THE OTHER BROWN.
To wit, Senator Albert G. Brown, of Mississippi. This gentleman has been making a speech, which, more rambling and diffuse than the utterances of John Brown, is quite as radical and ten times more widely at variance with the Declaration of American Independence and the principles of free government. Perhaps the mildest suggestion of the Mississippi Brown is that the Democracy of his State must send delegates to Charleston next year to insist upon a slave code for the Territories – failing to obtain which, they must break up the Convention and destroy the party! The Chicago Times, noticing this sentiment from Brown (A. G.), promptly nominates him for Vice President of the United States, and promises him a cordial support in the contingency of his receiving the nomination. The Washington Constitution, on the contrary, “comes down” on Mr. Brown with the force of a whole bale of cotton. Possibly the singular comments of these journals find their animus in a subsequent utterance of Brown, (A. G.), to the effect that he regards Mr. Buchanan the first and most dangerous enemy to Southern rights, that he considers Mr. Douglas the second, and Mr. Seward the third. As between Douglas and Seward he recognizes no difference, except that the former is a sort of sneaking foe who stabs the South in the back, while Mr. Seward comes up face to face and strikes from the shoulder.
There is considerable force in Brown’s argument. He says that Mr. Buchanan believes in the rightfulness of slavery in the Territories and the justice of the slaveholders’ demand for protection therein, yet refuses to lend his influence for the needed enactments. Douglas, he contends, admits that slaves are property under the Constitution, but holds that Territories may rightfully prohibit the introduction of such property – they may nullify the common law of the civilized world. Mr. Seward simply takes issue with the South on the question of property, denying that human beings can be held in servitude outside of State limits and the operation of State laws. Of these three sorts of enemies Mr. Brown thinks the last is the least dangerous and quite the most respectable. The doctrine of an “irrepressible conflict” Mr. Brown heartily subscribes to. He believes in it from top to bottom, and he believes too that the only way for the South to maintain her position in the fight will be to dissolve the Union as soon as the North ceases to elect pro-slavery Presidents.
These are some of the sentiments of the other Brown. We do not think he ought to be hanged for entertaining them, or indicted, or in any way molested. But we hope he will live to see the danger of putting all his ideas in force if the Republicans should do so simple a thing as to elect a President of the United States next year.