON 1H5 INVASION OF STATES, 1800 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Immediate Setting and Occasion . . . . Arrangementoooooooooeeeoo Inventionooooooeooeoooeo Logical PT‘OOf e e o o o e o o e o o 0 Ethical PrOOf o o o o o e o o o o o o Emotional Proof . . . . . . . . . . . styleeoeonooeoooeoooo Reactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . smary O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0 PART III. CONCLUSION CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APFEIIDIXEB O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O C C 0 0 A. Congressional Speeches by Robert Toombs B. Complete text of Case Study #1 . . . . C. Complete text of Case Study #2 . . . . D. Complete text of Case Study #3 . . . . E. Complete text of Case Study #h . . . . F. Complete text of Case Study #5 . . . . G. Complete text of Case Study #6 . . . . H. Technical Plot werk Sheet (sample copy) BIBLIOWPM O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Immediate Setting and Arrangement . . . Invention . . . . Logical Proof . Ethical Proof . Emotional Proof Style 0 O O O I O O 0 v1 Occasion o o o o e o o o e o e o o O o o e o o e e SPEECh UN and KANSAS- SPEECH ON THE PRESIDENT'S KANSAS MESSAGE, 1856 Page 206 206 207 210 210 212 216 220 222 223 225 225 226 230 230 233 236 239 2b3 2h3 2&5 2&5 2&6 250 250 257 263 266 269 270 273 282 283 285 293 30h 306 325 338 360 361 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study is to describe, analyze, and evaluate the congressional speaking and Speeches of Robert A. Toombs of Georgia during the period from 18h5 to 1861, those years which he served as representative, and later as senator, in the Congress of the United States. A twofold approach has been taken in the study; first, a general investigation of his craftsmanship as a speaker; and secondly, a specific and detailed investigation of selected speeches given by him in Congress. The study is limited to the above mentioned years and place primarily because of the non-existence of the texts of his speeches before and after this period, as well as the belief that it was during this period of his life that his ability as a speaker is perhaps best revealed, thus lending itself more fully as a basis upon which to study his Speaking and speeches. With only one known.exception, that being the speech delivered in Boston in 1856, the only source of his Speeches is the Congressional 91223, which has, of course, recorded only those speeches by Toombs given on the floor of the House of Representatives and Senate. No attempt is made to study his speaking either before or following the years spent as a member of Congress except to refer briefly to his speaking experiences which.may well have some bearing upon the specific period under study. This subject was selected for study for several reasons: (1) in comparison with other sections of the country little is known in the fields of public address and rhetorical criticism about southern Speakers vii and their speeches. Outside of the comparatively few studies which have been made of the "better known" southern orators, the field of southern oratory is almost completely unworked, and offers both a challenge as well as an opportunity for the study of rhetorical history and criticism, (2) as a native of the South as well as a student of public address and rhetorical criticism, this investigator believes that this lack of attention to southern oratory should be rectified in an effort to advance the general overall knowledge of the fields of public address and rhetorical criticism, and (3) that Robert Toombs, perhaps more than any other single southern orator, best expressed the philosophy and position of the South upon the issues facing the nation during the period under study. This study is not unlike other studies in the fields of public address and rhetorical criticism except that it attempts to.foster an improved awareness.and appreciation of the contributions made by southern orators to the field of public address through its investigation and evaluation of the speaking and speeches of its subject, Robert Toombs of Georgia. It is primarily a review of the known literature on the history of the time and the role played by Toombs through his use of the art of public address. Available evidence indicates that no previous studies have ever been made of Toombs even.from the strictly historical standpoint, and certainly not from the aspects of public address and rhetorical criticism. The primary source materials include selected speeches taken from the Congressional Globe, personal interviews with relatives of Toombs as well as other persons having studied his life, manuscripts of personal letters both by and to Toombs, and various manuscripts, the most notable 1Dallas C. Dickey, "Southern Oratory:.A Field of Research," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIII (December, l9h7), pp. h58—63. viii being the John C. Reed Papers located in the Alabama State Archives, Montgomery, Alabama. The secondary source materials include three biographies of Toombs (two published and one unpublished), various references in book form dealing with.the history of the period, articles in newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets, and an unpublished thesis on the history of banking in Georgia. The method used in accomplishing the first of the two previously cited approaches taken to the studyb-that of a general investigation of his craftsmanship as a speaker-was primarily through a review of the literature as well as other sources already mentioned under primary and secondary sources. The second approach taken to the studyb-that of a specific and detailed investigation of selected speeches given by Toombs in Congress-was accomplished as follows: (1) a sample was taken of his speeches by selecting six of the eighteen major Speeches given by Toombs in Congress during the period under study. The selection of these six speeches was based upon a set of criteria used in the selecting of what are believed'habe representative samples of his congressional speeches, (2) the manuscripts of these speeches taken from the Congressional Globe were first, put in outline fonm by reconstructing the texts into substance outlines; and second, they were analyzed in an effort to determine Toombs' use of arrangement, invention (logical, ethical, and emotional proof), and style. A further attempt was made to reveal the reactions to these Speeches, and (3) a technmzal plot 2 work sheet was then used to record the analysis of the speeches. Tm reporting of the findings of the study is as follows: (1) PART I, divided into five chapters, presents the background material for 2See Appendix H. the speaking and speeches of Toombs. These five chapters deal with the five periods of Toombs’ life, with special emphasis given to Chapters III and IV, which deal specifically and exclusively with the period under study. An attempt is made to relate Toombs to the history of the period which provides the basis for his oratory, (2) PART II, divided into eight chapters, presents the craftsmanship of Toombs as a speaker by first, relating in Chapters VI and VII the findings of the study with regard to his speaking in general; and second, revealing in Chapters VIII through XIII the findings of the study with regard to his speeches as based upon the analyses of the six sample speeches; (3) PART III is the Conclusion, in which both general and specific conclusions are drawn about the speaking and speeches of Toombs. PART I THE MAN AND THE TIMES CHAPTER I FROM BIRTH TO ENTRY INTO THE GEORGIA STATE ASSEMBLY 1810-1837 Among the prominent political leaders of the United States in the nineteenth century was Robert Augustus Toombs. His voice was heard, though not always heeded, in his native Southland as well.as upon the national scene. Toombs' defense of slavery and his demand of equal rights for the South gave him a place in the history of this period along with such men as Calhoun, lbbster, and Clay. The name Robert Toombs was to become a legend in his own lifetime in the South, especially in the state of Georgia, as well as one to be reckoned with in the nation as a whole. This dynamic personality was, in many respects, the most remarkable the South has ever produced. Youth and Formal Education Robert Augustus Toombs was born on July 2, 1810, some four miles from the little village of Washington, Georgia, in Wilkes County. He was the fifth child of major Robert Toombs by his third wife, Catherine Ruling. Major Robert Toombs, a soldier in the American Revolution, had moved to frontier Georgia from Virginia and settled in Wilkes County at the end of the war. He prospered in Georgia; and by 181h had risen to planter status holding hS slaves and 2,200 acres in Wilkes, Green, and Hayne Counties. A small portion of his land and a few slaves came through the will of his father, Gabriel Toombs, who died in good financial 1 condition in 1799. Major Toombs died when Robert was five years old but left his family well-provided for. His wife, Catherine, a devoted mother to her children, lived until 18h8. Very little is known about the early years of Robert Toombs. Pleasant Stovall, his earliest biographer, pictures him as a ”slender, active, mischievous lad", small for his age, showing no early signs of precociousness, and living the normal life of a planter's son. He one joyed unusually good health in contrast to later years and was noted for his horsemanship. 2 A further glimpse of Toombs in his formative years which points out what might be called his earliest interest and devotion to state rights, the cause to which hisslater life would be almost totally'devoted. is given by his second biographer, Ulrich B. Phillips: Young Robert, reared among the best advantages which the countryside afforded, acquired the views and customs which prevailed around him, including the current opinions upon public questions. For example, the discussion of impressments which he heard in childhood gave him an enduring belief in British tyranny, and the struggle in his boyhood between Georgia and the United States government imbued him with a devotion to state rights. 3 Phillips' picture of Toombs as a young lad continues, and gives some definite clues to his nature which though noted in childhood would remain with tum throughout his life: llilliam Y. Thompson, "Biography of Robert Toombs," (Unpublished). This work was completed in June, l96h, and is the best and most thoroughly documented of the three biographies of Toombs. (p. 2 of the manuscript.) 2Pleasant A. Stovall, Robert Toombs: Statesman, S eaker, Soldier, §=gg (New Ibrk: Casswell PuSIisEing Company, I892), pp. 5-5. 3Ulrich B. Phillips, The Life of Robert Toombs (New Ybrk: The “Calla“ Company, 1913); Fe 70 ' -h, As boy and as man Toombs differed from the standard manly product of the plantation régime only in being unusually vigorous, talented and self-confident...Naturing with normal speed, young Toombs was active and alert, fun loving and fond of striking situations whether of his own or of other's making. The rollicking boy was father to the boyish man with his great faculty for hilarious laughter, and.his occasional failure while controlling others to control himself. h In the final sentence of the statement just quoted, Phillips pin-points one of the major faults and failings of Toombs: his seeming. inability throughout his life to control and discipline his actions, which caused him numerous unpleasant situations as will be revealed throughout the study. The existence of this incapacity to direct his talents in a constructive manner may well be cited as a major reason why Toombs' efforts were not looked upon in a more favorable light then as well as now. As was the custom of that period, Toombs entered upon his formal education in an institution of higher learning at an early age. On July 31, 182h, at the age of fourteen, he was admitted to the University of Georgia in Athens, Georgia, which was then known as Franklin College.S While the prescribed course of study taken by young Toombs is not definitely known, some insight into the type of subject matter to which he was exposed prior to entering Franklin College can be gained from the requirements for admission as stated in the earliest extant catalogue of the college: 'Fbr admission into the Freshman.Class, a candidate must be able to construe and parse Caesar's Commentaries, Virgil, Cicero's Orations, the Greek Testament, Graeca Minora, have a general knowledge thid., p . 11. 5Transactions of the Faculty of Franklin College From August 15, 1822 to Ray 13, 1836, Athens, Georgia, p. 51. (Special Collections Division of the University of Georgia Library). -5- . . . 6 . of English Grammar, and be well vauainted‘with Arithmetic." His exposure to, and familarization with, the classics is quite obvious from his use of them as quotations in his Speeches in later life, a practice which will be discussed, later in the study. Toombs' freshman year passed quietly, but his sophomore year saw the erupting of what had obviously been building up during his first year. In early September, 1825, he had a series of fights with two fellow students, Junius and Granby Hillyer; and so shocked were the faculty members over the violence of the Toombs-Hillyer war, that they resolved on September 20 that the Hillyers be "publicly admonished by the President and that Toombs be expelled.‘I That day President waddel dismissed Toombs. 7 The following day the faculty was presented with a letter from Toombs acknowledging the 'impropriety of his conduct“ and also a petition from the student body which was endorsed by the two powerful literary societies, the Demosthenian and Phi Kappa, calling for a I'mitigation" of Toombs' punishment. So impressed was the faculty with what his fellow students thought of him that they remitted his expulsion and reinstated him on a probationary status. Dr. E. Merton Coulter, noted Georgia historian, remarks: 'Unquestionably great things had to come from a student who could thus line up the whole student body to support his position in such a situation.“ 8 6Catalogue of the Trustees, Facult and St ‘ , udents of Franklin Colle e 1830. (Itfiens, Georgia: UTTIce of the %thEEIan, IB3U),"B. 7. (SpeciEI ’ ‘CEIIections Division of the University of Georgia Library). 7Faculty Transaction, 22. 233., pp. 80-81. 83 Merton Coulter C - ' s 0119 6 Life in the Old South Athens Beer 13; The University of worgimééé,1§51x 37-76:— ...... ( a g -6- This was by no means the last of the Toombs' escapades, however, for they continued until he was dismissed on January 2, 1828, in his senior year. For most students the first dismissal and then re—instatement would have provided the needed disciplinary measures, but not in the case of Robert Toombs. His persistent breaking of College rules only goes to reinforce what has already been stated about his incapacity to control and discipline his actions. This was in later years, as in his youth, to contribute greatly to his downfall. Though very definitely not remembered at the university for his scholarly pursuits, he was none-the-less remembered and perhaps in a more permanent way through what has become known in later years as the “Toombs Legend." The shaping of Toombs the man definitely began, or was furthered, during his years at Franklin College despite his lack of attention to his studies and the constant infraction of college rules. In many respects, Toombs' life as a student gives some very definite insights into his later life as a statesman, lawyer, orator, and soldier. An article appearing in the Georgia Alumni Record some years after his presence on the campus makes reference to Toombs' student days at the university by saying that although the university had previously admitted some interesting people, there had been “none like the one now permitted to invade its grounds; for here was a fourteen-year-old, plantation- bred upstart, who looked askance at all.rules, whose hilarious moods knew no bounds, and whose burning tongue and quick repartee seared like brimstone fresh from Hades.“ 9 9Ton 3. Gray, Jr., 'Bob Toombs,‘ Georgia Alumni Record (Ha June 1928), P. 19he ’- ’ -7— Thomas W. Reed's History of the University of Georgia says of Toombs that he possessed a mind fully able to have placed him at the head of his class, but thought too much about having a good time, never exerted himself in his studies, worried his teachers by acts in defiance of college regulations and left the university without receiving his degree....The years he spent in the university were not years of study. He was a born independent and.chafed under any restraint....he was fond of reading Shakespeare and history and biography had an appeal for him. 10 There are many stories or tales surrounding Toombs and his years at the college. Although they have never been actually proven true nor untrue, they certainly help to provide a proper understanding and evaluation of his life. For this reason some of them have been included in this study. Several of these stories illustrate very well the ability he possessed to meet a situation head-on and in most cases come out the victor. On the occasion of his final dismissal from Franklin College in January, 1828, he submitted a letter to the president of the college asking that he be granted a letter of discharge. Not having learned of the offense committed by Toombs that would result in his dismissal, the president granted the request. After learning of the offense committed the previous evening, but after having granted the discharge, the president net Toombs walking around the campus and said, "Mr. Toombs, you have taken advantage of me in asking for a discharge." Toombs straightened up and replied, "President laddel, you are no longer addressing a student of this college but a free-born American Citizen." 11 lOThonas W. Reed, "History of the University of Georgia." (Unpublished Manuscript, Vol. II, pp. ZhB-h9). (Special Collection Division of the University of Georgia Library). llstovan, 33. cit., p . 9. -8- Lucian Knight in his book, Reminiscences of Famous Georgians, comments on the above incident and in so doing points out quite emphatically the independent nature of Toombs then and in later years by saying, "Toombs in the American Senate could not have pictured the attitude of in- dependence with sternercountenance or bolder Speech than Toombs the vestwhile student at that moment on the streets of Athens." Another such story has it that Toombs and some students were drinking and gambling one evening when a proctor came upon them. All ran but Toombs, who leaned tipsily against a wall and roared: "'The guilty flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a 13 lionl'" A version of the tale says that "Toombs was unable to run." By far the most persistent and colorful of the folklore surrounding Toombs' years at Franklin College deals with the "Toombs Oak," a tale which has special significance for this study in that it deals with Toombs as an orator. According to this tale, Toombs returned to the campus for the autumn commencement exercises in 1828, at.which time he would have been graduated but for his dismissal, and delivered an oration outside the chapel under an oak tree. Iounting an improvised rostrum under a tree at the hour when his fellows approved by the faculty had begun their program of speeches in the chapel, young Toombs began an address in such vigorous tones, with such eloquent phrasing and such telling humor that the audience within began to quit their seats and drift out of the building to enjoy the novel occasion; and Toombs did not conclude his harangue till the speakers ide had been left with but empty benches before them. 12Lucian Lamar Knight, Reminiscences of Famous Georgians (Atlanta: Franklin-Turner Company, Vol. I, I§57), p. *153. 13Gray, pp. 333., p. 195. lhpmnips. 33. 3%., p. 13. ~9- This story, like the others about Toombs' life at Franklin College, has never definitely been proven true nor untrue. Augustus Hull gives in his Historical §ketch 2f the gniversity*2£ Georgia the most feasible source of the story when in his discussion of the "Toombs Oak” legend he says, "there is not a semblance of truth in the story. It was a fabrication of Henry W. Grady, who, in an admiring sketch of the great Georgian, wrote charmingly of his overwhelming eloquence and pointed it with a story drawn from his own vivid imagination.“ 15 This version of the origin of the story is further borne out in an article by E. Merton Coulter in which he seems to give the impression that the story of the IToombs Oak" is fiction and no truth in it what- soever. 16 However, it must be pointed out that while this version of the story has never been proven true, the fact remains that there was an oak tree in front of the chapel at that time, and it has been pointed out to visitors to the campus as the "Toombs Oak." The tree is no longer there having been replaced by the erecting of a sun dial in the early part of the 19003 after it finally died. The story is even told that this tree was struck by lightning on the day Toombs died. True or not, it must be said that these stories, or folklore, might well have been true when one looks at the entire life of Robert Toombs. Their nature and significance are certainly not completely divorced from the events in his life, and they give a definitive picture of the nature of the man that appears time and time again throughout the course of his life. Perhaps it is just as well that they never be definitely proven nor disproven. 15Augustus L. Hull, Historical §ketch of the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia: Foote and Daviés CompanyT-lgyfi), p. hSZ -_ 16E. Herton Coulter, "The Toombs Oak,“ Georgia Historical Quarterly, XLVI (March, 1962), pp. 311-140. ~10- For purposes of this study, the question of major significance evolving from the years spent at Franklin College is to what degree, if any, did Toombs' ability as an orator have its beginning or was influenced here. It is a fact that the practice of the art of public speaking in the forms of debate, orations, and declamations was made a definite part of a young man's education during this period in the colleges and universities, the major avenue for the practice of this art form being the college or university literary society. This is borne out by the fact that "The old fashioned literary society offered a kind of practice that was more generally effective than any other in the development of some of the greatest names in American oratory."l7 There were two such literary societies at Franklin College during the period Toombs was a student there. The first of these to be organized was the Demosthenian Literary Society, which came into being on the Athens campus on February 5, 1803, for the promotion of extemporizing, or extemporary, speaking. The second such society, Phi Kappa, was organized in 1820. E. Merton Coulter's College gigs in the Old South makes special reference to the Demosthenian Society by saying, "the Franklin College boys made much of Demosthenes; they studied his life, his speeches, and consciously held him up as their guide and hero." 18 Debating was the main work of these societies and was looked upon as serious business by the members. The subjects debated were almost as varied as the thoughts of man, embracing history, literature, philosophy, logic, religion, and a large number of current questions. 17Hugo E. Hellman, "The Influence of the Literary Society in the {gténg of igerican Orators,‘ Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (February, :P- o .- 13Coulter, College Life a 2: Old South, p. 103. -11- Robert Toombs was a member of the Demosthenian Society during his years at Franklin College. While the minutes of the society during these years have been lost,1 the fact of his membership, as well as some insight into his activities, is borne out in the following statement. Undoubtedly the terror of all the Demosthenians was Robert Toombs, who broke practically all the rules the professors could think of, and now naturally did not propose to let society rules go free. Within the period of a year and a half he got himself fined twenty-five cents for being “absent from tribunal,“ fifty cents for being “absent whole meeting,“ twentybfive cents for “going out without permission,“ one dollar for “not accepting clerk's office,“ twenty-five cents three times for “disorder,“ twenty—five cents for “reading in hall,“ twelve and a half cents for being “out too longb“ and an unstated amount twice for “eating in hall.“ In view of the known activities of these literary societies at Franklin College with regard to the emphasis they placed upon debate, oration, and declamation, it would certainly seem justified to assume that as a member of the Demosthenian Society Toombs took part in these activities and in so doing was exposed to the art of public speaking during this period of his life. In addition to his participation in the speaking activities of the Demosthenian Literary Society, it is further known that Toombs purchased a copy of Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres 21 and that copies of this work were in the Demosthenian library during this period. Blair's book embracing rhetorical theory was used in American colleges during the first half of the nineteenth century. The 19Interview with Mr. John w. Bonner, Jr., Director of the Special Collections Division of the University of Georgia Library, July 22, l96h. 20Coulter, 22. 23.1., pp. 130-31. 21Entry in the Day Book (1826-1830) of the Treasurer of the University of Georgia to the effect that Robert Toombs purchased one copy of Blair's Lectures for $1.75 on February 1, 1827. -12- rhetorical theory contained in this text is based on that of the classical tradition. Following his dismissal from Franklin College, Toombs enrolled in Union College, Schenectady, New York, in January, 1828, for the completion of his college training. College records show that he stayed two sessions, from January to April and from April until his graduation in July. The interesting thing about this period of his formal education is that he was fined only three cents on one occasion for missing class. Since the custom of the time was to levy fines for breaches of regulation, it appears that Toombs had undergone a monumental metamorphosis since 2 he departed his native Georgia. 2 While at Union College Toombs belonged to the Delphian Literary Society which had forty-eight members in 1829 of which twenty were Southerners. The Delphian Literary group was one of several such societies at Union College during the period Toombs was a student there. Their activities were basically the same as the Demosthenian.and Phi Kappa societies at Franklin College. The existence and position of these societies is commented upon as follows: Long before the advent of the so—called Greek Letter fraternities, Literary Societies with Greek names existed at Union as at most other Colleges...The members of these Societies were required to present essays and orations and engage in formal debates. The training and experience thus afforded were of practical value in developing men of ability in the rhetorical and forensic theatres....Their anniversary exercises were among the great events of the College year. Their various offices were honors eagerly sought, and, according to tradition, the elections were occasions for the exercise of much 'practical politics,‘ ‘when rival candidates sought support by all the methods known and followed in the political world. 2 22Th0mp30n, 22. 9.1-3.0, p. 60 23Andrew van Vranken Raymond, Union University: Its History, Influence, Characteristics and Equipment (New York: Lewis Publishing Company, Vol. I, 195?). -13- It is assumed that during the year Spent at Union, Toombs took part in the college debates and public speaking occasions which gave evidence of rising sectional differences among the participants. The split between the predominantly Southern society, the Delphdans, and the other societies whose members were predominantly northern widened to the extent that they sat apart from each other on the commencement platform. It is interesting to reflect upon the portent for the future that this divisive gesture suggested, and it is not too difficult to draw a parallel between what happened at Union among men of different sectional heritage and that which occurred on the national scene. Perhaps it was the existence of just such an atmosphere that attracted Robert Toombs to Union. Certainly he had much to offer in behalf of the Southern argument, for even “at this early age of 18 he is reported 214 to have possessed uncommon abilities of speechtand reason." Without doubt the exposure to debating, orations, declamations, and other forms of the art of public speaking which Toombs experienced in the Demosthenian.Society at Franklin College and the Delphian Society at Union College had an influence upon his later reputation as an orator and debater in the halls of Congress. Again, while the loss of official records of these literary societies makes it impossible to assertain accurately the extent of Toombs' participation, the fact of his membership lends evidence of a kind to such participation. Thus, it would appear that the oratorical abilities of Toombs were certainly furthered, if not begun, during his college years. After graduation from Union College in July, 1828, he entered the thred C. Cole, “Robert Augustus Toombs," Union werthies, Number Sixteen. Robert Augustus Toombs, Class of 1828. (Union College mammograms-Er,- . 9. ‘- "' ’ .11,- Law School of the University of Virginia on September 18, 1828, where he was classified as a Junior, a first-year student in the two year law school. Very little is known about the activities of Toombs in law school with the exception of periodic mention in the faculty minutes of his violating several rules. At the end of the school year he scored seventyhseven out of a possible three hundred ten on his law examination, tying for low place with another student in a class of 1h. 25 Certainly there was nothing in his formal law training to indicate the future greatness he would acquire as a member of that profession. Toombs left the University of Virginia at the end of his first year and returned to Georgia to begin the practice of law. This ends his formal education and begins the first phase of his professional life as a practicing lawyer in his home town of washington, Georgia. Toombs the Lawyer The life of Robert Toombs contains one unusual circumstance or situation after another, and his entry into the legal profession was to be no exception. On December 19, 1829, the Georgia Legislature passed a special act permitting Toombs, still a minor, to practice law if found competent and qualified by court exanination. 2 He successfully stood his examination and was admitted to practice on March 18, 1830, in the Superior Court of Elbert County. Eight months afterwards he married Julia Ann DuBose, daughter of 25Thompson,{g£.‘git., p. 7. 8 26Journallgf the Senate of the State of Georgia, 1829, pp. 316, 31-19. .__.._._..__.—_..__——-—-—-— M -15- a wealthy slaveowner from Lincoln County. She was seventeen, he was twenty. Three children were born to them, a son who died in childhood, and two daughters, who though they grew to womanhood and married, died in 1855 and 1866 respectively. Both Toombs and his wife, Julia, outlived their children; and in the final years of their lives were both parents and grandparents to the children of their oldest daughter, who, as previously mentioned, died in 1866. While Robert and Julia Toombs were unlike in many respects, their marriage was something dear to both of them and lasted until Mrs. Toombs' death in 1883. Mrs. Toombs was one of the few people who had any real influence over Toombs. Toombs, throughout his lifetime, always proved.io be a devoted husband and father 0 The early practice of his chosen profession failed to meet with immediate success. It was said of Toombs that 'he seemed to have reached excellence in law by slow degrees of toil," and that "his work in his office was spasmodic, and his style in court was too vehement and disconnected to make marked impressions" in his first years of 27 practice. Toombs practiced in what was then called the Northern Circuit and attended weekly court sessions in Wilkes, Columbia, Oglethorpe, Elbert, Franklin, and Green Counties. nest of the cases at this time dealt with litigation over land and slaves. Toombs’participation in these cases established for him the reputation for being able to chew up great quantities of material and spit out the salient points with a minimum of effort. In so doing "he could strip a case of its toggery and go 27Stova11, pp. _c_i_§., pp. 113-15. -16- right to its vitals." It was during these initial years of law practice that Toombs' life-long friendship with Alexander H. Stephens, a fellow lawyer, was formed. Strange as it may seem in view of the sharpness in contrast between these two, their friendship endured for a life time. Each sought the advice and counsel of the other on numerous occasions throughout their lives. The friendship of these two men was one of mutual respect and understanding, and added greatly to the effectiveness of both. William P. Trent gives a very telling comparison of these two men by saying, and Toombs had more energy and self-assertiveness than Stephens, and so represents the dominant class of Georgians, better, perhaps, than the latter. Stephens, however, had more of the shrewdness and sound conservative sense of the Georgia masses than Toombs which somewhat accounts for the remarkable hold he kept upon the people, even when opposing popular measures like secession. But the man of action is more typically Southern than the man of reflection, and dash will, in a crisis, carry the day over shrewdness; hence when, in the winter of 1861, Georgia had to make her great choice, she followed Toombs rather than Stephens. 2 With more specific reference to Toombs and Stephms as lawyers political figures of this period, Trent goes on to say, Toombs would plunge immediately into his fierce and impassioned oratory, and pour his torrent of wit, eloquence, logic, and satire upon judge and jury. Toombs would not appear in a case unless he felt that his client really had justice on his side....Both could 281bid., p . 17. 2”William P. Trent, Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime (Boston: Thomas I. Crowell and Company, I8§7,, p. 20. -_—'-_- -17- carry away a jury or a husting crowd, and the secret of their power lay not so much in the matter of their speeches as in the way they delivered them. Toombs used his strength of body and voice, and impetuous force of conviction.... Unlike Stephens, Toombs was not a man to reflect, check, and defend, but to leap to conclusions, push on, and attack. He was not even solicitous to defend his own consistency, that carefully guarded heel of Achilles to the ordinary politician. 'How is this, Mr. Toombs?‘ shouted a Democrat, ...‘here is a vote of yours in the House Journal I do not like.' 'Well, my friend, there are several there that I do not like; now, what are you going to do about it?‘ What could the astonished voter do about it, and what can anyone do about it now, except to wish that a little of Toombs' courage, not his rashness, could be found in the average politician of the present day. As Toombs matured, he became one of the finest and highest paid lawyers in the state. 'As an advocate before juries,‘ said a contemporary lawyer, 'he was without a peer. Powerful before the court before which 31 He his arguments were always brief, he was almost resistless." spoke briefly in most cases and centered his remarks upon several strong points rather than encompassing side issues. He tried to convince his listeners and would leave a jury feeling that only fools or knaves could "find" against his client. Probably the most famous example of his brevity in presenting a case was his four-word defense in behalf of a widow who was attempting settlement of a claim before the Supreme Court of Georgia. He stood up when his time to present the defense came and said, 'Seizin, Marriage, Death, Dower' and sat down. His case was won, the widow's heart leaped with joy, and the lawyer's argument 32 lives forever. A “ 301b1d., Pp. 209-10, 215-16. 31Richard M. Johnston, Autobiography of Col. Richard Malcolm Johnston (washington: The Neale Company, 1505}, p. lIV. 323tovall, 33. 23., p. 28. -18- Justice Jackson, who presided over this case, said that Toombs' defense "was one of the greatest ever delivered before the Supreme Court of Georgia." He went on to say, "lightning like rapidity of thought distinguished Toombs. He saw through.a case at a glance and grasped the controlling points. Concentrated fire was always his policy. A big thought compressed into small compass was fatal to his 33 foe.‘ Toombs was a master of fervid eloquence but wasted no words in expressing his thoughts. In his greatest flights of eloquence it was his epigrammatic style that captured his audience. Regarding Toombs as a lawyer, Alexander H. Stephens states in his diary kept while a prisoner in Boston Harbor immediately following the war that 'as a lawyer, I have never seen his superior before judge or jury." 3h He would hear down opposition by the rush and vehemence of his oratory; but, if necessary, he could also analyze a complicated question, financial or other, in its minutest details. No one was more voluble where speech seemed indicated; yet when circumstances required brevity, he could eliminate every superfluous word. He not only had a passion for the contest which the courthouse provided, but he was willing to prepare himself for it by determined labor. Unfortunately, there are no written records of Toombs' oral presentations in court cases. It has been said that “tie brightest chapters in the life of Toombs are perhaps his courthouse appearances. There is no written record of his masterly performances, but the lawyers 33Reed, pp. git... p. 253. 3huyrta L. Avary (ed.) Recollections of Alexander H. Ste hens, His Di Ke t When a Prisoner at Fort WarrenT-Boston HarbSF, I885 (New York: Dongle ay, Page, and Company, IEIU), p. 526. -19. of his day attest that his jury speeches were even better tran his . 35 political addresses. One such lawyer's remembrances of Toombs, the lawyer, is Judge William M. Reese, who practiced law with Toombs and was his law partner from 18h0 to l8h3. Judge Reese gives this picture of Toombs at the bar. A noble presence, a delivery which captivated his hearers by its intense earnestness: a thorough knowledge of his case, a lightning-like perception of the weak and strong points of controversy; a power of expressing in original and striking language his strong convictions; a capacity and willingness to perform intellectual labor; a passion for the contest of the courthouse, a perfect fidelity and integrity in all business intrusted to him, with charming conversational powers—all contributed to an inmense success in his profession. Such gifts, with a knowledge of business and the best uses of money, were soon rendered valuable in accumulating wealth. 3 Toombs' ability to move the emotions of a jury is well known and attested to by his contemporaries. In combination with his appeal to the emotions, he made equal use of his Splendid physical appearance, and commanding voice for the expounding of logic, reason, wit, and pointed sarcasm. All these qualities gave to his courtroom presentations a dynamic and controlling power. Though noted for his emotional appeal, it was always supported with strong logical reasoning. He never let his case rest on emotional appeal alone. Richard M. Johnston, a contemporary lawyer of this period, said that no lawyer of his time equaled him in excitation of athos in juries, but he did so by no appealings, but by tE3-__- presentation of a case of injustice and oppression with such force as occasionally moved to pigy and indignation, finding vent to tears, even in cries. 35$tovall, 32. 933., p. 18. 36Ibid., p. 2b. 37Johnston, 22. 532., p. 120. -20- Toombs' success in the legal circles of Georgia and in accumulated wealth is best summed up in the following: Mr. Toombs' success as a lawyer can be directly attributed to three characteristics of the man: First, to his far- sightedness, and by this is meant the intrinsic greatness of the mind of the man. Second, to his energy, which was tire- less. He would be present in court all day and at night be busy to a late hour in preparation of his work for the marrow. Third, to his application. Mr. Toombs repaid his clients for value received. He never unet a case unprepared, and his preparation was so thorough that he knew the case in every detail. 3 As a final note on this period of the life of Robert Toombs, it should be mentioned that in keeping with the code of the Southern gentleman of the time, he participated in local military affairs. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in the washington Guards of Wilkes County in 1831. During the Creek Indian uprising in 1836, Toombs, then a captain, led a volunteer company of 105 men from Wilkes to Columbus, Georgia, and with other state troops became a part of the command of General Winfield Scott. However, no mention of q Toombs actually encountering hostile Indians has ever been recorded. ' Summary Though less is known about Toombs as a youth and as a beginning lawyer than about his years as a manber of the Georgia Legislature and United States Congress, some very definite aspects of particular interest to this study do stand out. It has been shown that he was born 38Alvin Golucke, 'Toombs and Stephens," Washington, Georgia, J. C. Williams Printing Company, 1901), p. 9. (A pamphlet in the Special Collections Division of the University of Georgia Library). 39rh0mp30n, .22. 22:20} pp. 9-100 -21- and reared in a well-to-do southern plantation atmosphere, undoubtedly receiving a thorough indoctrination in the southern ideas and ideals of the time, and that he was exposed to the average educational opportunities of the southern aristocracy of that period. He did not apply himself as he might have in college but did participate in the literary societies at Franklin College and at Union College, from which undoubtedly his later fame as an orator sprang or at least was furthered by the experience. As a lawyer he furthered his potential as a speaker through his courtroom presentations, which by the year 1837 had placed him in the forefront in Georgia as a lawyer and orator of some reknown. CHAPTER II TOCMBS IN THE GEORGIA LEGISLATURE 1837-18hh The political arena in the United States has always drawn heavily upon the legal profession, more so than from other sources, for its leading participants. Thus, the course of events in the life of Robert Toombs leads quite naturally to his entry into politics following his early success as a practicing attorney in the legal profession. The political situation in Georgia was becoming more closely aligned with that of the nation as a whole in the 18303 with regard to both party structure and political issues. This environment was to afford an opportunity for Toombs to develop as a political figure in Georgia, as well as to prepare him for his eventual role in the national political arena. The legislative issues encountered by Toombs during his years as a member of the State Legislature were to serve as a useful proving ground.for future battles in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States. The stands taken by him on these issues as a state legislator not only reveals his position at the state level, but clearly present a preview of his future positions on the national level. Member of the Whig Party The election of Robert Toombs to the Georgia State Legislature in the fall of 1837 provides but yet another unusual situation in the relationship of his life to the events of the time. Toombs sought and won election to the State Legislature as a Whig candidate from the -2 2- -23- previously all—Democratic Wilkes County. It has been suggested by one of his biographers, that his election from his home county of Wilkes was not so much because he was a Whig, but rather because he '38 a favorite son. 1 Whether he was elected as a Whig or as a favorite son, the following this young 27 year old lawyer had among the people of his home county is clearly shown by this event. Toombs was returned to the lower house of the assembly, which at this time met at the state capitol in Milledgeville, Georgia, at each following annual election until 18h3, except that of 18hl, when he was not a candidate. never aspiring to a seat in the state Senate, he pre- ferred to season himself in the more populous House of Representatives. At the time of his election in 1837, the Georgia political scene was linked with national politics through two distinct parties, the Whig and the Democratic. The lhig Party in Georgia was also labled the State Rights Party, having evolved as such out of the nullification controversy in 1832-33. The Democratic Party was, in turn, labled the Union Party as a result of supporting President Jackson's stand on the nullification issue in the sister state of South Carolina. The eastern section of the state, dominated by the planter-slaveowner class, was predominately Whig or State Rights, while the mountainous North and pine barren South voted Democratic or Union. The spread of'cotton plantations, and in turn slaves, into southwest Georgia caused that area in time to support the Whigs. Financial Conservative At the time of Toombs' entry into the Georgia Legislature, a 1Phillips, Life 95 Robert Toombs, p. 19. \v -214... severe depression was settling over the country. The Georgia lawmakers were under heavy pressure to enact legislation to improve the state's economic distress. Out of this situation came one of the stands for 'which Toombs fought then as well as in later years -- a staunch and unyielding championing of sound, conservative financing. Throughout his life, he never allowed public calamity, no matter how severe, to change his mind and his total devotion to this principle. (This same issue of financing government expenditures will arise on the national level when Toombs is a member of Congress as will be seen later in this study.) ‘Ihen it came to financial matters, he was a conservative of the highest order. His views on this subject were obviously greatly influenced by his keen ability in handling money as is exemplified by his own personal ‘wealthy status. As a young legislator, Toombs showed "an early concern for sound financing in government, a thread as strong as any that binds his political philosophy to the various stages of his career." 2 The heart of the state's financial system was the Central Bank of Georgia established in 1828, which served as a sort of state treasury. The bank was authorized by the state to issue bank notes to serve as 3 currency to the citizens of Georgia at 6% interest. In the 1837-38 legislative session, legislation was passed which allowed the bank to borrow money in order to meet the ever increasing needs for these loans. Being the ultra-conservative in matters of a financial nature, Toombs strongly opposed this action by the legislature, feeling that the bank should live within its means and that borrowing would simply accelerate 2Cole, "Robert Augustus Toombs,“ Union'worthies, Number Sixteen, p. 10. 3Robert T. Segrest, 'History of Banking in Georgia Before 1865,! (unpubliShed Me‘s th0813, University Cf Georgia, 1933), p. 1.7 -25- the current inflationany Spiral. Toombs feared that the people of Georgia would come to rely too heavily on the government for relief, a position also taken by the leading Whig newspaper of the state and h expressed by it as "an inversion of all proper Government." is is exemplified in this first major issue upon which Toombs took a stand, he was throughout most of his political career to take the negative side of’debated issues. Toombs' ability as the opposing force in legislative debate is commented upon by Bradford: "In all the various causes of opposition that Toombs took part in, for he was usually heard loud in the negative, there was the same impetuous ardor of argument, the same splendid fury of invective, which, back by the masterful presence and the thunderous voice, must have gone a long way to produce submission, if not conviction." During the first several years as a member of the State Legislature, Toombs' lhig affiliation placed him on the minority side of the political fence. Thus, he began his political career slowly but soon was recognized by his peers as a man of ability and conviction. The type of impression made by Toombs in the State Legislature, as expressed by an observer of lhig leaning at the close of the 1839 session, is as follows: Robert A. Toombs: This member possesses high genius, thorough acquaintance with.mankind, and is distinguished by physical and moral courage. Often eloquent, always sensible and convincing, he is a formidable adversary in debate. He is a bold, fluent, sarcastic speaker, ever ready, ever fortunate and clear in illustration. Frank and careless in his manner, he appears to be wholly indifferent to rhetorical embellishment. With infinite tact and sagacity, with a “tuggsta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia), January'7, 18h0. 56amaliel Bradford, Confederate Portraits (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, l9lh), pp. 1914§?. -26- commanding talent for the management of men, it is with himself to select his own rank among the rising men of the state. we have heard with regret that he has declined emphatically a place on the congressional ticket of the State Rights Party. Having a handsome fortune, we know of no gentleman who could so well sacrifice something to the public, and no gne whom we would contribute more cordially to elevate. In the 18h0 legislative session Charles J. McDonald, the Democratic governor of Georgia, proposed a bond sale to the lawmaking body as a means of increasing the capacity of the Central Bank of Georgia to meet the ever increasing demand for loans to private citizens. The scheme was referred to a special House committee chairmaned by Toombs, which re- jected the governor's proposal, saying in part that “we dean it unwise and impolitic, to use the credit, and pledge the property and labor of the whole people, to raise money to supply the private wants of a portion only of the people." 7 This was Toombs' viewpoint on financial matters throughout his life. He constantly voted against the appropriation of money where the benefits would be received by only a portion of the people. Toombs' position may have been sound financially but in a depression era it was politically disastrous, as evidenced by the return to power of the Democrats in the 18hl election. Sensing a turn in the political tide, Toombs did not seek re-election in lel. In lBhZ, however, he returned to the political arena. Being a member of the minority party, since the Democrats were still in power, did not seem to bother him in the least. In fact, his talent for biting 6Augsta Chronicle, January 7, who. 7Journal of the House of Re ' _______ presentatives of the State of Georgia 18,-‘0’ pe w7e — —- _ — —————.—.—, -?7- sarcasm and slashing invective speech seemed at time more in tune with the destruction of opposition than with the promotion of leadership. Toombs was probably at his best in the role of the under-dog, since then he could unleash his power of speech in a manner that was fast becoming his trademark: 'Mr. Toombs opened his artillery and kept up an unremitted fire for half an hour.'; '...Mr. Toombs, who rolled over them last Saturday evening like a steam car under full pressure."; “Mr. Toombs replied in a very appropriate manner-~not very remarkable for its balminess or conciliation...” The conservativeness of Toombs, as well as his uncontrolled and undisciplined remarks, is attested to in Knight's Reminiscences g; Famous Georgians when he says, "Rash as Mr. Toombs was in conversation, he was ultra-conservative when it came to protecting the interest of his clients or to guarding the obligations of his fiduciary trusts." 9 Pro-Slavery Toombs came face-to-face with the sectional slavery issue only once during his years in the State Legislature, but he revealed quite clearly and emphatically his stand on the issue. Certain citizens of Maine had taken slaves away from Savannah in their ship; and when the Governor of Georgia demanded their extradition for trial, the Governor of Maine refused to deliver them. In the session of lBhO when.a bill on this subject was pending, Toombs introduced as a substitute: "A bill to protect the slave property of the people of the state of Georgia from the aggressions of the people of the state of Maine, to confiscate the sluggsta Chronicle, December 6, 15, 18h2. 9Knight, Reminiscenses of Famous Geor iane, p. 127. -28- property of citizens and inhabitants of Maine within the limits of this state, and to seize the person of such citizens and inhabitants and other persons coming into this state from the state of Maine." 10 The House, however, and Toombs himself, were persuaded against the policy of retaliation, and enacted instead by'a vote of 183 to hh, with Toombs in the affirmative, a bill providing that vessels from Maine should in future be searched at the time of their departure from Georgia ports. The extreme to which Toombs desired to go, as evidenced by the provisions of his proposed bill, gives but a preview of his position on the slavery as property issue which he fought to the bitter end when faced with the issue in Congress. As in financial matters, he was unemovable and unconciliatory on the slaveryhas-property question. Thus, his position on these two issues was established as a state legislator and remained unchanged throughout his life. Railroad and Supreme Court Issues During his years in the legislature, Toombs was at different times on both sides of the political issue surrounding the question of railroad building. In 1836, the State Legialature provided for state aid under certain conditions to railroad companies; and in 18h2, Governor McDonald subscribed in the name of the state to $200,000 of stock in the Monroe Railroad and Banking Company under the provisions of the 1836 legislation. Hewever, the House refused to appropriate money to honor the state's obligation. Toombs, a staunch believer in the sanctity of contracts, went on record in the House as being bitterly opposed to the refusal 10Journal of the House of Re ° presentatives of the State of Georgia 181:0,p. 3]]. "——"—— ——.__...._____ a -29- of that body to appropriate the necessary funds so that the state could meet its part of the contract. Toombs and thirty colleagues entered their protest in the House Journal saying, "they would be false to their principles, and unworthy of the place they occupy, did they not proclaim, and record their entire dissent to what they (with pain) regard as a violation of the plighted faith of the State." 11 Though supporting the governor, who was a Democrat, on this railroad issue, he was soon to be found on the opposing side strongly criticizing him for misuse of state funds in the building of the state owned'lestern and Atlantic Railroad. As self-appointed watchdog of state finances, Toombs charged the governor with the use of $80,000 of Federal money, given to the state to be applied toward the payment of the state's public debt, to pay for iron in the construction of the railroad. As was characteristic of Toombs, his language was rash.and strong . "The 'Governor has robbed' the public treasury," he declared, according to the Augusta.§hrggiglg. 12 By his use of such bold and misleading language as I'robbed", Toombs was assailed as having attacked the private character of the governor. Quite a newspaper battle arose over this issue, but the legislative session came to an end without any further action being taken on the matter. This is a prime example of Toombs' inability to discipline his remarks. He failed to regard the consequences of his remarks, and as in the case just cited, brought much unfavorable publicity upon himself in this way. Toombs' final session in the State Legislature was in 18h3, during 11Journal of the House of Representatives of the State of Geor ia 181:2. pp. 275- 5'" ‘_ "' _ — ’ 12Augusta Chronicle, January h, 18h3. -30. which time the Whigs were back in power, having elected George W. Crawford governor and capturing control of both legislative houses. Toombs worked during this session for the establishment of a state supreme court, but the House-passed bill failed in the Senate. However, the court was established by the next legislature. Toombs, though serving in the State Legislature, was keenly aware of the happenings on the national scene. In 1838, he voted against a Democratic resolution that a National Bank, a'Whig-supported institution, was unconstitutional. 13 In l8h0, he campaigned in Georgia for William Henry Harrison for president. He kept in touch with the Whig senator from Georgia, John McPherson Berrien, apprising him of local events and suggesting procedures for him in washington. Toombs was now ready and well prepared to enter into the national political arena, where he would for the next sixteen years represent Georgia as first, a member of the House of Representatives, and finally as Senator. “Stump" Orator Not only was Robert Toombs developing as a political figure in the halls of the State Assembly in Milledgeville, but he was also equally becoming recognized as a political "stump" speaker. During the Presidential campaign for l8h0, he Spoke on numerous occasions in the months preceding the election. He took to the "stump” in support of the Whig candidate for president of the United States, William.Henry Harrison, in speeches given at washington, Georgia, Milledgeville, Augusta, Macon, and Elberton. As was the custom at political rallies of that period, the speaking 13Journal 22.322 House 2f Representatives of the State of Georgia, 1838, P. 39. _ ...... _ -31- began in mid-morning and lasted until late in the afternoon. People came from all the surrounding area to hear the speakers and enjoy the free barbecue which was prepared for the occasion. The people took a great interest in the political events of the time and were usually well informed on the subjects under debate. Such political rallies were the major source of information for the citizens at this time since the only other medium of communication available to them were the newspapers, and they were usually late in getting the news to those living in the rural areas. Thus when word of a political rally reached them, they came from far and wide to hear the leading political figures of the day debate the issues of the time. A typical political meeting of this sort was held at Elberton, Georgia on September h, 18h0. Both political parties were well represented by speakers, each putting forth his strongest effort to win the votes of the assembled crowd for his candidate. Toombs was the fifth speaker of the day on this occasion, and the hour was fastly approaching sunset. The account of this meeting, and especially of Toombs' appeal to his audience, can best be seen in the following excerpt from a newspaper article about the meeting. Robert A. Toombs was then introduced upon a general call, and hesitating from the lateness of the hour, whether he should proceed to speak, was urged by'a universal cry of 'Go on!‘ Although the hour was late, none were willing to forego the pleasure they anticipated from his address- and well were they repaid for their attention. By the brilliancy of his wit, humor, anecedote, and argument, he gained and fastened the attention of the vast crowd of admiring spectators, for between one and two hours, whose ardor in time good cause seemed to rise with the progress of the speaker, as repeatedly evidenced by the most rapturous and deafening bursts of applause. He dwelt with much force upon the impolicy of the sub-treasury system, as well as upon many other topics; when, at a late hour of the evening the meeting adjourned in that harmony and good order which had marked its proceedings through the day. 1 On election day Harrison was victorious in the presidential campaign, and the Whigs captured control of the Georgia State Legislature. When speaking on the hustings in political campaigns as in the pre-election speeches given in the fall of lBhO, Toombs, like any other politician, often found himself open to criticism from his listeners. However, among the numerous advantages Toombs possessed was his power for the most effective use of the repartee. He was noted for his QUick and skillful replies on such occasions which did much to hold and sway his audience. One such occasion cited by Avery in his History 25 Georgia was when I'a rival on the stump threw up to him a very unpopular vote he had made in the Legislature. 'Yes' thundered the quick witted and audacious Toombs 'it was a d-d bad vote: What have you got to say of it?‘ And the storm of cheers from the crowd told how well he had baffled a wound.“ 15 Yet another example of Toombs' commanding use of wit is seen in the following account by Reed: "Once while he was haranging at the hustings, a drunken man beneath the edge of the platform on which he was standing, rudely told him in a loud voice not to let his pot boil over. Toombs, looking down, saw that his interrupter had flaming red 16 hair: 'Take your fire from under it, then,‘ he answered.“ lhiuggsta Chronicle, September 22, lane. 151. w. Avery, The Histor of the State of Georgia from 1850 to 1881 (New Yerk: Brown-and DerEy:'IBBI), p. 55: '_' 16John'C. Reed, The Brothers 235 (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1905), p. 213. -33— An incident during the campaign of lBhO brought Toombs face-to-face in debate with George McDuffie, the great Democrat of South Carolina. McDuffie, then in the zenith of his fame as a political speaker of great reknown, met Toombs in Willington, South Carolina, where they debated the issues of the campaign. One account of this meeting gives a picture of Toombs as seen and appealed to by people of that time. The most daring feat of young Toombs, just thirty years old, was in crossing the Savannah River and meeting George McDuffie...An eyedwitness of this contest between the champions of Van Buren and Harrison declared that McDuffie was 'harnessed lightning' himself. He was a nervous, im- })assioned speaker.'When the rash young Georgian crossed over to Willington, S.C. to meet the lion in his den, Toombs rode horseback, and it was noticed that his shirt front was stained with tobacco juice, and yet Toombs was a remarkably handsome man. 'Genius sat upon his brow, and his eyes were as black as death and bigger than an ox's.’ His presence captivated even the idolators of McDuffie. His argument and invective, his overpowering eloquence, linger in the memory of old men now. McDuffie said of him: 'I have heard John Randolph of Roanoke, and met Burgess of Rhode Island, but this wild Georgian is a Mirabeau.‘ 1? This comparison made by McDuffie of Toombs to Mirabeau, a famous orator of the French Revolution, is cited by Knight as "not farfetched." He goes on to say that 'under the spell of that electric eloquence which Mr. Toombs rarely failed to cast, the rapt and eager listener sat transfixed. He seemed to be witnessing some splendid storm at sea; or better still, some Alpine cataract hurling its organ thunder against the battlements of basic rock and shaking its diamond plumage in the 18 sun." As a "stump" speaker, Robert Toombs was more than a match for any 17Stovall, Robert Toombs: Statesman, Speaker, Soldier, Sage, pp. hS-hé. 18mght’ 22. £3.20) p0 101. -31, opponent. All the vigor, all the violence, all the fiery ardor and eager enthusiasm of that passionate temperament were poured into his words. 19 He spoke to "convince, if possible; if not, to overwhelm.“ Alexander H. Stephens said of him on the husting that, 'as public speaker or 'stump' orator no one in any age or country ever had more power than he in the days of his prime....His true greatness did not consist in statesmanship; he was governed too much by passion and impulse.” A final reaction to Toombs as a "stump" orator, and offering quite a different impression, is given in the Federal Union, the Democratic Party mouthpiece among the newspapers in Georgia. Mr. Toombs is the greatest stump orator 'in all creation,’ and ought to have a stump on the top of the Himalaya mountains, that he might speak to the universe. Splendid orators have been dangerous counselors from the days of Pericles. The title thunderer which was given to this celebrated Greek, may, in one sense apply to Mr. Toombs, for he is a noisy—- a thundering orator, but whether he will succeed in teachin the people to spurn their own interest is yet to be seen. 2 Summary Toombs' years in the Georgia State Legislature saw him as an active participant in legislative affairs. He not only advertised his talent but declared his political position. He stood conspicuously as a Whig of the Crawford tradition, more devoted to soundness in policy than to party advantage. He was primarily concerned with financial and social questions, having encountered the slavery issue but once during these years. His ability as a I'stump" orator was tested and proven to A‘Au 19Gamaliel Bradford, "Robert Toombs, A Confederate Portrait," Atlantic Monthl , CXII (August, 1913), p. 208. 20Avery, Recollections of Alexander H. Stephens, His Diary Kept When ‘3 Prisoner at Fort warren,‘Baston HarEorj—1855, p. h27. 21Fedaral Union (Milledgeville, Georgia), August 13, 18hb. -qq- J’ be effective. The stage was now set for his entry into national politics, where he was to attain his high-water-mark as a political figure and orator. CHAPTER III TOOMBS IN THE HOUSE or REPRESENTATIVES 18Uh'185h Perhaps never before, nor since, has the national scene in the United States possessed such a vast array of political giants as in the l8hOs and 18503. And perhaps never has there been a period in the development of this country when they were more urgently needed to guide the course of events. Such names as Webster, Calhoun, and Clay were representative of the political philosophies prevailing at this time. To these three more commonly referred to men, one could add an almost endless list of prominent figures, who in their respective ways have been equally noted by historians as political giants of this crucial period in American history. Such a list of distinguished men would be incomplete without the name of Robert Toombs. Though less well remembered than others of this period because of his often re- ferred to “radical“ political philosophy, he is none-the-less important. The role played by Toombs as a member of Congress, though lessened in importance down through the years by historians, still lives in the South as a very definite part of our American heritage. The Whig Party As a political figure of some reknown in Georgia by the mid lBhOs, Robert Toombs (had attained this position through his affiliation with the Whig Party. As is too often the case, one tends to lose sight of the importance of events in history. Such is the case with the Whig -36. -37— political party of the first half of the nineteenth century. It came into being, it served a purpose, and it faded from sight only to be vaguely remembered by future generations. The Whig Party took form around l83h as an opposition party composed of a coalition of Southern planters, Northern merchants and manufacturers, and western farmers. It was created in direct opposition to the Jacksonian Democracy theory of government arising from the late 18208. The threatened change in the United States, brought on by the Jackson administration, from an aristocratic republic to a government of the masses, together with a fear of government by impulse instead of by deliberation, did.much to bring the Whig Party into being. Henry Clay of Kentucky emerged as the Whig's greatest leader through his authorship of the American System aiming at National self-sufficiency through a protective tariff, internal improvements, and a national bank to facilitate credit and exchange. The planter class in the South, though disliking some aspects of Clay's American System, especially his tariff proposal, was more afraid of the threat to privilege and property interest posed by the Jacksonian equalitarianism. However, "as the tariff became better understood in the South,‘ states a student of the Whig Party, “it lost many of its terrors for the people." 1 Since the planter-slaveowner element in the South was predominately Whig in political affiliation, it was only natural that Toombs, a member of that class, initiate his political career as a Whig. This he did as a State Legislator as well as in his bid for a seat in the 1Arthur 0. Cole, The Whi Party in the South (London: Oxford University Press, 19137: p. %0§. -_'_—— -38.. United States House of Representatives in lth. However, Toombs' political career was to outlive the Whig Party which failed to develop as a strong sectional political group. Finally, the impact of slavery destroyed the Whig Party and gave birth to the Republican Party, sectionalized in the North in the mid 18503. Most Southern Whigs, Toombs being among them following a brief stay in the Constitutional Union Party, then joined the Democratic ranks and faced the secession crisis in solid phalanx with their former political enemies. In the election of 18hh, Toombs campaigied in Georgia for the Whig Party nominee, Henry Clay; while the Democrats chose James K. Polk of Tennessee as their candidate. In addition to supporting Clay, Toombs waged a vigorous effort to get himself elected to the House of Representatives from the Eighth Congressional District of Georgia. He spoke out on the major issues of the lBhb campaign, especially the question of whether or not to annex Texas to the Union. Toombs believed as did Clay that the annexation of Texas would lead to war with Mexico. 'A people who go to war without just and sufficient cause, with no other motive than pride and love of glory, are enemies to the human race and deserve the execration of all mankind.” 2 So expressed Toombs on the annexation issue during the course of the campaign. Among the many personal appearances made by Toombs in his bid for election, the one that stands out as best revealing his political position just prior to his entry into Congress was in Augusta, Georgia, in October, lth. Here he debated the issues of the campaign with George McDuffie, South Canalina Democrat, with whom he had clashed 2Stovall, Robert Toombs: Statesman, Speaker, Soldier, §E§2’ p. 53. -39- before in lBhO. Each spoke for two hours and ranged over the entire political spectrum. Toombs' concluding remarks reveal clearly the moderate political philosophy with which he was to enter Congress: that the Constitituion guaranteed to rational and tolerant men, both North and South, sufficient protection for the rights of all. He said: 'we have lived under the present order of things for fifty years, and can continue to live under it for one thousand years to come, if the people of the South are but content to stand upon their rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, and not work confusion by listening to ambitious politicians: by taking as much pains to preserve a good understanding with our Northern brethren, the vast majority of whom are inclined to respect the limitations of the Constitution.‘ 3 Although Clay lost in the presidential election, Toombs was successful in unseating his Democratic opponent for the seat in Congress. He had, however, over a year to wait before he could take his seat in the House for the opening of the first session of the 29th Congress. h During this period, the question over the annexation of Texas was settled by a majority vote in both houses of Congress in favor of annexation. Toombs would doubtless have voted against such action in view of the position taken by him on this issue in the campaign. Toombs' fear of provoking a war with Mexico over the annexation of Texas still lingered with him throughout the remaining months leading up to the taking of his seat in the House in December, l8h5. 3Ibid., p. 50. UThis delay in taking his seat was produced by the "lame duck" Congresses, which were eliminated by the 20th Amendment calling for opening sessions in January following the November elections. -hO- Early Issues Faced in the House Toombs took his seat in the House of Representatives on December 1, lBhS, for the beginning of the first session of the 29th Congress. The chamber in which this august body met was semi-circular in shape about 96 feet in diameter and 57 feet high with a dome-like ceiling. John Randolph of Virginia pronounced it "'handsome and fit for anything c / but the use intended." The Speaker's chair was located at the south end of the hall on a four foot rostrum. Tables for reporters and clerks were nearby. Behind the Speaker's chair were crimson curtains to absorb acoustical peculiarities which plagued the room. The desks of the members were arranged in front of the Speaker's rostrum in con- centric semi-circles. Located above the north end of the hall was the gallery which seated some 500 visitors. It lacked the air of dignity which prevailed in the Senate chamber, but then so did many of its members since the proceedings became quite noisy and disorderly at times. This opening session found among its membership many men of outstanding merit. Along with Toombs were Alexander H. Stephens and Howell Cobb of Georgia; ex-president John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts; Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois; William L. Yancey and R. Barnwell Rhett of Alabama and South Carolina, respectively; Jefferson Davis of Mississippi; and Andrew Johnson of Tennessee. The future leaders in the Civil war struggle were, as is seen, among this group. Toombs delivered his maiden speech in the House on January 12, l8h6, a little over a month after taking his seat. The issue before 5Rufus R. ‘Wilson, washington the Capital City_ and It! Part in the Histo of the Nation (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company— Hi I imam—m. a. ’ -m— the House centered upon the course of action to be taken with regard to the Oregon Territory. In this Speech, he showed his inclination toward national rather than sectional interest; one of the few speeches delivered by him in which this was the case. Basically, the Speech supported President Polk's desire to terminate the joint British and American occupation of the Oregon Territory; stating specifically that such notice of termination should be given by the president himself and not by Congress. The speech was considered appropriate as his maiden venture upon the national political scene. Following this initial speech by Toombs, congressional attention was focused upon the relationship between the United States and Mexico. The earlier fear expressed by Toombs of possible war with Mexico over the annexation of Texas was not unfounded. In January, 18h6, President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor and his command to move from the Nueces River, the long-time boundary of Texas, to the Rio Grande, the newly claimed boundary. In late April, the movement of Hexican forces across the Rio Grande and their attack upon portions of Taylor's army was all that Polk needed to ask Congress to declare war on Mexico. The requested state of war was declared by Congress on May 13. Toombs, along with most Whigs, voted for war and the necessary military appropriation in view of the attack by Mexican forces upon those of the United States. However, the initial enthusiasm which thrust the country into armed conflict soon diminished and the Whigs were soon to be found back in their former political position of opposing 6This speech is dealt with in detail in Chapter VIII as Case Study #1. For this reason, it is only briefly commented upon at this point in the study. -bg- anything that enhanced a Democratic administration. The Augusta Chroncile, Whig supporting newspaper in Georgia, editorialized even before the war began that, "Mr. Polk desires the glory of having tr: Mexicans thrashed during his administration. It would be the glory which a giant would obtain by knocking down a Lilliput." 7 Far from being a supporter of President Polk's policy, Toombs was strongly opposed to, and in disagreement with, the president over the movement of American troops from the Nueces to the Rio Grande River. On May 18, five days after war was declared, Toombs delivered an impromptu speech expressing in some anger his opposition to this movement of American forces upon what he felt was Mexican territory. Toombs' anger probably accounted for the fast delivery that Stephens said made accurate reporting impossible. 8 His position on this matter was made clear when he said Polk's ordering of troops to the Rio Grande nwas contrary to the laws of this country, a usurpation on the rights of this House, and an aggression on the rights of Mexico.‘ After making this charge against the actions of the president, he told his 9 Democratic colleagues in the same speech 'to make the most of it.“ The second major speech given by Toombs was on the question of tariff, when on July 1, 18h6, he spoke in an attempt to head off a proposed Democratic tariff framed by Secretary of the Treasury Robert J. walker. Toombs' strong inclination toward sound financing, which had become a part of his political philosophy as a State Legislator, was 7kugusta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia), April 30, 18h6. 8Letter from Stephens to his half—brother, Linton Stephens, Hay 23, 18h6, (Stephens Papers, Emory University). gggngressional Globe, 29th Congress, lst Session, p. 837. now being brought to bear upon the national scene. The new tariff proposal embraced a general lowering of tne tariff structure and the promotion of free trade in the United States. In Toombs' eyes this was against the principle of sound financing for which he stood. Speaking as a moderate protectionist, he called the proposed measure a "hybrid bill which asserts and maintains no principle -which neither harmonizes with the principle of free trade nor protection--but which mixes up so unskillfully the principles of each as to neutralize both.“ 10 He saw no need for a change in the tariff structure, feeling that the lowering of duties would reduce revenue at a time when government expenditures were increasing. Also the bill's abolition of specific duties in favor of the 2d valorem principle would make difficult an accurate appraisal of anticipated revenue because of changing market values. Despite his voiced rejection of the measure, it passed the House and proved to be most successful as a revenue measure, while business and manufacturing continued to flourish. Thus ended the first session of the 29th Congress, and Toombs returned to Georgia in mid August. During this initial session as a member of the House, he had spoken out on two international issues, the Oregon question and the Mexican War; as well as revealing hrs conservative viewnoint on the tariff issue. He had lost no time in establishing himself as an out-Spoken member of Congress on the issues brought before that body. His position at home was more strongly established than in Hashington, D.C., for he was reelected to Congress from the Georgia Eighth District and given a strong endorsement which 101b1d., p. 1030. .. L111“ stated in part, that “in him we have a statesman whom we are proud to honor with our confidence and sustain with our suffrage." 11 The Eighth District was his private preserve, and in the minds of the majority of the people Bob Toombs could do no wrong thnoughout his public career. Toombs returned to the nation's capital in late December, 18h6, for the short session of the 29th Congress. During this period he made only one major speech, which reflected the continuous Whig opposition to the prosecution of the Mexican war. On January 8, 18h7, he spoke out in strong opposition to the proposed bill authorizing ten additional 12 regiments of regular soldiers for the war. Basically, he was opposed to the use of regular soldiers, preferring the use of citizen soldiery. In this speech, Toombs revealed the first sign of his interest in sectional over national issues by expounding upon the territorial question and the provisions connected therewith of the Wilmot Proviso. U. B. Phillips has written of this early moment in Toombs' congressional career in this fashion; The conflict of functions indicated in this speech gives the key to Toombs' whole congressional career and to the tragedy of its failure. He was the painstaking mid scrupulous guardian of the whole country's honor and welfare without regard to section, and for the sake of promoting national harmony he was a loyal Whig; but whenever others less national-minded than he precipitated angry sectional issues he was driven by both reason and impulse to uphold with might and main what he considered the essential rights of the Southern people. 13 When the Congressional recess began in March, Toombs returned to A; 11Augusta Chronicle, July 16, 18h6. 12This speech is dealt with in detail in Chapter IX as Case Study #2. For this reason, it is only briefly commented upon at this point in the study. 13Phillips, _T_h_3 Life 2;: Robert Toombs, p. h3. -h5- Georgia and plunged into his role of lawyer, planter, and businessman. He travelled throughout the state talking with his fellow Georgians in an effort to keep his fingers on the public pulse regarding the issues of the times. He rarely engaged in lengthy correSpondence with anyone, preferring the handshake and private encounter as means of staying abreast of developments and winning support. This may well be one of the major reasons for his popularity. In a day and time when the major means of communication was that of face—to-face encounters, Toombs' conversational abilities undoubtedly proved a great asset to the furtherance of his political career. He was an excellent raconteur; and the man who was to become a legend in his own lifetime had already begun to spin his web of charm, bombast, and colorful earthiness that so intrigued Georgians and rendered impregnable his political career. At the opening in December, 18h7, of the first session of the 30th Congress, Toombs and his Whig colleagues held a slight majority in the House. The first few months of 18b8 were taken up with continued congressional debate on the Mexican war, which was finally brought to an end with the signing of a peace treaty in Febmary. A majority of both Whigs and Democrats voted in favor of the acquisition of a huge land mass, over 500,000 square miles, embracing California and most of the present day Southwest. While the Mexican War was over, the territorial dispute and all its far reaching ramifications were just beginning. The question of territorial organization brought about sharp differences between the Northern and Southern menbers of Congress on the explosive issue of slavery. Most Southerners insisted that neither Congress nor territorial inhabitants had the constitutional authority to exclude slavery from a territory, while Northern sentiment swung -h6- behind the idea that slavery could be so prohibited. The debates over the territories of Oregon, California, and New Mexico were the first tests of this issue. The first proposal as an attempt to satisfy both sides was the Clayton Compromise. This measure provided for territorial governments in all three areas, with slavery to beIexcluded in Oregon and to be determined in California and.New Mexico by decision of the United States Supreme Court. The proposed bill passed the Senate but failed in the House, where Toombs voted for it as an effort of conciliation between North and South. After prolonged debate on the issue throughout most of the summer months, the Oregon territory was organized without slanemy; but no decision was reached on the territories to be carved out of the Mexican session. The question of territorial organization was ended for the moment, but it was to arise again in an even more pointed manner in the not too distant future. Toombs as the financial conservative energed as a stainch advocate of frugality in federal expenditures during his second term in the House. He opposed an increase in salary for the principal examiner of the Patent Office and the printing of 90,000 extra copies of a Patent Office report. He also was opposed to the increasing in size of the peacetime standing army, reiterating his belief that the citizenesoldier, not the professional, was the defensive backbone of the republic. This active and energetic young congressman was described in the Spring of 18h8 as follows: Onecxudd scarcely imagine a wittier and more agreeable companion than he was. He was a university man, and had kept up his classics. He had the personal habits of a gentleman, and talked such grammar determinately, not ignorantly, as the negroes of his day eschew--unless he -h7- became excited, and then his diction was good, his Wit keen, and his audacity made him equal to anything in the heat of debate....Mr. Toombs was over six feet tall, with broad shoulders; his fine head set well on his shoulders, and was covered with long, glossy black hair, which, when speaking, he managed to toss about so as to recall the memory of Danton. His coloring was good, and his teeth brilliantly white, but his mouth was somewhat pendulous and subtracted from the rest of the strong face. His eyes were magnificent, dark, and flashing, and they had.a certain lawless way of ranging about that was indicative of his character. His hands were beautiful and kept like those of a fashionable woman. His voice was like a trum et but without sweetness, and his enunciation was thick. Later in this Presidential election year, the Whigs nominated Zachary Taylor over Henry Clay, thus removing Clay from the presidential picture. The Democrats nominated Lewis Cass of Michigan, as their candidate, "not a man to inspire enthusiasm anywhere.“ 15 Dissatisfied elements from both parties joined with the Abolitionists to form a third party, the Free Soil Party, with Martin Van Buren.as its candidate. On July 1, 18h8, Toombs made a lengthy, partisan Speech in Congress, up- holding Taylor and the principles he stood for and assailing Cass and the Democratic Party. 16 Toombs eulogized the'Nhig candidate's "wisdom and firmness, his lofty character and unsullied purity” and labeled his platform one "constructed out of constitutional materials...bmad mough and strong enough to hold every man who does not prefer party to his country." He took this occasion to touch upon the territorial question, particularly singlmg out for ridicule Cass' doctrine of Squatter Sovereignty which Toombs called giving to "Mexicans, Indians, Negroes, 1hVarina Howell Davis, Jefferson Davis, Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memoir §y His Wife (New York: Belford'Company PEBIishers, Vol. I, -18§05, pp.‘E-§-T , 15Allan Nevins, Ordeal‘gf‘th§* Union (New York: Scribner Publishers, Vol. I, 19h7). p. 193. 16Congressional Globe, 30th Congress, lst Session, pp. 8hl-h6. -1 ,8- and mixed races whom we have conquered..." the right to exclude slavery from territories. These conquests, he said, were the common property of all the people and all were "entitled to an effectual legal equality in the enjoyment of this common property." Upon the adjournment of Congress, Toombs returned to Georgia, where he campaigned heavily for Taylor for president as well as for his own reelection to Congress. when all the Speeches, barbecues, and parades were finished, Taylor had won Georgia as well as the nation and was the president elect. Toombs carried every county in the Eighth Congressional District but one and was returned to the lower house for a third term. Territorial Issue Upon the return of Toombs to washington for the beginning of the short session of the 30th Congress, he was immediately faced with the sectional issue which had arisen anew under the direction of John C. Calhoun, Democrat of South Carolina. It was Calhoun's intent to organize a Southern Party which under his leadership would hold the line against Northern aggressions. Southern Whigs, however, viewed Calhoun's efforts with great distrust; and Toombs, looking upon this movement as an attempt to disorganize the Southern Whigs, initiated a fight against it. Still a strong supporter of national unity at this time, Toombs played a major role in blocking this movement. He appeared before the second meeting of the executive committee of the movement and said in part, that b the Union of the South was neither possible nor desirable until we were ready to fissolve the Union; that we certainly did not intend to advise the people now to look anywhere else than to their own government for the prevention of apprehended evils; that we did not expect an admihiStration which we had -u9- brought into power would do any act or permit any act to be done which it would become necessary for our safety to rebel at; and that we thought that the Southern opposition could not be sustained by their own friends in acting on such an hypothesis; and that we intended to stand by the government until it committed an overt act of aggression upon our rights, which neither we nor the country ever expected. 17 This statement in 18h9 was to serve as Toombs' credo through the difficult times ahead. Calhoun failed to obtain the needed support for his movement and the idea of a Southern Rights Party which would transcend Democratic and Whig lines was doomed before it was ever created. The Georgia trio of Toombs, Stephens, and Howell Cobb, who fought this attempt to form a Southern Party, were to be most influential in Georgia as well as the entire South in keeping the South within the national framework in the difficult days ahead. Toombs' desire to save the Union was strong in this crisis and would be equally strong in support of the Compromise of 1850 and throughout the 18503, but it was to end up in the exact opposite direction with his strong support of disunion and secession in the final break of 1861. The strength of his political convictions and his determination to carry them out can be easily seen in every phase of his career. His political power was not to be taken lightly, and was used toward the realization of what he felt was justified; be it union or disunicn. In the final weeks of the 2nd session of the 30th Congress, a plan to settle the territorial issue was offered by William B. Preston of Virginia. It called for the admission of all the territory acquired from Mexico as a single state as soon as was constitutionally possible. 17Ulrich B. Phillips (ed.), The Corres ondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, and HewelI C055 {washington,—D.C.: American Histarical-ISSOCiationpifinual Report, Vol. II, 1911), pp. lhl-h2. .50- This proposal was done in hopes of by-passing the constantly arising Wilmot Proviso, which had been offered as an amendment to practically every congressional measure dealing with the question of territorial organization. The Wilmct Proviso was an attempt to prohibit slavery in the territories and, as might be expected, was bitterly opposed by Toombs and most of his Southern colleagues in Congress. However, the hope of avoiding an anti-slavery amendment to Preston's proposal did not materialize, and the measure failed to carry the House. Thus, as the 30th Congress ended, the territorial issue was still unsettled. The battle line between the Northern position of prohibiting slavery in the new territories, and that of the Southern position of insisting upon the right of slavery in these territories was firmly drawn. This resistance to compromise was to eventually cause a total break, secession of the Southern States, and.Civil war. The tension surrounding the territorial issue increased during the period Congress was in recess and was almost at the boiling point when the lst session of the Blst Congress assembled in December, l8h9. The Whig Party was ready to support the Wilmot Proviso. Toombs presented a resolution to the Whig caucus on December 1 which read: “Resolve, the Congress ought not to pass any law prohibiting Slavery in the territories of California or New Hexico, nor any law abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia." 18 There were mixed feelings within the party on the position taken by Toombs in his resolution, and the caucus voted to postpone consideration of it. With this action, Toombs, Stephens, and.severa1 other Southerners walked out of the meeting, and for all practical purposes out of the Whig Party. 18Auggsta Chronicle, December 10, 18h9. -51- On December 3, the House commenced business before jammed galleries. Every member appeared under a state of excitment. Expressing the predominate feeling which he possessed, Stephens stated: "'My Southern blood and feelings are up, and I feel as if I am prepared to fight at all hazards and to the last extremity in vindication of our 1 honor and rights...." 9 A struggle for the powerful position of Speaker of the House developed between Howell Cobb, Democrat; Robert C. Winthrop, Whig; and David Wilmot, Free Soiler. Since no one received a majority, the voting continued and the opposition anong parties grew stronger and more heated with the failure of each successive ballot to name a Speaker. On December 13, Toombs made a powerful impromptu speech which took him for the first time publicly to the brink of disunion. He explained his obstructionist tactics to the House on the grounds that he considered the interests of his section in danger’and consequently was unwilling “to surrender the great power of the Speaker's chair “without obtaining security for the future....It is time we understood one another; that we should speak out, and.carry our principles in our foreheads.“ 20 'lith "his black, uncombed hair standing out from his massive head, as if charged with electricity, his eyes glowing like coals of fire, and his sentences rattling forth like volleys 21 of musketry...,' he said he would make his position clear. If the 19R. M. Johnston and W. H. Browne, Life of Alexander H. Stephens (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Company{53878), p. 2377 2oCongressional Globe, 3lst Congress, lst Session, p. 28. 21Benjamin Perley Poore, Perle 's Reminiscences of Sixty Years in ‘323 National Estropolis (Philade p a:‘HEBS§Fd_BFEthEFs, Vol. I 1885) p. . 3 3 .52- South were driven from the territories of California and New Mexico by congressional legislation or if slavery were abolished in the District of Columbia, he was for disunion. The territories were the common property of all the people, and it was the duty of Congress to insure equal enjoyment of them by slaveholder and non-slaveholder alike. If guarantee could be given that these rights would be upheld, Toombs pledged his cooperation in the organization of the House. If not, he thundered, "let discord reign forever.” Toombs' speech was in- terrupted several times by loud bursts of applause. 22 It is assumed this applause was favorable to Toombs' position and was offered in support of his remarks. Several other Southerners, including Stephens, followed up Toombs' address with equally passionate speeches which almost resulted in a free-for—all between the members of the House. Stephens referred to the events of the day as "the most exciting day I I ever witnessed in that Hall.... 23 In view of the speeches given by Toombs and other Southerners on the 13th, a resolution was adopted on the lhth making it mandatory that the balloting for a Speaker continue without debate until the office was filled. 0n the 22nd, Toombs rose in the House claiming the right to be heard on the legality of the resolution passed on the lhth limiting debate. This delaying tactic of Toombs met with stormy protest in the hall; but he stood his ground, maintaining that until a Speaker was elected and the oaths of office administered to House members, no rule could be adopted by the House and so he intended to speak. Filibuster he did amid jeers, catcalls, and a few shouts of 22Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, lst Session, p. 28. 23Johnston and Browne, gp. cit., p. 2h0. .53- "Go it, Toombs'“ until a jaded House ceased its noise and allowed him to conclude in relative tranquility. These delaying measures taken by Toombs could not, however, prevent the inevitable, since shortly after his speech, Cobb was elected Speaker. Toombs' efforts were uniformly praised in Georgia as seen in the Democratic Hilledgeville Federal Union when it stated that the course of Toombs and Stephens "has excited in the bosom of every 2h patriotic Georgian, emotions of unmingled gratification." However, as might have been expected, the Northern press was severely'critical of Toombs. The Boston Courier called Toombs and his little band of Whig supporters 'swaggering Bobadils' and |'emptybheaded brawlers' who "threaten mischief, but lack the courage to 92 it....As sure as any real emergency arises where life or limb, property or place encounters a risk, where a true manly heart is required, these will 25 be the first cowards to run.‘ Obviously the Northern press was totally unaware of the capabilities of Toombs when it made the above statement, for he disproved every charge of not facing up to the situation by his role in the secession movement of 1860. He was without any doubt a man of conviction and action. Apparently Toombs' outburst in the House resulted from his belief that the South was being made the victim of an act of injustice. His biographer, Phillips, says of him that “while occasionally brusque in speech and impotent of peccadilloes, Toombs was careful to preserve the dignity of the House and earnest in maintaining thelestablished 2hFederal Union (lilledgeville, Georgia), December 11: 18h9- 25Boston Courier (Boston, Massachusetts), January 2, 1850. -gh. ' rules in all ordinary affairs. He said very truly some years later-- 'I follow regular order as long as it will meet justice; but when it does not I go outside it with great facility.'" When the territorial dispute seemed the darkest, and it seemed that nothing short of secession would settle the issue, one of the greatest of all compromisers made his reappearance in the Senate. Henry Clay returned to the national scene with determined effort once again to work his magic of healing the ills that now, more than ever, threatened the dissolution of his beloved country. On January 29, 1850, he introduced a set of compromise proposals in the Senate designed to settle all controversies of a sectional character. The “Omnibus Bill,“ or as it is more commonly referred to "The Compromise of 1850,“ became the focal point of debate in the Senate and later in the House. The provisions of this measure were: :1; California to be admitted to the Union as a free state, 2 Territorial governments in the remainder of the Mexican cession should not be restricted regarding;slavery, (3) Western boundaries of Texas to exclude all of New Mexico, (kg Federal government to assume the public debt of Texas, (5 Sale and deliver of slaves in the District of Columbia to be prohibited, (6 Slavery should never be abolished in the District of Columbia without the consent of Maryland, E7; Passage of a more effective Fugitive Slave Act, and 8 Congress should.make a formal declaration that i has no power to interfere with the interstate slave trade. Toombs found in these provisions a means of saving the Union, a desire still deeply embedded in his heart despite his most recent threat of a break with the Union. Consequently, he gave his support 26Phillips, The Life of Robert Toombs, p. m. 27N.v1n8, 22e 211e, ppe 253-302. -55- to the measure in the House. He continued his efforts, however, to protect Southern rights in the territories with a speech in the House given on February 27, 1850. 28 In sharp contrast to his outburst earlier in the session, the speech was given in temperate fashion.and.considered one of his best efforts. He stated that it was the general duty of government to protect the property of its citizens and that the principle of property in slaves had been.established under the Constitution. He went further to say that the South did not demand that slavery be established in the territories. In fact, he had no quarrel with the right of a people in drawing up a state constitution to exclude slavery. But until that time, Toombs stated, "we ask protection against all hostile impediments to the introduction and peaceful enjoyment of all of our property in the territories...” He wanted the issue of the right to have slaves as property in the territories settled now before he was willing to support the admiSsion of California as a free state. As was the case in most of his Speeches on the protection of Southern rights in the new territories, he ended his speech on a note of warning by saying that, "when the argument is exhausted we will stand by our arms.“ The general reaction to his speech was most favorable from both the Northern and Southern press. Debate in both Houses continued on the proposed compromise measure through the spring and into the summer. In.early June, the debate focused upon the California question; and since this aspect of the compromise proposal was the weakest in Toombs' way of thinking, he was found in the middle of the House arguments. On June 15, he a— 28Congressional Globe, Blot Congress, lst Session, pp. 198-201. as. delivered his famous "Hamilcar Speech," 29 which was considered by many of his contemporaries as his greatest effort as a member of the House. Probably in no other speech given by Toombs is the sharpness of contrast in his character better seen than in this one. Basically a man of conservative instincts, he could in moments of commotion explode in any direction, after which he would assemble the pieces and resume his former character. It was at the height of the debate over this compromise measure that President Taylor died; and his successor, Millard Fillmore, assumed the presidency. Throughout July the debate over the compromise measure continued and on the last day of the month was unexpectedly defeated. Exhausted, Henry Clay left the scene; and Stephen A. Douglas took over the leadership in the compromise bill which was now split into separate bills. By mid August, five of these bills had passed the Senate over embittered opposition from both the North and the South. Itwwas now the burden of the moderates in the House to see that the task of preserving the Union was carried through to completion. This was finally accomplished in the House following about three weeks of debate, the Compromise of 1850 receiving its final congressional stamp of approval by'September 17. Toombs supported each bill, although he voted.against the admission of California and did not vote at all on the final passage of the measure to abolish the slave trade in the District. The compromise measure had now received congressional approval; however, there still remained the big job of gaining support of the measure at home. 29This speech is dealt with in detail in Chapter X as Case Study #3. Per this reason, it is only briefly commented upon at this point in the study. -57- Union or Disunion With the adjournment of Congress, Toombs journeyed home with his colleagues Stephens and Cobb. These three congressmen had supported the Compromise of 1850 in'lashington; but they faced, perhaps, even stronger opposition to the measure at home. Throughout the congressional session, the leading political figures in Georgia had expressed continuous doubt over the compromise effort being made on the national scene. The governor had called for a state convention to assemble in Hilledgeville on December 10, to decide on the course of action Georgia would take with regard to the measure. Toombs had, himself, been castigated by the Georgia press for running hot and cold on the major issues of the Compromise; a situation'whichnwould increase the already difficult task of selling the people of Georgia on the measure. Georgia, with her wealth, population, and strategic geographical position, was the pivotal state in the South. Because it was belived that as Georgia went, so would go the South, it was crucial to the maintaining of the Union that she accept the compromise measure. Toombs and his fellow congressmen lost no time upon their arrival in Georgia in creating a coalition of Unionist to "stump" the state. They travelled to every county in support of the compromise measure. Toombs spoke widely and effectively, even to the point of the risk of ‘physical harm. He reviewed his activities during the last session of Congress, which had been criticized by those opposing the compromise in.the state, in.methodical, persuasive fashion. He took up each jprovision of the compromise and explained its effect upon the Southern ‘position, reassuring his listeners of his belief in the measure and further pointing out its rendering of justice to the South. -58— On election day in late November, the Unionist won an impressive victory nearly doubling the popular vote of the opposition. Of the ninetybthree Georgia counties, less than twenty elected Southern Rights, those opposing the compromise, to the convention. 30 The convention assembled on the appointed day, 20h delegates in attendance including Toombs. The major outcome of the convention was the drafting and adoption of the Georgia Platform, basically a Unionist document but containing a list of encroachments on Southern rights which the delegates felt would justify the secession of the state. The preamble and the first three resolutions declared Georgia's devotion to the Union, and while not completely approving the compromise, stated that it was accepted as a permanent adjustment of sectional difficulties. The fourth and fifth resolutions laid down the Georgia ultimatum: disunion if Congress abolished slavery in the District of Columbia (the Compromise of 1850 had only ended the slave trade), suppressed the interstate slave trade, refused to admit a slave state into the Union, prohibited the introduction of slaves into Utah and New Mexico, or modified the Fugitive Slave Law. 31 The acceptance of the Compromise of 1850, in general though not in total, by Georgia was greatly instrumental in preserving the Union at this crucial point in its history. In a letter to the people of Georgia in February, 1851, Henry Clay, father of the Compromise of 1850, said that their tremendous accomplishment had ”'diffused 30Horace Montgomery, Cracker Parties (Baton Rouge: The Louisiana State University Press, 1950,, pp. 32-33. 31Richard H. Shryock, Geor ia and the Union in 1850 (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 192 , pp. 3§§¥§Et ‘- -59- inexpressible joy among the friends of the Union throughout the land. 2 It crushed the spirit of discord, disunion and Civil War." 3 Though not specifically referred to in Clay's letter, Toombs had played a major role in Georgia's acceptance of the Compromise of 1850. Though the Georgia Platform had aided greatly in preserving the Union, it had created havoc with the Whig and Democratic Party structure in the state. Two new political parties arose in the form of the Southern Rights Party and the Constitutional Union Party; the latter of which Toombs was instrumental in the founding of for the preservation of the Constitution and the Union, and_which was created upon the principles of the Georgia Platform. In December, 1850, Toombs returned to Washington for the short session of the 3lst Congress. He made several minor speeches in his role as financial conservative in which he opposed a river and habor bill, a fortification measure, and an increase in expenditures for the army. His thoughts, however, were really back in Georgia and upon the upcoming state elections in which the new Constitutional Union Party, which he helped organize, was to undergo its first real test of political strength. Upon the adjournment of Congress in early spring, he hurried home to throw his entire political strength behind the candidate of the Constitutional Union Party. The political contest was similar in nature to the election of delegates to the state convention in the fall of 1850 in that the opposition was the Southern Rights Party which favored 32Ib1d., p. 339. -60- immediate secession. Toombs had a great deal at stake in this election since he was seeking reelection to Congress as well as the prospect of election to the Senate if his party could obtain a majority in the legislature. During the campaign which took place in the late summer and early fall, Toombs spoke numerous times; and he seldom failed to make a lasting affirmative impression upon his listeners. One such occasion was reported by the Auggsta Chronicle: On Tuesday, July 29th, Mr. Toombs met Col. McMillan in discussion in warrenton, in the presence of a very large company, estimated at from five to six hundred persons. Mr. Toombs led off in one of his finest efforts. I believe it is conceded on all hands, (even by the fire-eaters, whose only principle is opposition to Toombs and Stephens) that his speech was unusually'able....McMillan spoke his two hours about out without making any impression whatever upon the men, certainly none upon the ladies,...The big show of the day was Toombs' reply which was full of power. He turned McMillan's position upon him and his wouldebe-wit, too, and took his seat amidst the applause of the men and the smiles of the ladies. One thing is certain, the ladies are all with Toombs, and you may look confidently for an increased majority for him in old‘warren, in October. 3 Another speech by Toombs, this time in Atlanta, gave continuing evidence of his power of oratory. “Mr. Toombs addressed a large concourse of our citizens on Monday evening last and enchained the audience for an hour and a half with his thrilling eloquence...his hearers were edified and delighted as was evidenced.by the boisterous approbation expressed both during the speech.and at its close." 3b In October the fruits of his efforts were realized by the smashing 33Auggsta Chronicle, August 2, 1651. 3th1d., September in, 1P51. ~61- victcry of the Constitutional Union Party. Howell Cobb was elected governor by an 18,000 vote majority, the legislature was heavily Unionist, and Toombs was on his way back to Congress. 3’ Southern acquiescence< with the Compromise of 1850 seemed complete in that similar results occurred in Mississippi, Alabama, and later in the spring of 1852 in South Carolina. The Union had prevailed, and disunion was talked by only a minority in the South. Though often overlooked by historians, Robert Toombs had played a major role in preserving the Union in this crisis of 1850-51. His speeches and personal support for the preservation of the Union bear witness to his continuing efforts to avoid sectional strife at this time. Final Years in the House In November, 1851, Toombs was elected by the state legislature te the United States Senate effective December, 1853, to succeed Berrien, whose term was to expire in March, 1853. Toombs was criticized severely by his enemies in the state for this early election to the Senate, but as was usually the case he paid little dr no attention to such criticism. During these two intervening years, Toombs continued to serve as Congressman from the Eighth District of Georgia. Upon returning to lashington for the opening of the lst session of the 32nd Congress, Toombs found himself in the new role of an unaligned maverick in a two-party legislative system. He had broken with the Whigs during the debate over the Compromise of 1850 and was not inclined to affiliate with the Democrats. Thus, he turned to the promotion of the Constitutional BSSMOCR’ £0 iii-2e, pe BShe -62- Union Party as a national party. However, this scheme never materialized, if indeed such a veteran politician as Toombs ever believed it could. While the Constitutional Union Party had served its purpose in Georgia politics, it was never to realize a prominent position upon the national scene. With the final demise of the Constitutional Union Party in 1852, Toombs was favorably inclined toward the Democratic Party as his new political affiliation, this position being strengthened by the nomination at the Democratic Convention of Franklin Pierce of New Hampshire. The nomination of Pierce, often called a Northern man with Southern principles, as well as endorsement of the Compromise of 1850 in the Democratic Party Platform reinforced Toombs' decision to cast his lot with the Democrats. However, the sudden announcement of Stephens, who was still supporting the remaining remnants of the Constitutional Union Party, that he and the party would support Daniel webster for the presidency changed Toombs' mind; and he, in all probability out of loyalty to his friend Stephens as well as his admiration for Webster, threw his support behind the senator from Massachusetts. On July 3, Toombs made a lengthy, somewhat disconnected Speech in the House in which he denounced General Winfield Scott, the Whig candidate, and branded the national convention, since 1836 the methai for nominating presidenmial candidates, as conducive to second-rate leaders. 36 He campaigned in Georgia for webster, but his appearances were infrequent and low-keyed in contrast to his customary whirlwind techniques, and were finally terminated by the death of Webster in M 816-3200ngressional Globe, 32nd Congress, lst Session, Appendix, pp. -63- Cctober before the election in November. Pierce, the overwhelming choice of the country as a whole, became the new president-elect. Following the election of Pierce, Toombs returned to Washington for the short session of the 32nd Congress which was devoid of either accomplishment or excitement. Taking his seat on January 3, he seldom raised his voice in debate except in his well-known role as a conservative disperser of federal funds. Throughout his congressional career, no one ever had the slightest reason for charging Robert Toombs with anything less than total devotion to the cause of frugality. Summary As Congressman, Toombs took an active part in the issues facing tie nation and was usually heard in the opposition. His position was always in support of what he felt was best for the Union, until such support came into conflict with sectional interest. This conflict of interest, with the Southern position always predominating, was nowhere better seen than during the debates over territorial organization. However, even his strong sectional inclinations did not completely divorce him from his allegiance to the Union. he better example of his can be cited than his role in the pnomotion of the Compromise of 1850. These years as a member of the House of Representatives might well be viewed, as were those as a State Legialator, as a period during which he sought out and developed his potential strength for the climactic years of his life as a member of the United States Senate. CHAPTER IV TOOMBS IN THE SENATE 185h91861 To a man whose political career had yet to experience defeat, Robert Toombs' new step up the political ladder to the United States Senate was to be both climactic as well as anti-climactic. These were to be the years of maximum effort for the Georgia Senator and if the truth were really known, they were to end on a note of strength as well as one of disappointment. The strength refers to his unyielding stand in support of the principles he felt were right and just; the disappoint- ment refers to the extremity of secession he had to support and follow as a final course of action. Throughout this final chapter of his life on the national scene, he exemplified a degree of courage and strength not often found in man. True, he was looked upon thenmand even now as a hot-headed radical who did not know the meaning of the word "yield." However, he possessed a quality of strength, which whether properly used will perhaps never be completely agreed upon, that set himmapart and gave him a place in history. Toombs the Senator was Toombs the man! Sectional Fire Rekindled There were no towering figures in the United States Senate when Robert Toombs took his seat in January, 185h. The glorious days of Webster, Calhoun, and Clay were past; as were the lives of these giants of the political arena. In their places were assembled a new, and not «51.- .65- as yet proven, group of men. Toombs, as the junior senator from Georgia, was not to be placed as a junior to those now occupying the seats of the Senate. His long and able service in the House of Representatives made it possible for him to assume equal rank with his new colleagues. Among them were such men as Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, John Bell of Tennessee, Judah P. Benjamin of Louisiana, William H. Seward of New York, and Jefferson Davis of Mississippi. The voices of these men were to be heard in the months and years ahead in the historic Senate chamber, a small semi-circular room topped by'a low half-domed ceiling with a gallery in the rear which was supported by ionic columns. Open fires lent an atmOSphere of comfort to the Senate chamber, which possessed more dignity than the House and maintained a sense of decorum which the larger branch of Congress lacked. Both houses in 185h, however, possessed an informality which impressed German immigrant and scholar, Carl. Schurz, who later wrote: There was an air of genuine naturalness about the looks, the bearing, and the conduct of the menbers as well as of the proceedings--no artificially put-on dignity; commotion enough, but little affected furor, except with some Southerners, the business being done without much restraint of logic or method. The congressman with bushy chin whiskers, ‘wearing a black dress coat and a satin vest all day, a quid of tobacco in his mouth, as in these days we sometimes see him as a comic figure on the stage, was then still a well- known type on the floor of the Senate and the House. There was much tobacco chewing with its accompaniments, and much lounging with tilting of chairs, and elevation of feet on desks-much more than there is now in the same places; but then those things seemed more natural, and less offensive than they do new. There were also more evidences of a liberal consumption of intoxicants. I do not mean to say that there were not men of refined presence and bearing in the two houses. There were, indeed, not a few; but the majority struck me as rather easyegoing and careless of appearance. -66- Listening to running debates and to set speeches, I am astonished at the facility of expression which almost everybody seemed to command. The language may not always have been elegant or even grammatically correct; it may sometimes have been blunt and rough; but it ordinarily flowed on without any painful effort, and there was no hemming and hawing. On the day Toombs assumed his seat in the Senate, a bill was introduced by Stephen A. Douglas calling for the organization of two new territories, Kansas and Nebraska, with the question of slavery being left to the territorial inhabitants. It specifically'called for the repeal of the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which barred slavery north of 36° 30' in the Louisiana Territory, declaring it to be incompatible with the non-intervention principle of the Compromise of 1850. The Southern Senators were almost solidly in favor of the bill, while those from the North called it a strict violation of a "sacred compact“ between the sections. Thus, the old question of sectional interest in the territories erupted anew upon the national scene. The hope placed in the provisions of the Compromise of 1850, that the controversy over slavery had been buried forever, was suddenly shattered to pieces by this new legislative proposal. The bill was to result in the destruction of the Whig Party, the birth of the Republican Party, and a rekindling of sectional controversy climaxing in secession and Ci'u war 0 Toombs entered the debate over the bill on February 23 with his maiden speech in the Senate. 2 He built his speech on four major 1Carl Schurz, The Reminiscences of Carl Schurz (London: John Murray, Vol. II, 1908), p.7.-. — ' ' 2This speech is dealt with in detail in Chapter XI as Case Study #h. For this reason, it is only briefly commented upon at this point in the study. -67- points: that the Nebraska Bill was constitutional and consistent with the true policy of the government, that popular sovereignty was the wisest disposition of the slavery issue, that the Missouri Compromise was neither constitutional nor a binding compact, and that the founding fathers did not intend that slavery be limited, restrained and finally abolished as had been asserted in recent speeches. It will be remembered that Toombs was opposed to the principle of "squatter sovereignty“ proposed by Lewis Cass, Democratic candidate for president in 18h8. Toombs was now in favor of the principle of "popular sovereignty‘ as a part of the Nebraska Bill. The difference between these two provisions waS'Unn;under "squatter sovereignty" the decision on whether or not to have slavery in the territories could be made at any time during the existence of the territory; whereas under "popular sovereignty“ the decision was to be made only at the time a constitution was being drawn up immediately prior to statehood. The different interpretations given to these two provisions by members of Congress was to cause misunderstanding and trouble in the years that lay ahead. Obviously the latter of these two provided for a longer period of guaranteed protection of slavery in the territories than did the former. Thus, Toombs would be more inclined to favor “popular sovereignty“ than "squatter sovereignty." In part, this helps to explain his support of this provision in the bill now before the Senate. Toombs was now, as he was in 1850, a strong proponent of the belief that it ‘was the duty of the government to protect the rights of persons with their property to-freelybenter and enjoy a territory until such time as the territory assumed the sovereignty of statehood. At that time, ~68- the state could mold its own institutions regarding slavery as it saw fit. 3 Contrary to popular belief, it was not Toombs desire to £2522 slavery upon the new territories, but rather to guarantee the institution of slavery the right to enter these territories. Toombs had stated that once this right was realized and the inhabitants decided that slavery should not exist in their state-to-be when they drew up their state constitution, he would be satisfied that no injustice had been done to the South. After extensive debate, the Nebraska Bill passed the Senate on March h by a vote of 37 to lb, and later passed the House, but by a much less greater majority of 113 to 110. The uniting of the Southern Whigs with the Democrats had played a major role in the passage of the measure, but it had also destroyed the Whig Party. All future hopes of developing a really strong national Whig Party were doomed to defeat because of the disagreement between Northern and Southern elements of the party over the slavery issue. Out of this split came the birth of the Republican Party in the North. The settling of the Kansas-Nebraska territorial issue in the halls of Congress was difficult enough, but it was nothing to compare with the future turmoil that would erupt in the territory itself. The Kansas-Nebraska territory was to remainflas the number one territorial issue right up to the secession of Southern States and the outbreak of the Civil war. During the interim period between sessions of Congress, Toombs 3Con ressional Globe, 33rd Congress, lst Session, Appendix, p. 3&7. See p. 5% for ToombsI earlier statements in 1850. -69. returned to Georgia to take up his law practice and oversee his plantations and other business ventures. However, he was greatly concerned about the serious illness of his daughter, Louisa. He returned to washington for the opening of the second session of the 33rd Congress but was called home before the session ended and was with his daughter when she died on March h, 1855. Prior to his being called home, Toombs had revealed his strong tendency toward financial conservatism by speaking out in opposition to the expansion of the pension system for widows of army and navy officers and against several internal improvement bills. Toombs and his family went to Europe in June, 1855, since the pressure upon him was constantly increasing, and he desired to get away for a while. A European trip had been planned in 1851 but was postponed because of politics. He told his wife he wanted relief from the 'thousand harrassments of business" and looked forward to the pleasure of I'quiet and uninterruped strolling of you, and I and Sallie over the hills and plains of Europe, where no body knows us....' I wish we could take "our lost darling child," wrote the bereaved father. "Thank God there was rest in heaven." h Most of the summer of 1855 was spent shopping and sightseeing in London as well as on the continent. Toombs was much.impressed by the "grandeur and magnificence“ of London where he attended several sessions of Parliament, and although he heard among others the great Palmerston in action he told Stephens that the "speaking was poor, hLetter from Toombs to his wife, April 28, 1855. (Robert Toombs Papers, University of Georgia Library.) -70. very poor, the matter commonplace, and the style perfectly genteel but perfectly insipid.“ 5 Upon the return of Toombs to the United States in the early fall, he became involved in the Georgia state elections. Toombs had been without national party affiliation since December, 1850, when the Constitutional Union Party had been formed to carry Georgia for the principles of the Compromise of 1850, and he had been<:omp1ete1y without party affiliation since the death of the Constitutional Union Party in 1852. Though unwilling to affiliate with the Democratic Party following his final break with the Whigs, he was in the fall of 1855 more favorably inclined to do so. Back in Georgia, he threw his political support behind Herschel V. Johnson, Democratic candidate for governor. In addition to the Democratic Party in Georgia, and following the demise of the Whig Party, there evolved a new party upon the political scene in the form of the Know-Nothing or American Party. The Knowaothing movement was initiated in Georgia in 185h and by the state elections of 1855 was well-established enough to be a decisive factor in state politics. Unable to support the principles of the new Know-Nothing Party, Toombs finally became firmly affiliated with the Democrats. Following the election of Johnson.as governor.as well as a predominant Democratic legislature, Toombs made public his conversion to the Democratic Party. He had seen the light, he said in a Speech delivered before a joint meeting of Anti-Know-Nothings and Democrats 5Phillips, The Correspondence of Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens,_ and Howell Cobb, p. 35h.- -71- in November, during the Kansas-Nebraska Bill struggle when many Northern Democratic senators had stood faithfully by the South. Duty and patriotism dictated the course he was now taking. 6 In reference to Toombs' public statement of Democratic affiliation, the Augusta Chronicle, previously the mouthpiece of the Whigs and now of the Knowaothings, said: "For the future, we shall regard these gentlemen (referring to Toombs and Stephens) as Democrats, and as Democrats we shall treat them." 7 Throughout the rest of his national political life he remained a member of the Democratic Party. The Boston Speech Following Toombs' return to Washington in late December for the opening of the 3hth Congress, and before settling down to his duties as senator, he travelled to Boston, Massachusetts, and delivered.an address on Slavery in Tremont Temple on January 2h, 1856. 8 This speech was one of several delivered by public figures presenting various shades of opinion on the explosive issue of slavery. 6Federal Union (Milledgeville, Georgia), November 13, 1855. 7Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia), November 15, 1855. 35ince this study of the speaking of Toombs is limited in scope to speeches given in Congress, this non-congressional speech delivered in Boston is treated at this point in the study rather than in PART II. No attempt at analysis will be made; however, in view of the importance of this speech to the expression of the political philosophy of Toombs as well as the events of the time, a more detailed examination will be given this speech as apposed to minor treatments given other non- congressional speeches. The full text of this speech may be found in the Appendix to Alexander H. Stephen's War Between the States, Vol. I, 521 625-6h7 as well as in pamphlet fond—at'EEEFy'UniverETEFTEnd Duke versity. -72- The speech itself was built around two main points: (1) the constitutional powers and duties of the Federal government relative to domestic slavery, and (2) the influence of slavery upon the slave and American society. He attempted to show that slavery was an established fact at the time of independence and that the Constitution clearly recognized its existence; also, that there was not a single clause in the Constitution which gave Congress the right to "abolish, limit, restrain, or in any other manner to impair the systan of slavery in the United States...“ Cn the contrary, he said, every clause dealing with slavery "was intended either to increase it, to strengthen it, or to protect it." 9 Toombs stated that Congress did not have the Constitutional power to exclude slavery from the territories, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court a year later. On the contrary, it was the duty of the Federal government to protect the common enjoyb ment of the territories by all citizens of the United States until its authority was superseded by’a state constitution. Fundamental to Toombs' consideration of the institution of slavery per se was his firm belief, and that of most Southerners, in the superiority of the white race. When the African and Caucasian co-existed in the same society, the subordination of the African was the "normal, necessary, and proper condition, and that such subordination is the condition best calculated to promote the highest interest and the greatest happiness of both races, and consequently of the whole society....' 10 Toombs was not concerned with the question of whether 9A Lecture Delivered in the Tremont Temple, Boston, Massachusetts, an .3115 2555 9-? January, 136E LL Toombs, pamphlet, Emory University, p. o lOIbid., p. 1. -73— the African should have been removed from his home and placed in bondage, saying that England and the Christian world had already made that an accomplished fact for the Southern states at the time of their independence. Rather, Toombs contended that it was their duty to devise a practical 22333 vivendi for the various elements of society which would secure the greatest happiness for all concerned. As Africans were unfit to be trusted with political power, incapable as freemen of securing their own happiness, or promoting the public prosperity, 11 the in-slave status was recognized and perpetuated. Toombs supported his belief in this system by pointing out the numerous benefits to the slave in the Southern states: protection of life, provision for food, clothing and shelter, and benevolent treatment when old or infirmed. Though not paid in wages, he stated that the slave was compensated in kind, I'the necessaries and comforts of life,“ which frequently meant greater compensation than the free laborer received. Thus the perennial conflict between labor and capital, the division of the earnings of labor, was avoided. Toorrbs recounted some of the charges frequently made against the peculiar institution, among them the denial of religious instructionand.education to slaves, the non-recognitionlofslave marriages, and the separation of families. There was need for improvement in these areas, he said, and some states were taking remedial steps. Toombs denied that slavery was a wasteful, unprofitable system of labor, saying that wealth and productivity of the Southern states in agriculture belied this. Behind the profitability of slavery was “...A lllbid., p. 11. -7hs the fact that the "labor of the country is united with and protected by its capital, directed by the educated and intelligent, secured against its own weakness, waste, and folly, associated in such form as to give the greatest efficiency in production, and the least cost . 12 of maintenance.“ Toombs' conclusion presented a near-Utopian South. His Massachusetts listeners heard him say: No stronger evidence of what progress society may make with domestic slavery can be desired, than that which.the present condition of the slaveholding States present. For near twenty years, foreign and domestic enemies of their institution have labored by pen and speech to excite discontent among the white race, and insurrections among the black. These efforts have shaken the national government to its foundations, and bursted the bonds of Christian unity among the churches of the land; yet the objects of their attacks--these States- have scarcely felt the shock. In surveying the whole civilized world the eye rests not on a single spot where all classes of society are so well content with their social system, or have greater reason to be so, than in the slaveholding States of this Union. Stability, progress, order, peace, content, prosperity, reign throughout to overawe or protect society. The desire for organic change nowhere manifests itself. Within less than seventy years, out of five feeble colonies, with less than one and half millions of inhabitants, have emerged fourteen republican States, containing nearly ten millions of inhabitants, rich, powerful, educated, moral, refined, prosperous, and happy; each with republican governments adequate to the protection of public liberty and private rights, which are cheerfully obeyed, supported, and upheld by all classes of society. With a noble system of internal improvements penetrating almost every neighborhood, stimulating and rewarding improvements; with churches, schoolhouses, and colleges daily multiplying throughout the land, bringing endation and religious instruction to the homes of’all the people, they may safely challenge the admiration of the civilized world. None of this great improvement and progress have been even aided by the federal government; we have neither sought from it protection for our private pursuits, nor appropriations for our public improvements. They have been effected by the unaided individual efforts of an enlightened, moral, energetic, and religious people. Such.tsour social system, and such our 12Ib1d., p. 15. .«‘.\y.nulv. -7g- condition under it. Its political wisdom is vindicated in its effects on society; its morality by the practices of the patriarchs and the teachings of its apostles; we submit it to the judgment of mankind, with the firm conviction that the adoption of no other system under our circumstances would have exhibited the individual men, bond or free, in 13 a higher development, or society in a happier civilization. The speech was generally well received by the Boston audience; which remained remarkably polite, occasionally applauding, a few times hissing, but for the most part sitting in "respectful silence." At the conclusion, there were three cheers for the senator from Georgia; and as reported in the New York Herald there seemed to be a "general expression of approbation toward the lecturer, not of his opinion, but of his candor and bearing." Of particular interest to this study are the distinct differences between his Boston speech and those delivered in Congress. These differences are revealed in two very distinct ways. First, this is the only speech given by Toombs which was written out prior to delivery. 15 This same source also stated that "no one to his knowledge has ever seen a manuscript of any of Toombs' speeches except the Boston Speech." Secondly, the speech was delivered in a manner quite opposite to his congressional outburst in that 13Ibid., p. 16. ILQuoted in the Milledgeville Federal Union, February 5, 1856. lsInterview with Mr. William w. Brewton of College Park, Georgia, life-time student of the life and speaking of Robert Toombs and author of The Son of Thunder, which deals with Toombs as a speaker, July, 22, 1965. MT. Brewton's testimony on this point is further based on the fact that the same thing was said about this speech to Mr. Brewton by Mr. Toombs DuBose, grandson of Robert Toombs, who is now deceased. Mr. Toombs DuBose was the son.of Sallie Toombs DuBose and was reared by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Toombs following the_b_e.. While brief excerpts were found in various newspapers, no complete texts of his speeches were discovered except in the above mentioned publication. As previously stated, also, it is believed that no written manuscripts of his congressional speeches were prepared prior to delivery. In 1883, Toombs gave the following account -129- -130— of the loss of his personal books and papers to a reporter from the Atlanta Constitution. When the last days of the war bnought the thieving federals this way they stole my books and manuscripts. I would not take a hundred thousand dollars for them now if I had them, and there was a time when I would not have taken a million for them. When Grant became president, I went to Washington to endeavor to recover these papers. When I entered I was received quite cordially, and stated my errand. President Grant took the greatest interest in the matter, not only assuring me that I should have my papers returned, but de- tailing an efficient officer to aid me in the search. 1 If there ever were manuscripts of his Speeches, this circumstance might well account for their present non-existence and definitely gives further evidence in support of the fact that no manuscripts of his congressional speeches, as well.as non-congressional speeches, have ever been found except the one of his Boston speech given in 1856. Again, that is the only known extant manuscript of’a speech given by Toombs. Though not with direct reference to his congressional speeches, it has been stated that None of Robert Toombs' great stump speeches were reported in shorthand--not even his passionate appeal to the Milledgeville secession convention....As in the case with Toombs, Hill, Stephens McDuffie, and so many others, their best things are lost. é That Toombs was apparently disinterested in the preservation of his speeches is commented upon by several of his contemporaries, one of whom said that "Toombs was utterly indifferent to his harvest, husbanding none of his achievements, preserving none of his speeches."3 1Atlanta Constitution, Augist 8, 1883. 2latson, Histo y g ry of Southern Orator in The South in the Buildin 91 Li: Nation, pp. 169-75. — _ ~ _ 3Knight, Reminiscences pf Famous Georgians, p. 101. -131- This same source further says that Toombs produced no writings of his own during his life-time, and yet another source states that Toombs' failure to leave any written accounts of himself was not from his total disregard of the value of such material but was done so with definite intent. If he had been less indifferent to men's opinions before or after death, he would have left some written memorial of his actions and their motives. He was often urged to do this, but he forbore, and was content to be judged by the Creator and the country. Thus, the belief that there are no written manuscripts of his congressional speeches, and that the only source in which thqy¢3an be found is the Congressional Globe appears to be substantially supported by the references given. If there are other sources, they *were not discovered by the extensive search made by this researcher, nor by previous researchers. The fact that the only extant speeches delivered by Toombs in Congress are those recorded in the Congressional Globe presents additional problems for the rhetorical.critic and analyst in that the textual accuracy of these speeches is highly questionable. The first question is: are the speeches as reported in the Congressional Globe a true and valid record of the actual delivery of the Speeches? Also, were these speeches revised by the speaker after being delivered; and if so, are these versions the texts which appear in the Globe. As far as can be determined, it is believed that Robert Toombs did not revise his congressional speeches. While it is impossible to 1hfiohnston, The Autobiography of Col. Richard Malcolm Johnston, p. 3 . -_'-_-‘-—_—-—— __-_—_—- -132- state definitely that he did not do so, all knownlevidence supports this theory. Perhaps one of the greatest admirers of Toombs' speaking and a contemporary, John C. Reed, has the following to say on this subject. He did not habituallg8 correct the report of his speeches, as he says May 13, l 5& 'I suppose that I have a trunk full of them (speeches). Through my engagements in the Senate, in my office at home, attending to the public interest, and trying to prevent the plundering of the Treasury, frequently I had not time, especially at the latter part of the session, to read and correct the inaccurate reports of my remarks, and.so they were placed aside for some other opportunity.‘ Extempore (meaning impromptu) discussion.was his forte. Stephens once said that his set speeches were failures. He did not correct his speeches in Congress as did so many of the other leaders of that day. 5 He further comments: I'if you are.faniliar with the man you need not fear of being led astray. His stamp is so unmistakable that you always know what is his.“ Toombs' apparent disinterest in the correction of his remarks made in Congress, as well as his pre—occupation with things of "a more enjoyable nature,‘ is noted in the following observation by Mrs. Jefferson Davis. He would sit with his hands full of the reporters' notes on his speeches for correction, with Le Medecin Mal ne Lui in the other hand, roaring over £53 pIay. Is ais to 'EIE, 'I do not see how you can endoy that so much.‘ He answered, 'Nhatever the Almighty lets his geniuses create, He makes some one to gnjoy: these plays take all the soreness out of me.' Another source has stated that 'the only address to a popular assembly 5John C. Reed Papers, pp. lh9-SO. 6Varina Howell Davis, Jefferson Davis, Ex-President of the Confederate States of America, A Memo____i:T_H—r __y __i__s W1). 1.12. -133- carefully revised by himself is that delivered in Boston, in Tremont 7 Temple, January 2h, 1856.“ The second major problem concerning the textual accuracy of Toombs' speeches as they are found in the Congressional Globe is related to the question: how accurate was the reporting of the Congressional Globe? Several contemporary researdhers into this area have agreed that the problem of textual accuracy of speeches found in the Congressional Globe presents a very definite limitation for the critic and analyst. In the case of Robert Toombs, those speeches made by him.and.reported in the Congressional Globe up to and including 1850 present a more serious problem than those reported after 1850. The findings of one source revealed that, During the first seventy years of the history of Congress the reporting of debate was a matter of private enterprise. Free lance stenographers and newspaper reporters would secure an account of the debate and publish as much of this as they thought advisable. Reports published in this way were not only meager and $ncorrect, but were also partisan and even dishonest. Research has also revealed that not until 18h8 and 1850 did the Senate and House, respectively, adopt resolutions by which contracts were made with the‘editors of the National Intelligencer and the Union to report and to publish the debates in the newspapers and to furnish the editors of the Congressional Globe with a copy of the debate for publication. 9 This same source goes on to state 7James U. Vincent, A Pen Picture 11: General Robert Toombs, p. 20. 8ZonRobinson, I'Are Speeches in Congress Reported Accurately," Quarterly Journal 2f Speech, XXVIII (February, l9h2), p. 9. 9Elizabeth G. McPherson, "Reporting the Debates of Congress," Quarterly Journal 2f Speech, XIVIII (April, 19h2), p. Ibo. ~13):- the adoption of this semi-official plan marks the beginning of verbatim reporting in Congress. This was, perhaps, due principally to the fact that the phonetic shorthand of Isaac Pitman furnished a system vastly superior to any used previously. Prior to 18h8 special proceedings and important debates had been reported more or less fully...and much of the day's business had not been reported except in a brief fragmentary“way. Comments by contemporary congressmen regarding the accuracy of the reporting by the National Intelligencer of debates and speeches made in Congress throw some light on this problan. Alexander Smythe of Virginia wrote: 'I deem the reports in that paper essentially correct although there may be occasional typographical and perhaps verbal errors.‘ John Forsyth of Georgia wrote: 'The generalccharacter of the National Intelligencer is entirely correct whatever informatiOn*it'proposes to you is usually given accurately. There are occasional errors arising.from a misconception ef the tendency of the speeches and usually however of 10 minor importance and scarcely worth the trouble of oorrection.’ Thus, it is seen that from 1789 to lBhB-SO, mainly because of publishing by private venture, reporting was inaccurate and entire speeches and debates were omitted. From lBhB-SO, however, recording was finmced by Congress; and the proceedings of both Houses were transcribed for the first time from stenOgraphic notes of the reporters and accepted as official. Thus the limitations imposed upon the analyst of Toombs' congressional speeches are those inherent in the source of these speeches. The analyses of those speeches given by Toombs through 1850 will thus be less accurate then those after 1850. However, one must work with the available sources; and it is hoped that whatever is 10Elizabeth G. McPherson, "Major Publications of Galesaind Seaten,“ Quarterly Journal 2f Speech, XXXI (December, 19h5), p. h31. ~135- revealed, though perhaps limited, will nevertheless be a meaningful and worthwhile contribution to the field of American public address. Selections for Analysis During the period from lBhS-lBél, the Congressional Else: recorded eighteen major speeches delivered by Robert Toombs in the Congress of the United States. Of these eighteen speeches, ten were delivered in the House of Representatives and eight in the Senate. For purposes of this study, six of these speeches have been.selected for detailed study; and these are individually analyzed in Chapters VIII through XIII as case studies. From the analysis of these speeches, the researcher will attempt to draw certain conclusions about the congressional speaking and speeches of Robert Toombs. In the selection of the six ”case study" speeches, an attempt was made to select those which would present a valid representation of Toombs' oratorical efforts in Congress. To accomplish this, certain criteria were established the conformity to wkdchrietermined the selected speeches: (l) The speeches should represent, insofar as possible, examples of Teombs' oratory during the entire period under study. In view of the almost equal number of years served in the House and Senate (eight in the House and seven in the Senate), as well.as the almost equal number of speeches given in both the House and the Senate (ten in the House and eight in the Senate), three speeches were selected from among those given in the House and three from among those given in the Senate. Also of concern under this first criterion was the spacing of the speeches over the entire period under study. ~136- This was felt to be necessary in order to reveal any changes which may have occurred in his approach to the construction of his speeches. Thus, to satisfy this requirement, speeches from different years and with as near as possible equal spacing between years were selected. (2) The speeches selected should be representative of the major issues upon which Toombs spoke. As stated in Chapter VI, Toombs' speeches can be classified in terms of four major issues. 11 Not only should the selected speeches represent the issues, but they should represent them proportionally to the number of speeches given on each issue. Since more than half of the congressional speeches given by Toombs dealt with the issue of 33:33.9. Eights, it was felt that an equal proportion of the case studies srbuld be drawn from speeches upon this issue. Thus four of the selected speeches deal with the issue of state ri hts, one deals with the international issue, and one jointly deals with the issues of finance and the militagz. (3) and (h) The third and fourth criteria, though related to the second but considered separately, require the speeches selected to be representative of the major interests and causes in Toombs' political career. Since one normally speaks out more frequently on those things which are of major interest, and which are viewed as major causes in one's life, the proportioning of the selected case studies was made in keeping with Toombs' interests and causes for which he fought. Thus, the speeches selected were the same as those used in meeting the requirements of the second criterion. (5) The speechesgelected should be representative of the events 113cc p. 110, Chapter VI. ~137- of the time as Toombs spoke upon such events. Since the major events of the period under study involve the highly controversial struggle between the North and the South over the issues of state rights, and under state rights the questions of slavery, property in the territories, and constitutional rights, those speeches selected in meeting this criterion were the same as those used in satisfying the requirements of the second, third, and fourth criteria. (6) The speeches selected should be those which, textually, are the most suitable for purposes of analysis. This was the most difficult criterion to satisfy in its relationship to the five previously cited. As was discussed earlier in this ctepter, the question of textual accuracy is most important in this type of analysis; and it presents a major problem in the study of congressional speeches given during the period under study. Again, in the rhetorical analysis of speeches, it is necessary, though often less than ideal, to work with the available manuscripts. In the case of Robert Toombs, this presents additional concern since the only available source of his congressional speeches is the Congressional Globe. In attempting to meet the requirements of this sixth criterion, it has been necessary to weigh its value against the values of the other criteria and arrive at a solution to the conflicting requirements of these criteria. To satisfy this sixth criterion completely, and even then the textual accuracy would still be questionable, it would be necessary to place on an equal basis the considerations of the five previously cited criteria with.this single sixth criterion. As important as textual accuracy is, it is felt that this complete equalization is not justifiable. If the textual accuracy of Toombs' speeches made after 1850 is considered -138- to be measurably superior to that of those given prior to 1850, then perhaps, but only perhaps, would the complete equalization of five criteria to one criterion be justifiable. Since it is felt that this is not true, and never could be in view of the highly questionable nature of the source, it appears that all six criteria should be considered equally in the selection of the case studies. Thus, three of the selected speeches were taken.from those given up to and including 1850, and three taken from those delivered after 1850. This solution to the problem raised by the sixth criterion mdstrongly about their non-importance and 6Lo,ica1 proof as used in this study means the reasoning process by Wth certain conclusions are arrived at through the offering of proof in the form of examples, explanations, comparisons, statistics, quotations, contrasts, repetition, restatement, etc. -1h8- secondary nature, it would appear that he would have taken the time to support them. However, one might look upon his stated purpose as a condensation of these previously raised questions, which would lend some support to his statement of the non-importance of'all other questions. If this is truly the intention of Toombs, it is not sufficient- ly clear in his remarks. Also of consideration here is the fact of the textual inaccuracy of the reporting of this speech, which might well have a bearing upon this apparent lack of support. The introduction reveals no definite pattern of lOgical proof, a circumstance which in itself does not weaken the Speech since introductions are seldom found to be constructed in terms of logical considerations. Basically, Toombs expresses his opinions, makes generalized statements, poses questions, defines, and restates his central theme in the introduction, and in so doing accomplishes quite well the overall purpose of the introduction to a speech. It appears that the materials used in his introduction serve to narrow the scope of his subject and to.focus the audience's attention upon the subject by the phrasing of his central theme as rhetorical questions. A final observation upon the introdiction is that he seems to be introducing what might be considered a secondary purpose in his definition of an "honorable peace." Having centered the attention of his listeners upon his main theme of "our rights in Oregon' and "whether to terminate the joint occupation or not," he then brings in the question of "peace --an honorable peace.“ This shift of attention and focus gives a definite indication of the value he places upon the peaceful settlement of the issue. This fact along with his mention of "honorable peace“ at other points in the speech would seem to give some value to this -11‘9- observation. Looking at this possible combination of purpose in the Speech from a lOgical point~of-view, it appears that he might well be making the implication that by terminating the joint occupation there would be future possibilities for peaceful settlement of he question currently centering in the Oregon Territory. Actually, when the speech is looked upon as a whole, the secondary purpose might in reality be his primary objective, with all supporting material reallywaimed at driving this point home to his audience. This indirect use of his material is merely a theory, but nevertheless one that might well be worth observing in getting at the "true" meaning of his speech. In the body, Toombs makes definite use of the deductive method of reasoning in the exploration of his two major points. In support of the first question in his central theme (our rights in Oregon), he raises the question of the legal title of the United States to the Oregon Territory by stating that "he did not know that he entirely agreed with any one who had spoken." Obviously, the majority of those having already expressed their views felt that there was little or no question about the right of claim by the United States to the Oregon Territory. Toombs raises that question in his first major point and supports it with a number of examples. Through the use of support by historical facts, comparisons of British and American rights in the territory, effect-to-cause reasoning upon the value of the Spanish claim and the question of right by settlement, he apparently hopes to accomplish his purpose for raising the question of our rights. Though his evidence does not resolve the question of rights whhch he has raised, it does seek to reveal that the previous idea of absolute right by the United States to the territory is unfounded and unsupported. -150- His second major point (termination of the joint occupation) receives a natural lead-in from the conclusion arrived at in the exploration of the first major point - because the United States has no definite basis for absolute claim, if she is to ever acquire any part of the territory in Qiestion, it would be to her advantage to terminate the joint arrangement in hopes of arriving at a peaceful settlement of the issue. Again, as in point one, the deductive process of reasoning is seen. Toombs states that he is "in favor of giving notice,“ and proceeds to support this view by citing reasons. Actually, he not only expresses his support for "giving notice" but also "how it is to be given." He uses his support material in developing the deductive process by means of examples followed by detailed explanations, rhetorical questions, comparisons, illustrations, testimony, cause-to- effect reasoning, fact, and restatement. In fact, he brings to rest his case for the "giving of notice" through the comparing of his position to that of the opposition, upon the question.of“what the future will hold for those Americans already living in the territory. He uses the President's testimony regarding the failure of past efforts to negotiate as well as the uncertainity of any acceptable future prOposals of settlement as support for his contention favoring the "giving of notice." Despite the inadequacies in the reporting of the speech being analyzed, it can clearly be seen that Toombs' support for his two major paints was definitely developed by the use of the deductive reasoning process. The conclusion is developed primarily by use of general statements with an overtone of challenge to the nation as a whole u: rise above the current threat of war and to look to peaceful means of settling -151- the issue. Toombs cites his own state of Georgia as desiring peace but not at the expense of her rights. In so doing, he appears to be drawing an analogy between the hopes and aspiration of one state and those of the entire country. His use of challenge and appeal is evident in this concluding part of the speech. 7 Invention (Ethical Proof) Toombs' opening statement appears to be an effort to identify himself, and in turn his subject and views, with the issue under discussion as well as the views previously expressed by other speakers. He appears to be attempting to create goodwill between himself and his audience through his direct approach in the revealing of his purpose. Following his effort to create goodwill, he continues his development of the introduction by means which should have reduced his previously established goodwill through his lack of tact and consideration for his audience. Through his assertion of the "lack of any real value to the questions already raised by previous speakers," he shows a lack of understanding with regard to one's feelings. This is a weakness in his speech that when viewed "ethically" might well have a detrimental effect upon his future efforts in the speech. Seemingly, Toombs was entirely too blunt in his assertion; his line of thought could have been more appropriately phrased. This direct attack upon the views of the past speakers may well have raised some questions in the minds of his listeners regarding the character of Toombs. 7Ethical proof as used in this study means the use made of materials to reveal the character, competency, and goodwill of the speaker. -152- In sharp contrast to his apparent lack of tact and consideration of his audience, he associates his views on the subject with that which is virtuous, noble, and desirable andmat the same time associates "peace or war" with those opposed to his views upon the issue. He says he is for "peace -— for honorable peace," thus relating his cause to that which is virtuous and noble. Toombs concludes tie introduction on a note suggesting sincerity, intellectual integrity, and wisdom. Let the committee, then,endeavor to elevate themselves to the true magnitude of this question; and let them endeavor to repress that intense sectional feeling which looked only to the attainment of sectional power; and let them bring whatever of wisdom and of patriotism they could command to the consideration of a question so deeply affecting the welfare of our common country. In the body, he makes extensive use of ethical proof in that he suggests competency through his broad familiarity with the issue and through his use of speech materials. Whether or not aware of his lack of tact and consideration in the introduction, re seems to make more appropriate use of them in the body. Rather than saying that those persons are in error who feel that the United States has definite claim to the territory up as far as the Shth parallel, he implies this and then proceeds to prove it in the development of his first major point. He also attempts to associate his views with what is true, and in so doing presents himself as the messenger of the truth by stating that he will "plant himself only on that which he believed to be truth." 9 88cc p. 286 of Appendix B. 9Ibid. -153- Toombs' use of ethical proof seems to indicate his desire to let the conclusions reached be completely determined by the materials themselves, in that he does not appear to misuse his materials nor unjustifiably slant them toward the accomplishment of his end objective. He appears to be sincere, straightforward, and accurate in his remarks; and in the opinion of this critic his ethics are sound. The conclusion also reveals appropriate use of ethical proof through the association of his cause with that which is virtuous, noble, and necessary. Invention (Emotional Proof) Toombs employs the use of suggestion 11 in the expression of his purpose and carries such suggestion further by raising the question of the importance of other questions previously raised by past speakers in the debate. Thus he begins his introduction by appealing to the audience's sense of intellectual curiosity; he is basically saying that he sees the issue from a different vieWpoint and implies that his listeners might also profit from looking at it differently. Here he employs the unexpected as a means of hapefully obtaining the attention of his audience as well as motivating the thinking power of his listeners. Though previously considered as possibly having a negative effect when viewing its uses in other aspects of the analysis, his implication of the non-importance of previously cited questions would appear to be desirable.frcm.tie emotional viewpoint 10Emotional proof as used in this study includes all those materials and devices, not considered to be logical or ethical proof, calculated to put the audience in a frame of mind suitable for the reception of the speaker's ideas. 11$uggesticn, though not a direct basic emotional appeal, is for purposes of this study classified under emotional proof. This has been done because of its frequent use in the introduction of’strictly emotive appeals. For purposes of this study, it is more appropriately classified under emotional proof than under any of the other areas of analysis. ~15h- in that it might well have stimulated desire on the part of the audience to know why Toombs felt this way. If this was indeed the case, it would have served to reinforce his purpose or central theme. One cannot overlook this instance in the speech as being representative of the ever-present inter-relationships of the various types of proof -- those of the logical, ethical, and emotional. It has been noted that in the opinion of this critic, that Toombs' use of logical proof and ethical proof in this part of the speech is highly questionable with regard to its appropriateness; however, it appears to serve a definitely useful purpose when viewed as emotional proof. Following his attempt to obtain the audience's attention, Toombs directs his use of emotional appeal to the audience's sense of preservation and unity by reference to the desirability of a peaceful settlement to the issue. As previously stated, this appears to be, in reality, his underlying or secondary theme in the speech. This line of thought is furthered by his direct appeal to justice through his introduction and definition of “honorable peace,“ which also appeals to one’s pride in.country as well as in self. His wording and arrangement of materials appear especially inspiring and patriotic at this point in the speech. His appeal to the patriotic spirit of his audience is reinforced thnaugh an appeal to their sense of honor by his challenge not to retreat but to face up to the issue. The current of events had brought us into a defile, where, if we could not with safety advance, we certainly could not retreat with honor. 12 leee p.286 of Appendix B. 4.55- He concludes his introduction through.an appeal for unity which, as previously noted, also serves as a transition between the introduction and the body. We are all embarked in the same ship, and we ought all to make common cause when it is threatened with danger. 13 The body, like the introduction, makes extensive use of suggestion. Toombs develops his two major points through suggesting, first that the United States does not have absolute legal claim to the territory in question, and second that this joint occupation should be terminated. This reinforces his purpose and gives unity between the introduction and the body. Following this questioning, by use of suggestion, of the line of thought previously develOped by the opposition, he proceeds to prove his assertion by appeals to fear, justice, preservation, change, and pride. His use of the appeal to fear is clearly seen in his assertion that "gentlemen, (referring to previous speakers) for some reason or other, seemed to be fearful of touching the question as to what were actually our rights in Oregon." 1h He also uses fear anneal in this instance to reinforce his belief that tie past assertions from other sneakers -- that the United States' claim was legal -- is highly questionable; at the same time he gives credence to the broader scope of the subject which he is about to reveal. Further use is made of the appeal to fear when he talks about the future of those Americans 13Ihid. lhlbgg. -156- already living in the Oregon Territory and what will happen to them if the joint occupation continues. His appeal to justice is seen in his use of such words as "fairly" and "honestly." His second major point makes definite appeal to change in that he states the United States should terminate the joint occupation agreement with Britain. Overall, his use of emotional appeals in the text of the speech appears to be in good taste. Finall" the conclusion is develo ed rimaril' b' continued use J) of those appeals already employed in the body of the speech. Style In all fairness to the speaker, Robert Toombs, it is felt that this analysis of style should be prefaced with the following comment. In order to make an accurate analysis and evaluation of the style used in a speech, it is of utmost importance that one have available the exact words spoken, or if this is not the case, as near to the exact as possitle. As has already been indicated in this study, the above prerequisite is not true of the first three case studies, and is partially untrue of the last three case studies although it is greatly improved in these as compared to the earlier three. The non-availability of a text of these speeches which gives the exact words spoken by Toombs will of course result in a less meaningful analysis of all areas of investigation, but eSpecially in the area of style. However, one must work with those materials that do exist even in view of their inaccuracies. Nevertheless, the analyst and critic will endeavor to comment upon the area of style in hopes of revealing some information -157- which will be meaningful. It would be, however, unjust and inaccurate to assert that the following observations are absolutely valid, since out of necessity the analysis will.be primarily of a speculative nature. Generally speaking, the speech appears to display an appropriate style. It further appears to picture Toombs as an orator possessed of an understanding of the issue involved as well as of being capable of giving an intellectual interpretation to the various aspects of the issue. It cannot be determined just how much of the speech, as reported, is actually what Toombs said himself and how much of it is the wording of the reporter. However, the grammatical usage reveals no major inaccuracies which might alter the intended meaning. In those instances where the question of meaning does arise, it appears that it is more a lack of coherence in the line of thought currently being developed than in the realm of poor or ineffective grammar. An example of this is seen in the abrupt change of thought between his discussion of the question of the Spanish title and the negotiation between the United States and Great Britain; 15 however, he later tied these two aspects of the question tOgether. Primarily, the question of meaning resulted fronlthe choice and arrangement of words; for example his use of such words as "adroit" for skillful, "defile" for a narrow way of passage, "inchoate" for incomplete, "irrefragable" for undeniable, "ingress" for entrance, and "egress" for exit. His arrangement of words in several instances led to the questioning of his meaning; for example his use of "as well here as out of doors,“ 'as he who went furtherest,‘ "it was bootless 151b1d., pp. 286-87. ~158- now to tell," "would go as far as that to," "to his mind," and "where and what our country was." This by no means should be interpreted as implying that his choice and arrangement of words had a major detrimental effect upon the speech as a whole, for in most instan3es he displayed some equally meaningful and descriptive word choices and combinations. Such was especially the case in his wording of a humorous instance in the development of his second major point in the body of the speech. 16 His use of humor in this part of the speech tends to further substantiate the previously established fact of the excellent use made of humor in his speaking. There were other instances of appropriate wording and arrangement which are too numerous to cite but can easily be detected by reading the text of the speech itself. Here again, however, one must keep in mind the question of whether these were actually Toombs' words. On this question, one can only speculate that the reporter was recording the Speech as Toombs gave it. There are places in the text where this appears to be true, and there are other places where just the opposite is true. His style appears to be appropriate for the audience and the occasion. He seems to be aware of the intellectual level possessed by his listeners as evidenced by his wording.and overall structure. Though previously cited as perhaps being misleading or an inappropriate choice and arrangement of certain words, he may have purposefully used those words feeling that his audience would have no difficulty in understanding them. Of equal consideration may have been the seriousness of the occasion beyond the fact that this was his maiden speech as a congressman. There was an obvious absence of explosive words and phrases lélbid. , p. 290. -159- that had been such an integral part of his speeches given at the hustings in Georgia. He was now appealing to an entirely different type of audience as well as on a different type of occasion, and obviously he was well aware of the differences as reflected in the different approach taken to the current speaking situation. He injected some of his usual sarcasm, 17 but it was so disguised as to perhaps not be immediately recognized, at least not to the degree of being insulting. For example, his opening statement in the development of his first major point in the body, 18 where he expressed his belief that those previously expressed opinions by other speakers were not, and should not be, taken as the final word on the issue reveals his masterful use of indirect sarcasm. Again in the conclusion he makes effective use of indirect sarcasm when he says, "while leaving to others the inflated euloguims and bitter denunciations to which it has been my task to listen." 19 These are but additional examples of the already established fact regarding the effectiveness with which he employs sarcasm. Of particular note here is the distinct indirect nature of his sarcasm which reveals his awareness of the‘audience and occasion. Reactions Toombs' maiden effort in the House, which lasted nearly an hour, was delivered, in the opinion of a reporter for the Baltimore American, 17Sarcasm, though not strictly limited to consideration under the analysis of style, is for purposes of this study classified under style since Toombs' use of it appears to be so closely related to his choice of wording which is a distinct characteristic of style. It could equally well be dealt with under invention (lines of thought). 185ee p. 286 of Appendix B. 19Ib1d., p. 291. -1oo- "'with great force and ability which called forth the general attention . 20 . of those who heard him." Another source made the follow1ng observation about the speech. During the speech made by Toombs on the Oregon question shortly after taking his seat in the House of Representatives he proved himself capable of making a calm and thoughtful speech which was and could not be termed one of the "fire- eater" type. Toombs made a fine maiden speech on the subject, in which he proved himself to be anything but a fire-eater. He also proved that for all his congenital rashness he was still able to argue calmly about matter of policy. The speech was viewed generally as patriotic and statesmanlike by the Whig press in Georgia. The governor, George W. Crawford, wrote Alexander H. Stephens that it was the "best speech which I have had time to read...and showed more coolness than I supposed he could .. . . . a 22 exhibit on a question wrnch 18 so eminently fitted for Buncombe." One can only speculate as to what degree, if any, Toombs' speech had any direct bearing on the action taken by the House of Representatives. However, on February 9 that body voted 163 to Sh in favor of a resolution that the President give notice forthwith to Britain that joint occupation of the Oregon Territory would be annulled and abrogated within twelve months. Because an amendment which would have left the time of notification to the President's discretion was rejected, Toombs voted for the amendment but cast his ballot against 23 the resolution. 20Southern Recorder (Milledgeville, Georgia),January 20, lbho. (A reprint 176m the Baltimore American.) 21Trent, Southern Statesmen of the Old Regime, p. 220. 22Crawford to Stephens, January 29, 18h6 (Stephens Papers, Emory University.) 23Southern Banner (Athens, Georgia), Febniary l7, lBho. -lél- Following this action by the House, tie Senate debated its own resolution on Oregon for nearly two months, and on April 16 adopted a proposal similar to that of the House. After a week of adjustment by a joint committee, a joint resolution was passed by Congress on April 23, the House voting lh2-h6 and the Senate h2 to 10. The resolution, couched in moderate and conciliatory language, actually provided for Toombs' original prOposal by authorizing tie President at his discretion to giVe notice to Britain for the termination of joint occupation. Despite the bluster of expansionists, the government was reluctant to precipitate a war with Britain over Oregon since it was deeply involved in a dispute with.Mexico which was soon to explode into war. Consequently, when the British proposed to settle the difficulty by the extension of the h9th parallel, as the United States had suggested several times previously, Polk submitted the proposal to the Senate for ratification. Following the Senate's approval of the proposal, a treaty was signed in June, 18h6, which brought the Oregon controversy to a close. Summary Toombs' speech on the Oregan issue in lBhé appears to indicate his awareness of the audience and the occasion. It is further indicative of his craftsmanship in.tfe arrangement of his materials, in the use of logical, ethical, and anotional proof to bear out his contentions, and in the style through which his ideas were expressed. It is sufficient to say that in the considered opinion of this analyst and critic, the Oregon speech is but with a few exceptions clear, appropriate, and well struchred3and based on known facts is considered appropriate for the audience and the occasion. CHAPTER IX CASE STUDY #2 SPEECH ON THE TEN REGIMENT BILL - 18h? Immediate Setting and Occasion Almost a year to the day following his delivery of tie Oregon speech, Toombs spoke out for the second time on the question of the current conflict between the United States and its neighbor to the south, Mexico. His remarks in this second speech given January 8, 18h7, 1 on the Hexican issue, the first having beentielivered on May 18, 18h6, shortly after the declaration of“war, focused upon the then current bill under debate in the House which called for the addition of ten new regiments of soldiers to the alreacb' existing American forces in Mexico. As in the case of the‘Oregon Speech, Toombs delivered his speech on the "Ten Regiment Bill" in the chamber of the House of Represmtatives, with his audience being the same congressmen who had heard his earlier speech on the Oregon issue. The only difference in the setting of this current speech from that of the Oregon speech was the fact that this was the second session of the 29th Congress; the former speech having been delivered during the first session of the 29th.Congress. Although the most immediate occasion for the Speed: was the debate 1See Appendix C for the text of Toombs' speech as reported in the Congressional Globe. -162- -163- over the "Ten Regiment Bill," there were other events of a lesser immediate nature which came to bear upon the occasion for the speech. Toombs not only expressed his Opposition to the current bill under debate, but he took this occasion to elaborate upon two additional aspects of the Mexican issue. First, his criticism of tie administration's handling of the war, and second his views on the territorial issue raised by the proposed amendment to the current bill which would prohibit the institution of slavery in newly acquired territories of the United States. The first of tie so two above mentioned aspects of tr: occasion for the current speech had already been expounded upon in Toombs' earlier speech, that of May 18, 181.6, on the beican issue. Far from being evidence of ardent support of President Polk, Toombs' May 18, 181.6, speech raised the question of the President's authority in tte ordering of American troops across the Nueces River, the then-considered boundary between the two countries. Toombs viewed this movemnt of American forces as ordered by President Polk as "contrary to the laws of this country, a usurpation of the rights of this House, and an aggression on the rights of Hence.“ 2 Toombs' opposition to the war with Hexico focused primarily upon the desire of tr: Polk administration to obtain those land areas of New Mexico ard California which were at this time a part of Mexico. He, along with other Southerners and some Northerners, feared that the addition of new territories would again raise the slavery question which had been at rest since the Missouri Compromise of 1820. 2Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia), May 22, 181:6. ~16}? Toombs' fears were not unfourded, for on May 29, 18h6, David Wilmot of Pennsylvania offered an amendment excluding slavery from any territory acquired from Mexico to the then-current bill appropriating money for the President's use in prospective negotiations with Mexico. This renewal of the issue of slavery in tin territories prompted the second additional aspect of the occasion for this current speech under study. Though the Wilmot Proviso, the title under which this and future attempts to limit slavery in the territories was to become known, failed to pass Congress, it succeeded in arousing anew the ill feelings between the North and the South over the slavery question, and more specifically the expansion of the institution of slavery into the future territorial acquisitions of the United States. Thus, it is seen that as Toombs arose in the House on January 8, IBM, to deliver his "Ten Regimnt Bill" speech, he took the occasion not only to express his opposition to the current bill, but also to furtlnr his views on the war itself as well as the future position to be taken by the South regarding any and all future territorial acquisitions. Although the speech is considered to be primarily centered upon the war with Mexico and as such dealing with an intermtional rather than a national issue, it also gives very definite signs of forthcoming sectional conflicts over the issue of state rights. Arrangement The speech is divided into the classical pattern of an introduction, body, am conclusion, with the introduction and conclusion taking up less than 10% of the total speech. Although the introduction is very brief, it sets forth the purpose for the speech as well as the reason for a change in purpose prior to the delivery of the speech; further -165- it gives some general indications of the nature of his future remarks by the use of such phrases as "a new element' and "consideration of questions which have been discussed by those preceding him in tin debate." 3 The brevity of the introduction appears to result in a lessening of its organizational effectiveness in that he fails to state specifically what is involved in the second part of the purpose. He merely states "questions which have alreachr been dismissed." Quite the Opposite is true of the first part of his purpose, where he specifically directs the attention of the audience to “his objections to the bill." Of course, this may have been intentionally done in an effort to hold their interest and attention, especially since the last part of his speech deals with the issue of state rights -- a highly explosive and controversial issue by itself. In fact, one source has referred to this final part of the speech as being "an impromptu appendix,‘ 1‘ thus indicating that it was not a part of his basic speech. With all due respect to the above source, it is felt that this was not the case at all, since in the introduction Toombs states that his original intention for giving the speech had been altered by the introduction of a "new element." This |'new element" could well have been the proposed amendment to the bill calling for the prohibiting of slavery in the territories to be acquired from Mexico, which could have in turn prompted his remarks on tin issm of state rights. The boy contains nine clearly defined major points through which he carries out his purpose. Point one deals with the first part of 3S» p. 293 of Appendix C. hPhillips, The Life of Robert Toombs, p. 1:2. -166- his purpose -- his objections to the bill; points two through eight deal with his review of the war and specifically with his criticism of the manner in which the administration has handled it, as well as his proposal for the future handling of it; and point nine deals with the state rights issue, which has been suggested as the "new element“ he makes reference to in the introduction. As in tte Oregon speech (Case Study #1), Toombs uses the historical, distributive, and logical methods of development. He makes primary use of the historical method in points three, four, five, and seven; the distributive method in points two and six; the logical method in point nine; and a combination of all three in point eight. In the development of point one, as well as partially in point two, he uses comparison as his method of development by revealing the "pro' and "con" method of arrangement. This was not observed in the Oregon Speech and appears to be a new method of development employed by Toombs in this current speech. As was true in the Oregon speech, Toombs employs variety in his use of these methods of development and in so doing adds to the interest factor and lessens the possibility of weighting his audience down with too much of each one at any given point in t1: speech. This use of variety appears to add rather than detract from his overall organizational stmcture in the speech. His transition from point one to point two is clear in that it specifically turns the attention of the audieme from his discussion of the bill and directs it to his previous remarks trade in an earlier speech on the Mexican issue. This provides him with a natural lead-in to his second point while also serving as a restatement of his previously expressed position on the war. Use of restatement to reinforce his -16 7- purpose as well as the point being made is also seen at the end of most of his major points. A further distinct transition is made between points six, seven, and eight, where he directs the attention of the audience from his discussion of the war to the revealing of his personal proposal on the course of action which should be taken toward Mexico. A final transition is seen between points eight and nine, where he takes up the question of equality among tre states regarding the territorial issue. Basically the body divides itself into four distinct parts: (1) opposition to the "Ten Regiment Bill" as developed in point one, (2) review of the causes of the war and criticism of its handling by the administration as developed in points two through seven, (3) expression of Toombs' views toward the peaceful settlement of the war as developed in point eight, and (h) the expression of the Southern position on the territorial question as developed in point nine. This arrangement of his materials appears to be clearer arr! easier to follow than in the Oregon Speech. Very little if anything can be said about the conclusion based. on the text of this part of the speech. Obviously, Toombs concluded his speech with a recapitulation of the material employed in tin body as well as making a personal appeal to his audience regarding their future role in the maintaining of the Union. The reporter of this speech must have summarized Toombs' concluding remarks into the statement which appears in the text, thus making it impossible to approach any degree of accuracy in a discussion of the arrangement of the conclusion. -168- Invention (Logical Proof) Toombs' extensive use of logical proof is quite evident in this speech.and more easily recognized as such than in his Oregon speech. His use of the deductive reasoning process in the logical development of points one through eight of the body of the speech is revealed through his generalized opening statement at the beginning of each pointwwhich is then followed by support in the form of specific examples, illustrations, comparisons, facts, contrasts, opinions, rhetorical questions, and restatements. It is only in the development of his final point that he appears to make use of the inductive method. In this point, where he discusses the issue of equality among the states regarding the slavery in territories issue - and due to the controversial nature of this issue -— he was in all probability wise in using the inductive approach before specifically stating his position, and in turn the Southern attitude, on this renewal of the slavery question. The introduction makes no use of logical proof in that it contains only a general statement of his intentions in the giving of the Speech. However, as stated in the analysis of the use made of logical proof in the Oregon Speech, the absence of the element of logical proof in the introduction is more the rule than the exception and in no way weakens the speech as a whole. There is, however, some evidence of an effect-cause relationship in the introduction in that Toombs indicates that his previously planned remarks had been altered because of the introduction of 'a new element'' into the currentciebate. If this point can be interpreted as an effect-cause relationship, it is considered to be weak in development in that he does not reveal specifically what this "new element" is and thus lessens the impact of this suggested ~169— line of reasoning. As is revealed later in the Speech, this "new element" is the proposed amendment to the "Ten Regiment Bill" which, if adopted, would prohibit the introduction of slavery into the new territories to be acquired from Mexico. In all probability, Toombs purposefully avoided specific reference to this amendment in the introduction, desiring to reveal it only in the final point of his speech. Thus he seems to have weakened his introduction from the viewpoint of logical proof in order to prevent, or at least lessen, the projected negative reactions from many of his colleagues to the slavery issue during this first part of the speech. If this projected theory is in fact true, it reveals a very definite awareness on the part of Toombs toward what his audience's reaction might have been had he specified exactly what was involved in this ”new element." The bgdy, in contrast to the introduction, sets up a very definite logical pattern of development. Toombs' stated purposes in the introduction are developed point-bybpoint in the body, as previously noted, through the use of deductive reasoning (in points one through eight) and inductive (in point nine). Extensive use is made of’examples in the support of his major points as well as through the use of other equallyeffective types of support. For example, in point one he cites, through example, reason after reasonnwhy volunteer soldiers rather than regular army soldiers should be used in the conflict with Mexico; 5 and again in point three he cites, through example, how the President has attempted to stifle the debates on the Mexican issue in the House. 6 This line of logical proof is equally well develOped in the other major points 53ee pp. 293—91;. of Appendix c. 61bid., p. 295. ~170- and can readily be detected by reading the speech. There are two adverse criticism of Toombs' use of logical proof in the development of the speech. The first appears to be in the presentation of his views on a peaceful settlement of the war in which he emphasizes the fact that Mexico had committed a wrong and should be made to pay for it but not at the expmse of surrendering her land to the United States. Whereas in the development of the preceding points Toombs makes his point and adequately supports it, in point eight he continues to restate his major point and to repeat himself in his line of argument. This excessive use of restatement and repetitive argiments for his views gives to this partimlar point a sense of being labored. If anything,it weakens his argnment rather than strengthening it. He could just as effectively have treated this point as he had those preceding it, arr! thus, in the opinion of this critic, would have greatly improved the effectiveness of his use of logical proof. However, it must be said in all fairness to Toombs, and especially in view of his desire that the United States not acquire additional territories at this time because of the inevitable question of slavery that was sure to arise, that his seening over emphasis of this point is understandable. Nevertheless, the weakening of his logical structure through repeating himself over and over in the same line of argument is still in evidence despite his perhaps honorable and noble intentions of preventing sectional strife in the new territories over the slavery question. The second adverse criticism is the apparent om-sidedness of his approach to the issues spoken upon. In his defense of volunteer soldiers arr! attack upon regular soldiers, one could hardly fail to notice this -171- element of one-sidedness in that he gave no recognition to the existence of any possible desirable aspects resulting from the use of regular soldiers. Likewise, he gave no undesirable aspects of the use of volunteers. This approach gave rise to the question of whether such desirable traits of the regular and undesirable traits of the volunteers existed, and if so why were they not mentioned. Perhaps suCh did not exist, but,even.this possible answer is highly questionable. Also in his attack upon the Presidentaand the opposition party, he never once indicated the existence of any favorable actions that had been taken or initiated by those under his intense criticism. Again the question arises as to the existence of such.favorable aspects. Thus, it should be noted that there appears to be in existence this question of his arguments being one-sided. The conclusion as reported in the source of this speech, the Congressional Globe, is obviously'a brief summary of what Toombs said, and as such offers little or no possibility for analyzing logical proof. The only thing that can be said about the conclusion is that it appears, from what is stated in the reporting of the conclusion, that Toombs used some type of summary for the recapitulating of the views expressed in the body, and also presented a challenge and/or appeal to his audience for national unity. Even this is only theory, and.oonsequently this analyst hesitates to speculate further than*what has already been said regarding the use of logical proof in the conclusion. Invention (Ethical Proof) Toombs' use of ethical proof is seen primarily in his straight- forward approach to the issues taken up in the speech by which he -172- ettempts to establish goodwill between himself and the audience, as well as to project the validity of the element of truth into what he says. There is only one exception to this general observation of straightforwardness, and even there one can cite a specific possible reason for its absence. This instance is found in the introduction following the expression of his first purpose, when he says that he will then turn "to the consideration of the questions which have been discussed by those who preceded him in the debate." 7 His use of the non-specific was in all probability due to his belief that it might create a negative response from the members of the opposition party in the audience before he had the Opportunity to discuss the specific nature of these questions in the body of the speech. It this was true as previously speculated, his lack of straightforwardness would appear to be justifiable. Of course this is only theory, but it does have credence, especially in view of his discussion in the final part of the Speech of the slavery in territories issue -- an issue of a highly controversial nature. Otherwise his use of ethical proof in tre introduction appears to be quite sound in that he attempts to create goodwill, employs tact and consideration of the opposition, and offsets his personal reasons in giving the speech by the association of his future remarks with that which he feels will be for the good of the country as a whole. In the body he continues his use of the straightforward approach to the issues involvedmand supports his contentions by displaying an extensive familiarity with the issues as well as an intellectual appraisal 7Ibid., p. 293. -173- of the various aspects of such issues. Extensive use is also made in this part of the speech of the linking of the opposition to that 'which is non-virtuous and undesirable wrfile at the same time displaying his cause as being virtuous and