AMERICAN ELOQUENCE

STUDIES IN AMERICAN POLITICAL HISTORY

Edited with Introduction by Alexander Johnston

Reedited by James Albert Woodburn

Volume II. (of 4)

 CONTENTS:

 V. -THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE. 

 RUFUS KING On The Missouri Struggle--United States Senate, February 11 And 14, 1820. 

 WILLIAM PINKNEY On The Missouri Struggle--United States Senate, February 15, 1820. 

 WENDELL PHILLIPS On The Murder Of Lovejoy--Faneuil Hall, Boston, December 8, 1837. 

 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS On The Constitutional War Power Over Slavery --House Of Representatives, May 25, 1836. 

 JOHN C. CALHOUN On The Slavery Question--United States Senate, March 4, 1850. 

 DANIEL WEBSTER On The Constitution And The Union--United States Senate, March 7, 1850. 

 HENRY CLAY On The Compromise Of 1850--United States Senate, July 22, 1850. 

 WENDELL PHILLIPS On The Philosophy Of The Abolition Movement--Before The Massachusetts, Anti-Slavery Society, Boston, January 27, 1853. 

 CHARLES SUMNER On The Repeal Of The Fugitive Slave Law--United States Senate, August 26, 1852. 

LIST OF PORTRAITS--VOLUME II. 

RUFUS KING -- From a steel engraving. 

JOHN Q. ADAMS -- From a painting by MARCHANT. 

JOHN C. CALHOUN -- From a daguerreotype by BRADY. 

DANIEL WEBSTER -- From a painting by R. M. STAIGG. 

HENRY CLAY -- From a crayon portrait. 

INTRODUCTION TO THE REVISED VOLUME II. 

The second volume of the American Eloquence is devoted exclusivelyto the Slavery controversy. The new material of the revised editionincludes Rufus King and William Pinkney on the Missouri Question; JohnQuincy Adams on the War Power of the Constitution over Slavery; Sumneron the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. The addition of the newmaterial makes necessary the reservation of the orations on theKansas-Nebraska Bill, and on the related subjects, for the third volume. 

In the anti-slavery struggle the Missouri question occupied a prominentplace. In the voluminous Congressional material which the longdebates called forth, the speeches of King and Pinkney are the bestrepresentatives of the two sides to the controversy, and they are ofhistorical interest and importance. John Quincy Adams' leadership inthe dramatic struggle over the right of petition in the House ofRepresentatives, and his opinion on the constitutional power of thenational government over the institution of slavery within the States, will always excite the attention of the historical student. 

In the decade before the war no subject was a greater cause ofirritation and antagonism between the States than the Fugitive SlaveLaw. Sumner's speech on this subject is the most valuable of hisspeeches from the historical point of view; and it is not only a worthyAmerican oration, but it is a valuable contribution to the history ofthe slavery struggle itself. It has been thought desirable to include ina volume of this character orations of permanent value on these themesof historic interest. A study of the speeches of a radical innovatorlike Phillips with those of compromising conservatives like Webster andClay, will lead the student into a comparison, or contrast, of thesediverse characters. The volume retains the two orations of Phillips, thetwo greatest of all his contributions to the anti-slavery struggle. Itis believed that the list of orations, on the whole, presents to thereader a series of subjects of first importance in the great slaverycontroversy. 

The valuable introduction of Professor Johnston, on "The Anti-SlaveryStruggle, " is re-printed entire. 

J. A. W. 

V. -- THE ANTI-SLAVERY STRUGGLE

Negro slavery was introduced into all the English colonies of NorthAmerica as a custom, and not under any warrant of law. The enslavementof the negro race was simply a matter against which no white personchose to enter a protest, or make resistance, while the negroesthemselves were powerless to resist or even protest. In due course oftime laws were passed by the Colonial Assemblies to protect property innegroes, while the home government, to the very last, actively protectedand encouraged the slave trade to the colonies. Negro slavery in allthe colonies had thus passed from custom to law before the AmericanRevolution broke out; and the course of the Revolution itself had littleor no effect on the system. 

From the beginning, it was evident that the course of slavery in the twosections, North and South, was to be altogether divergent. In the colderNorth, the dominant race found it easier to work than to compel negroesto work: in the warmer South, the case was exactly reversed. At theclose of the Revolution, Massachusetts led the way in an abolitionof slavery, which was followed gradually by the other States north ofVirginia; and in 1787 the ordinance of Congress organizing the NorthwestTerritory made all the future States north of the Ohio free States. "Mason and Dixon's line" and the Ohio River thus seemed, in 1790, to bethe natural boundary between the free and the slave States. 

Up to this point the white race in the two sections had dealt withslavery by methods which were simply divergent, not antagonistic. It wastrue that the percentage of slaves in the total population had beenvery rapidly decreasing in the North and not in the South, and that thegradual abolition of slavery was proceeding in the North alone, and thatwith increasing rapidity. But there was no positive evidence that theSouth was bulwarked in favor of slavery; there was no certainty but thatthe South would in its turn and in due time come to the point which theNorth had already reached, and begin its own abolition of slavery. Thelanguage of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, and Mason, in regardto the evils or the wickedness of the system of slavery, was too strongto be heard with patience in the South of after years; and in thissection it seems to have been true, that those who thought at all uponthe subject hoped sincerely for the gradual abolition of slavery inthe South. The hope, indeed, was rather a sentiment than a purpose, butthere seems to have been no good reason, before 1793, why the sentimentshould not finally develop into a purpose. 

All this was permanently changed, and the slavery policy of the Southwas made antagonistic to, and not merely divergent from, that of theNorth, by the invention of Whitney's saw gin for cleansing cottonin 1793. It had been known, before that year, that cotton could becultivated in the South, but its cultivation was made unprofitable, andchecked by the labor required to separate the seeds from the cotton. Whitney's invention increased the efficiency of this labor hundreds oftimes, and it became evident at once that the South enjoyed a practicalmonopoly of the production of cotton. The effect on the slavery policyof the South was immediate and unhappy. Since 1865, it has been foundthat the cotton monopoly of the South is even more complete under afree than under a slave labor system, but mere theory could never haveconvinced the Southern people that such would be the case. Their wholeprosperity hinged on one product; they began its cultivation under slavelabor; and the belief that labor and prosperity were equally dependenton the enslavement of the laboring race very soon made the dominant raceactive defenders of slavery. From that time the system in the South wasone of slowly but steadily increasing rigor, until, just before1860, its last development took the form of legal enactments for there-enslavement of free negroes, in default of their leaving the Statein which they resided. Parallel with this increase of rigor, there was asteady change in the character of the system. It tended very steadily tolose its original patriarchal character, and take the aspect of a purelycommercial speculation. After 1850, the commercial aspect began to bethe rule in the black belt of the Gulf States. The plantation knew onlythe overseer; so many slaves died to so many bales of cotton; and theslave population began to lose all human connection with the dominantrace. 

The acquisition of Louisiana in 1803 more than doubled the area of theUnited States, and far more than doubled the area of the slave system. Slavery had been introduced into Louisiana, as usual, by custom, and hadthen been sanctioned by Spanish and French law. It is true that Congressdid not forbid slavery in the new territory of Louisiana; but Congressdid even worse than this; under the guise of forbidding the importationof slaves into Louisiana, by the act of March 26, 1804, organizingthe territory, the phrase "except by a citizen of the United States, removing into said territory for actual settlement, and being at thetime of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves, " impliedlylegitimated the domestic slave trade to Louisiana, and legalized slaverywherever population should extend between the Mississippi and theRocky Mountains. The Congress of 1803-05, which passed the act, shouldrightfully bear the responsibility for all the subsequent growth ofslavery, and for all the difficulties in which it involved the South andthe country. 

There were but two centres of population in Louisiana, New Orleans andSt. Louis. When the southern district, around New Orleans, applied foradmission as the slave State of Louisiana, there seems to have been nosurprise or opposition on this score; the Federalist opposition to theadmission is exactly represented by Quincy's speech in the first volume. When the northern district, around St. Louis, applied for admission asthe slave State of Missouri, the inevitable consequences of the actof 1804 became evident for the first time, and all the Northern Statesunited to resist the admission. The North controlled the Houseof Representatives, and the South the Senate; and, after a severeparliamentary struggle, the two bodies united in the compromise of 1820. By its terms Missouri was admitted as a slave State, and slavery wasforever forbidden in the rest of Louisiana Territory, north of latitude36° 30' (the line of the southerly boundary of Missouri). The instinctof this first struggle against slavery extension seems to have beenmuch the same as that of 1846-60 the realization that a permission tointroduce slavery by custom into the Territories meant the formationof slave States exclusively, the restriction of the free States tothe district between the Mississippi and the Atlantic, and the finalconversion of the mass of the United States to a policy of enslavementof labor. But, on the surface, it was so entirely a struggle for thebalance of power between the two sections, that it has not seemed worthwhile to introduce any of the few reported speeches of the time. Thetopic is more fully and fairly discussed in the subsequent debates onthe Kansas-Nebraska Act. 

In 1830 William Lloyd Garrison, a Boston printer, opened the realanti-slavery struggle. Up to this time the anti-slavery sentiment, Northand South, had been content with the notion of "gradual abolition, "with the hope that the South would, in some yet unsuspected manner, be brought to the Northern policy. This had been supplemented, to someextent, by the colonization society for colonizing negroes on the westcoast of Africa; which had two aspects: at the South it was the means ofridding the country of the free negro population; at the North it was ameans of mitigating, perhaps of gradually abolishing, slavery. Garrison, through his newspaper, the Liberator, called for "immediate abolition"of slavery, for the conversion of anti-slavery sentiment intoanti-slavery purpose. This was followed by the organization of hisadherents into the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833, and theactive dissemination of the immediate abolition principle by tracts, newspapers, and lecturers. 

The anti-slavery struggle thus begun, never ceased until, in 1865, theLiberator ceased to be published, with the final abolition of slavery. In its inception and in all its development the movement was a distinctproduct of the democratic spirit. It would not have been possible in1790, or in 1810, or in 1820. The man came with the hour; and every newmile of railroad or telegraph, every new district open to population, every new influence toward the growth of democracy, broadened thepower as well as the field of the abolition movement. It was but thedeepening, the application to an enslaved race of laborers, of the workwhich Jeffersonian democracy had done, to remove the infinitely lessgrievous restraints upon the white laborer thirty year before. It couldnever have been begun until individualism at the North had advancedso far that there was a reserve force of mind--ready to reject all theinfluences of heredity and custom upon thought. Outside of religionthere was no force so strong at the North as the reverence for theConstitution; it was significant of the growth of individualism, as wellas of the anti-slavery sentiment, that Garrison could safely begin hiswork with the declaration that the Constitution itself was "a leaguewith death and a covenant with hell. "

The Garrisonian programme would undoubtedly have been considered highlyobjectionable by the South, even under to comparatively colorlessslavery policy of 1790. Under the conditions to which cotton culture hadadvanced in 1830, it seemed to the South nothing less than a proposal todestroy, root and branch, the whole industry of that section, and it wasreceived with corresponding indignation. Garrisonian abolitionists weretaken and regarded as public enemies, and rewards were even offered fortheir capture. The germ of abolitionism in the Border States found a newand aggressive public sentiment arrayed against it; and an attemptto introduce gradual abolition in Virginia in 1832-33 was hopelesslydefeated. The new question was even carried into Congress. A bill toprohibit the transportation of abolition documents by the Post-Officedepartment was introduced, taken far enough to put leading men of bothparties on the record, and then dropped. Petitions for the abolitionof slavery in the District of Columbia were met by rules requiring thereference of such petitions without reading or action; but this onlyincreased the number of petitions, by providing a new grievance tobe petitioned against, and in 1842 the "gag rule" was rescinded. Thence-forth the pro-slavery members of Congress could do nothing, andcould only become more exasperated under a system of passive resistance. 

Even at the North, indifferent or politically hostile as it had hithertoshown itself to the expansion of slavery, the new doctrines werereceived with an outburst of anger which seems to have been primarily arevulsion against their unheard of individualism. If nothing, whichhad been the object of unquestioning popular reverence, from theConstitution down or up to the church organizations, was to be sacredagainst the criticism of the Garrisonians, it was certain that theinnovators must submit for a time to a general proscription. Thus theGarrisonians were ostracised socially, and became the Ishmalites ofpolitics. Their meetings were broken up by mobs, their halls weredestroyed, their schools were attacked by all the machinery of societyand legislation, their printing presses were silenced by force or fraud, and their lecturers came to feel that they had not done their work withefficiency if a meeting passed without the throwing of stones or eggs atthe building or the orators. It was, of course, inevitable that sucha process should bring strong minds to the aid of the Garrisonians, at first from sympathy with persecuted individualism, and finally fromsympathy with the cause itself; and in this way Garrisonianism was ina great measure relieved from open mob violence about 1840, thoughit never escaped it altogether until abolition meetings ceased tobe necessary. One of the first and greatest reinforcements was theappearance of Wendell Phillips, whose speech at Faneuil Hall in 1839was one of the first tokens of a serious break in the hitherto almostunanimous public opinion against Garrisonianism. Lovejoy, a Westernanti-slavery preacher and editor, who had been driven from one place toanother in Missouri and Illinois, had finally settled at Alton, and wasthere shot to death while defending his printing press against a mob. Ata public meeting in Faneuil Hall, the Attorney-General of Massachusetts, James T. Austin, expressing what was doubtless the general sentiment ofthe time as to such individual insurrection against pronounced publicopinion, compared the Alton mob to the Boston "tea-party, " and declaredthat Lovejoy, "presumptuous and imprudent, " had "died as the fooldieth. " Phillips, an almost unknown man, took the stand, and answered inthe speech which opens this volume. A more powerful reinforcement couldhardly have been looked for; the cause which could find such a defenderwas henceforth to be feared rather than despised. To the day ofhis death he was, fully as much as Garrison, the incarnation of theanti-slavery spirit. For this reason his address on the Philosophyof the Abolition Movement, in 1853, has been assigned a place asrepresenting fully the abolition side of the question, just before itwas overshadowed by the rise of the Republican party, which opposed onlythe extension of slavery to the territories. 

The history of the sudden development of the anti-slavery struggle in1847 and the following years, is largely given in the speeches whichhave been selected to illustrate it. The admission of Texas to the Unionin 1845, and the war with Mexico which followed it, resulted in theacquisition of a vast amount of new territory by the United States. From the first suggestion of such an acquisition, the Wilmot proviso(so-called from David Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, who introduced it inCongress), that slavery should be prohibited in the new territory, waspersistently offered as an amendment to every bill appropriating moneyfor the purchase of territory from Mexico. It was passed by the Houseof Representatives, but was balked in the Senate; and the purchasewas finally made without any proviso. When the territory came to beorganized, the old question came up again: the Wilmot proviso wasoffered as an amendment. As the territory was now in the possession ofthe United States, and as it had been acquired in a war whose supporthad been much more cordial at the South than at the North, the attemptto add the Wilmot proviso to the territorial organization raised theSouthern opposition to an intensity which it had not known before. Fuel was added to the flame by the application of California, whosepopulation had been enormously increased by the discovery of gold withinher limits, for admission as a free State. If New Mexico should do thesame, as was probable, the Wilmot proviso would be practically in forcethroughout the best portion of the Mexican acquisition. The two sectionswere now so strong and so determined that compromise of any kind wasfar more difficult than in 1820; and it was not easy to reconcile orcompromise the southern demand that slavery should be permitted, andthe northern demand that slavery should be forbidden, to enter the newterritories. 

In the meantime, the Presidential election of 1848 had come and gone. Ithad been marked by the appearance of a new party, the Free Soilers, anevent which was at first extremely embarrassing to the managers ofboth the Democratic and Whig parties. On the one hand, the northern andsouthern sections of the Whig party had always been very loosely joinedtogether, and the slender tie was endangered by the least admissionof the slavery issue. On the other hand, while the Democratic nationalorganization had always been more perfect, its northern section hadalways been much more inclined to active anti-slavery work than thenorthern Whigs. Its organ, the Democratic Review, habitually spoke ofthe slaves as "our black brethren"; and a long catalogue could bemade of leaders like Chase, Hale, Wilmot, Bryant, and Leggett, whosedemocracy was broad enough to include the negro. To both parties, therefore, the situation was extremely hazardous. The Whigs had lessto fear, but were able to resist less pressure. The Democrats were moreunited, but were called upon to meet a greater danger. In the end, the Whigs did nothing; their two sections drew further apart; and thePresidential election of 1852 only made it evident that the nationalWhig party was no longer in existence. The Democratic managersevolved, as a solution of their problem, the new doctrine of "popularsovereignty, " which Calhoun re-baptized "squatter sovereignty. " Theyasserted as the true Democratic doctrine, that the question of slaveryor freedom was to be left for decision of the people of the territoryitself. To the mass of northern Democrats, this doctrine was takingenough to cover over the essential nature of the struggle; the moredemocratic leaders of the northern Democracy were driven off into theFree-Soil party; and Douglas, the champion of "popular sovereignty, "became the leading Democrat of the North. 

Clay had re-entered the Senate in 1849, for the purpose of compromisingthe sectional difficulties as he had compromised those of 1820 and of1833. His speech, as given, will show something of his motives; hissuccess resulted in the "compromise of 1850. " By its terms, Californiawas admitted as a free State; the slave trade, but not slavery, wasprohibited in the District of Columbia; a more stringent fugitive slavelaw was enacted; Texas was paid $10, 000, 000 for certain claims to theTerritory of New Mexico; and the Territories of Utah and New Mexico, covering the Mexican acquisition outside of California, were organizedwithout mentioning slavery. The last-named feature was carefullydesigned to please all important factions. It could be represented tothe Webster Whigs that slavery was excluded from the Territories namedby the operation of natural laws; to the Clay Whigs that slavery hadalready been excluded by Mexican law which survived the cession; to thenorthern Democrats, that the compromise was a formal endorsement of thegreat principle of popular sovereignty; and to the southern Democratsthat it was a repudiation of the Wilmot proviso. In the end, the essenceof the success went to the last-named party, for the legislatures of thetwo territories established slavery, and no bill to veto their actioncould pass both Houses of Congress until after 1861. 

The Supreme Court had already decided that Congress had exclusive powerto enforce the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution, though thefugitive slave law of 1793 had given a concurrent authority of executionto State officers. The law of 1850, carrying the Supreme Court'sdecision further, gave the execution of the law to United Statesofficers, and refused the accused a hearing. Its execution at the Northwas therefore the occasion of a profound excitement and horror. Casesof inhuman cruelty, and of false accusation to which no defence waspermitted, were multiplied until a practical nullification of the law, in the form of "personal liberty laws, " securing a hearing for theaccused before State magistrates, was forced by public opinion upon thelegislature of the exposed northern States. Before the excitementhad come to a head, the Whig convention of 1852 met and endorsed thecompromise of 1850 "in all its parts. " Overwhelmed in the election whichfollowed, the Whig party was popularly said to have "died of an attemptto swallow the fugitive-slave law"; it would have been more correct tohave said that the southern section of the party had deserted in a bodyand gone over to the Democratic party. National politics were thus leftin an entirely anomalous condition. The Democratic party was omnipotentat the South, though it was afterward opposed feebly by the American(or "Know Nothing ") organization, and was generally successful atthe North, though it was still met by the Northern Whigs with vigorousopposition. Such a state of affairs was not calculated to satisfythinking men; and this period seems to have been one in which veryfew thinking men of any party were at all satisfied with their partypositions. 

This was the hazardous situation into which the Democratic managerschose to thrust one of the most momentous pieces of legislation in ourpolitical history-the Kansas-Nebraska bill. The responsibility for it isclearly on the shoulders of Stephen A. Douglas. The over-land travel tothe Pacific coast had made it necessary to remove the Indian title toKansas and Nebraska, and to organize them as Territories, in order toafford protection to emigrants; and Douglas, chairman of the Senatecommittee on Territories, introduced a bill for such organization inJanuary, 1854. Both these prospective Territories had been made freesoil forever by the compromise of 1820; the question of slavery had beensettled, so far as they were concerned; but Douglas consented, after ashow of opposition, to reopen Pandora's box. His original bill didnot abrogate the Missouri compromise, and there seems to have been nogeneral Southern demand that it should do so. But Douglas had becomeintoxicated by the unexpected success of his "popular sovereignty"make-shift in regard to the Territories of 1850; and a notice of anamendment to be offered by a southern senator, abrogating the Missouricompromise, was threat or excuse sufficient to bring him to withdraw thebill. A week later, it was re-introduced with the addition of "popularsovereignty": all questions pertaining to slavery in these Territories, and in the States to be formed from them, were to be left to thedecision of the people, through their representatives; and the Missouricompromise of 1820 was declared "inoperative and void, " as inconsistentwith the principles of the territorial legislation of 1850. It mustbe remembered that the "non-intervention" of 1850 had been confessedlybased on no constitutional principle whatever, but was purely a matterof expediency; and that "non-intervention" in Utah and New Mexico was nomore inconsistent with the prohibition of slavery in Kansas and Nebraskathan "non-intervention" in the Southwest Territory, sixty years before, had been inconsistent with the prohibition of slavery in the NorthwestTerritory. Whether Douglas is to be considered as too scrupulous, or tootimid, or too willing to be terrified, it is certain that his action wasunnecessary. 

After a struggle of some months, the Kansas-Nebraska bill became law. The Missouri compromise was abrogated, and the question of the extensionof slavery to the territories was adrift again, never to be got rid ofexcept through the abolition of slavery itself by war. The demands ofthe South had now come fully abreast with the proposal of Douglas:that slavery should have permission to enter all the Territories, ifit could. The opponents of the extension of slavery, at first under thename of "Anti-Nebraska men, " then of the Republican party, carried theelections for representatives in Congress in 1854-'55, and narrowlymissed carrying the Presidential election of 1856. The percentageof Democratic losses in the congressional districts of the North wassufficient to leave Douglas with hardly any supporters in Congress fromhis own section. The Democratic party was converted at once into asolid South, with a northern attachment of popular votes which was notsufficient to control very many Congressmen or electoral votes. 

Immigration into Kansas was organized at once by leading men of the twosections, with the common design of securing a majority of the voters ofthe territory and applying "popular sovereignty" for or against slavery. The first sudden inroad of Missouri intruders was successful in securinga pro-slavery legislature and laws; but within two years the streamof free-State immigration had become so powerful, in spite of murder, outrage, and open civil war, that it was very evident that Kansas wasto be a free-State. Its expiring territorial legislature endeavoredto outwit its constituents by applying for admission as a slave State, under the Lecompton constitution; but the Douglas Democrats could notsupport the attempt, and it was defeated. Kansas, however, remained aterritory until 1861. 

The cruelties of this Kansas episode could not but be reflected in thefeelings of the two sections and in Congress. In the former it showedtoo plainly that the divergence of the two sections, indicated inCalhoun's speech of 1850, had widened to an absolute separation inthought, feeling, and purpose. In the latter the debates assumed avirulence which is illustrated by the speeches on the Sumner assault. The current of events had at least carried the sections far enough apartto give striking distance; and the excuse for action was supplied by theDred Scott decision in 1857. 

Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, claiming to be a free man under theMissouri compromise of 1820, had sued his master, and the case hadreached the Supreme Court. A majority of the justices agreed indismissing the suit; but, as nearly every justice filed an opinion, andas nearly every opinion disagreed with the other opinions on one ormore points, it is not easy to see what else is covered by the decision. Nevertheless, the opinion of the Chief justice, Roger B. Taney, attracted general attention by the strength of its argument and thecharacter of its views. It asserted, in brief, that no slave couldbecome a citizen of the United States, even by enfranchisement or Statelaw; that the prohibition of slavery by the Missouri compromise of 1820was unconstitutional and void; that the Constitution recognized propertyin slaves, and was framed for the protection of property; that Congresshad no rights or duties in the territories but such as were granted orimposed by the Constitution; and that, therefore, Congress was boundnot merely not to forbid slavery, but to actively protect slavery inthe Territories. This was just the ground which had always been held byCalhoun, though the South had not supported him in it. Now the South, rejecting Douglas and his "popular sovereignty, " was united in itsdevotion to the decision of the Supreme Court, and called upon the Northto yield unhesitating obedience to that body which Webster in 1830 hadstyled the ultimate arbiter of constitutional questions. This, it wasevident, could never be. No respectable authority at the North pretendedto uphold the keystone of Taney's argument, that slaves were regarded asproperty by the Constitution. On the contrary, it was agreed everywhereby those whose opinions were looked to with respect, that slaves wereregarded by the Constitution as "persons held to service or labor" underthe laws of the State alone; and that the laws of the State could notgive such persons a fictitious legal character outside of the State'sjurisdiction. Even the Douglas Democrats, who expressed a willingness toyield to the Supreme Court's decision, did not profess to uphold Taney'sshare in it. 

As the Presidential election of 1860 drew near, the evidences ofseparation became more manifest. The absorption of northern Democratsinto the Republican party increased until Douglas, in 1858, narrowlyescaped defeat in his contest with Lincoln for a re-election to theSenate from Illinois. In 1860 the Republicans nominated Lincoln forthe Presidency on a platform demanding prohibition of slavery inthe Territories. The southern delegates seceded from the Democraticconvention, and nominated Breckenridge, on a platform demandingcongressional protection of slavery in the Territories. The remainder ofthe Democratic convention nominated Douglas, with a declaration of itswillingness to submit to the decision of the Supreme Court on questionsof constitutional law. The remnants of the former Whig and Americanparties, under the name of the Constitutional Union party, nominatedBell without any declaration of principles. Lincoln received a majorityof the electoral votes, and became President. His popular vote was aplurality. 

Seward's address on the "Irrepressible Conflict, " which closes thisvolume, is representative of the division between the two sections, asit stood just before the actual shock of conflict. Labor systems aredelicate things; and that which the South had adopted, of enslaving thelaboring class, was one whose influence could not help being universaland aggressive. Every form of energy and prosperity which tended toadvance a citizen into the class of representative rulers tended also tomake him a slave owner, and to shackle his official policy and purposeswith considerations inseparable from his heavy personal interests. Menmight divide on other questions at the South; but on this question ofslavery the action of the individual had to follow the decisions of amajority which, by the influence of ambitious aspirants for the lead, was continually becoming more aggressive. In constitutional countries, defections to the minority are a steady check upon an aggressivemajority; but the southern majority was a steam engine without a safetyvalve. 

In this sense Seward and Lincoln, in 1858, were correct; the laborsystem of the South was not only a menace to the whole country, but onewhich could neither decrease nor stand still. It was intolerable bythe laws of its being; and it could be got rid of only by allowinga peaceable secession, or by abolishing it through war. The materialprosperity which has followed the adoption of the latter alternative, apart from the moral aspects of the case, is enough to show that theSouth has gained more than all that slavery lost. 

[Illustration: Rufus King]

RUFUS KING, OF NEW YORK. (BORN 1755, DIED 1827. )

ON THE MISSOURI BILL--UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 11 AND 14, 1820. 

The Constitution declares "that Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory andother property of the United States. " Under this power Congress havepassed laws for the survey and sale of the public lands; for thedivision of the same into separate territories; and have ordained foreach of them a constitution, a plan of temporary government, wherebythe civil and political rights of the inhabitants are regulated, and therights of conscience and other natural rights are protected. 

The power to make all needful regulations, includes the power todetermine what regulations are needful; and if a regulation prohibitingslavery within any territory of the United States be, as it has been, deemed needful, Congress possess the power to make the same, and, moreover, to pass all laws necessary to carry this power into execution. 

The territory of Missouri is a portion of Louisiana, which was purchasedof France, and belongs to the United States in full dominion; in thelanguage of the Constitution, Missouri is their territory or property, and is subject like other territories of the United States, to theregulations and temporary government, which has been, or shall beprescribed by Congress. The clause of the Constitution which grants thispower to Congress, is so comprehensive and unambiguous, and its purposeso manifest, that commentary will not render the power, or the object ofits establishment, more explicit or plain. 

The Constitution further provides that "new States may be admittedby Congress into this Union. " As this power is conferred withoutlimitation, the time, terms, and circumstances of the admission of newStates, are referred to the discretion of Congress; which may admit newStates, but are not obliged to do so--of right no new State can demandadmission into the Union, unless such demand be founded upon someprevious engagement of the United States. 

When admitted by Congress into the Union, whether by compact orotherwise, the new State becomes entitled to the enjoyment of the samerights, and bound to perform the like duties as the other States;and its citizens will be entitled to all privileges and immunities ofcitizens in the several States. 

The citizens of each State possess rights, and owe duties that arepeculiar to, and arise out of the Constitution and laws of the severalStates. These rights and duties differ from each other in the differentStates, and among these differences none is so remarkable or importantas that which proceeds from the Constitution and laws of the severalStates respecting slavery; the same being permitted in some States andforbidden in others. 

The question respecting slavery in the old thirteen States had beendecided and settled before the adoption of the Constitution, whichgrants no power to Congress to interfere with, or to change what hadbeen so previously settled. The slave States, therefore, are freeto continue or to abolish slavery. Since the year 1808 Congress havepossessed power to prohibit and have prohibited the further migrationor importation of slaves into any of the old thirteen States, and at alltimes, under the Constitution, have had power to prohibit such migrationor importation into any of the new States or territories of the UnitedStates. The Constitution contains no express provision respectingslavery in a new State that may be admitted into the Union; everyregulation upon this subject belongs to the power whose consent isnecessary to the formation and admission of new States into the Union. Congress may, therefore, make it a condition of the admission of a newState, that slavery shall be forever prohibited within the same. We may, with the more confidence, pronounce this to be the true constructionof the Constitution, as it has been so amply confirmed by the pastdecisions of Congress. 

Although the articles of confederation were drawn up and approved bythe old Congress, in the year 1777, and soon afterwards were ratified bysome of the States, their complete ratification did not take place untilthe year 1781. The States which possessed small and already settledterritory, withheld their ratification, in order to obtain from thelarge States a cession to the United States of a portion of their vacantterritory. Without entering into the reasons on which this demand wasurged, it is well known that they had an influence on Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Virginia, which States ceded to the UnitedStates their respective claims to the territory lying northwest of theriver Ohio. This cession was made on the express condition, that theceded territory should be sold for the common benefit of the UnitedStates; that it should be laid out into States, and that the Statesso laid out should form distinct republican States, and be admitted asmembers of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sovereignty, freedom, and independence as the other States. Of the four States whichmade this cession, two permitted, and the other two prohibited slavery. 

The United States having in this manner become proprietors ofthe extensive territory northwest of the river Ohio, although theconfederation contained no express provision upon the subject, Congress, the only representatives of the United States, assumed as incidentto their office, the power to dispose of this territory; and for thispurpose, to divide the same into distinct States, to provide for thetemporary government of the inhabitants thereof, and for their ultimateadmission as new States into the Federal Union. 

The ordinance for those purposes, which was passed by Congress in 1787, contains certain articles, which are called "Articles of compact betweenthe original States and the people and States within the said territory, for ever to remain unalterable, unless by common consent. " The sixthof those unalterable articles provides, "that there shall be neitherslavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory. "

The Constitution of the United States supplies the defect that existedin the articles of confederation, and has vested Congress, as has beenstated, with ample powers on this important subject. Accordingly, the ordinance of 1787, passed by the old Congress, was ratified andconfirmed by an act of the new Congress during their first session underthe Constitution. 

The State of Virginia, which ceded to the United States her claims tothis territory, consented by her delegates in the old Congress to thisordinance--not only Virginia, but North Carolina, South Carolina, andGeorgia, by the unanimous votes of their delegates in the old Congress, approved of the ordinance of 1787, by which slavery is forever abolishedin the territory northwest of the river Ohio. 

Without the votes of these States, the ordinance could not have passed;and there is no recollection of an opposition from any of these Statesto the act of confirmation, passed under the actual Constitution. Slavery had long been established in these States--the evil was felt intheir institutions, laws, and habits, and could not easily or at once beabolished. But these votes so honorable to these States, satisfactorilydemonstrate their unwillingness to permit the extension of slavery intothe new States which might be admitted by Congress into the Union. 

The States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, on the northwest of the riverOhio, have been admitted by Congress into the Union, on the conditionand conformably to the article of compact, contained in the ordinanceof 1787, and by which it is declared that there shall be neither slaverynor involuntary servitude in any of the said States. 

Although Congress possess the power of making the exclusion of slavery apart or condition of the act admitting a new State into the Union, theymay, in special cases, and for sufficient reasons, forbear to exercisethis power. Thus Kentucky and Vermont were admitted as new States intothe Union, without making the abolition of slavery the condition oftheir admission. In Vermont, slavery never existed; her laws excludingthe same. Kentucky was formed out of, and settled by, Virginia, andthe inhabitants of Kentucky, equally with those of Virginia, byfair interpretation of the Constitution, were exempt from all suchinterference of Congress, as might disturb or impair the security oftheir property in slaves. The western territory of North Carolina andGeorgia, having been partially granted and settled under the authorityof these States, before the cession thereof to the United States, andthese States being original parties to the Constitution which recognizesthe existence of slavery, no measure restraining slavery could beapplied by Congress to this territory. But to remove all doubt on thishead, it was made a condition of the cession of this territory to theUnited States, that the ordinance of 1787, except the sixth articlethereof, respecting slavery, should be applied to the same; and thatthe sixth article should not be so applied. Accordingly, the States ofTennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama, comprehending the territory cededto the United States by North Carolina and Georgia, have been admittedas new States into the Union, without a provision, by which slaveryshall be excluded from the same. According to this abstract of theproceedings of Congress in the admission of new States into the Union, of the eight new States within the original limits of the United States, four have been admitted without an article excluding slavery; three havebeen admitted on the condition that slavery should be excluded; and oneadmitted without such condition. In the few first cases, Congress wererestrained from exercising the power to exclude slavery; in the nextthree, they exercised this power; and in the last, it was unnecessary todo so, slavery being excluded by the State Constitution. 

The province of Louisiana, soon after its cession to the United States, was divided into two territories, comprehending such parts thereof aswere contiguous to the river Mississippi, being the only parts of theprovince that were inhabited. The foreign language, laws, customs, and manners of the inhabitants, required the immediate and cautiousattention of Congress, which, instead of extending, in the firstinstance, to these territories the ordinance of 1787, ordained specialregulations for the government of the same. These regulations were fromtime to time revised and altered, as observation and experience showedto be expedient, and as was deemed most likely to encourage andpromote those changes which would soonest qualify the inhabitants forself-government and admission into the Union. When the United Statestook possession of the province of Louisiana in 1804, it was estimatedto contain 50, 000 white inhabitants, 40, 000 slaves, and 2, 000 freepersons of color. 

More than four-fifths of the whites, and all the slaves, except aboutthirteen hundred, inhabited New Orleans and the adjacent territory; theresidue, consisting of less than ten thousand whites, and about thirteenhundred slaves, were dispersed throughout the country now included inthe Arkansas and Missouri territories. The greater part of the thirteenhundred slaves were in the Missouri territory, some of them having beenremoved thither from the old French settlements on the east side ofthe Mississippi, after the passing of the ordinance of 1787, by whichslavery in those settlements was abolished. 

In 1812, the territory of New Orleans, to which the ordinance of1787, with the exception of certain parts thereof, had been previouslyextended, was permitted by Congress to form a Constitution and StateGovernment, and admitted as a new State into the Union, by the nameof Louisiana. The acts of Congress for these purposes, in addition tosundry important provisions respecting rivers and public lands, whichare declared to be irrevocable unless by common consent, annex otherterms and conditions, whereby it is established, not only that theConstitution of Louisiana should be republican, but that it shouldcontain the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, that it should secure to the citizens the trial by jury in all criminalcases, and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus according to theConstitution of the United States; and after its admission into theUnion, that the laws which Louisiana might pass, should be promulgated;its records of every description preserved; and its judicial andlegislative proceedings conducted in the language in which the laws andjudicial proceedings of the United States are published and conducted. 

 * * * * *

Having annexed these new and extraordinary conditions to the act for theadmission of Louisiana into the Union, Congress may, if they shall deemit expedient, annex the like conditions to the act for the admission ofMissouri; and, moreover, as in the case of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, provide by an article for that purpose, that slavery shall not existwithin the same. 

Admitting this construction of the Constitution, it is alleged that thepower by which Congress excluded slavery from the States north-west ofthe river Ohio, is suspended in respect to the States that may be formedin the province of Louisiana. The article of the treaty referred todeclares: "That the inhabitants of the territory shall be incorporatedin the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as possible;according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to theenjoyment of all rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens ofthe United States; and in the meantime, they shall be maintained andprotected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and thereligion which they profess. "

Although there is want of precision in the article, its scope andmeaning can not be misunderstood. It constitutes a stipulation by whichthe United States engage that the inhabitants of Louisiana should beformed into a State or States, and as soon as the provisions of theConstitution permit, that they should be admitted as new States into theUnion on the footing of the other States; and before such admission, andduring their territorial government, that they should be maintained andprotected by Congress in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, andreligion. The first clause of this stipulation will be executed by theadmission of Missouri as a new State into the Union, as such admissionwill impart to the inhabitants of Missouri "all the rights, advantages, and immunities" which citizens of the United States derive from theConstitution thereof; these rights may be denominated Federal rights, are uniform throughout the Union, and are common to all its citizens:but the rights derived from the Constitution and laws of the States, which may be denominated State rights, in many particulars differfrom each other. Thus, while the Federal rights of the citizensof Massachusetts and Virginia are the same, their State rights aredissimilar and different, slavery being forbidden in one, and permittedin the other State. This difference arises out of the Constitutionsand laws of the two States, in the same manner as the difference in therights of the citizens of these States to vote for representativesin Congress arises out of the State laws and Constitution. InMassachusetts, every person of lawful age, and possessing propertyof any sort, of the value of two hundred dollars, may vote forrepresentatives to Congress. In Virginia, no person can vote forrepresentatives to Congress, unless he be a freeholder. As the admissionof a new State into the Union confers upon its citizens only the rightsdenominated Federal, and as these are common to the citizens of all theStates, as well of those in which slavery is prohibited, as of thosein which it is allowed, it follows that the prohibition of slavery inMissouri will not impair the Federal rights of its citizens, and thatsuch prohibition is not sustained by the clause of the treaty which hasbeen cited. 

As all nations do not permit slavery, the term property, in its commonand universal meaning, does not include or describe slaves. In treaties, therefore, between nations, and especially in those of the UnitedStates, whenever stipulations respecting slaves were to be made, theword "negroes, " or "slaves, " have been employed, and the omission ofthese words in this clause, increases the uncertainty whether, by theterm property, slaves were intended to be included. But admitting thatsuch was the intention of the parties, the stipulation is not onlytemporary, but extends no further than to the property actuallypossessed by the inhabitants of Missouri, when it was first occupiedby the United States. Property since acquired by them, and propertyacquired or possessed by the new inhabitants of Missouri, has in eachcase been acquired under the laws of the United States, and not duringand under the laws of the province of Louisiana. Should, therefore, thefuture introduction of slaves into Missouri be forbidden, the feelingsof the citizens would soon become reconciled to their exclusion, and theinconsiderable number of slaves owned by the inhabitants at the dateof the cession of Louisiana, would be emancipated or sent for sale intoStates where slavery exists. 

It is further objected, that the article of the act of admission intothe Union, by which slavery should be excluded from Missouri, wouldbe nugatory, as the new State in virtue of its sovereignty would be atliberty to revoke its consent, and annul the article by which slavery isexcluded. 

Such revocation would be contrary to the obligations of good faith, which enjoins the observance of our engagements; it would be repugnantto the principles on which government itself is founded; sovereignty inevery lawful government is a limited power, and can do only what itis lawful to do. Sovereigns, like individuals, are bound by theirengagements, and have no moral power to break them. Treaties betweennations repose on this principle. If the new State can revoke and annulan article concluded between itself and the United States, by whichslavery is excluded from it, it may revoke and annul any other articleof the compact; it may, for example, annul the article respecting publiclands, and in virtue of its sovereignty, assume the right to tax and tosell the lands of the United States. There is yet a more satisfactoryanswer to this objection. The judicial power of the United States isco-extensive with their legislative power, and every question arisingunder the Constitution or laws of the United States, is recognizable bythe judiciary thereof. Should the new State rescind any of the articlesof compact contained in the act of admission into the Union, that, forexample, by which slavery is excluded, and should pass a law authorizingslavery, the judiciary of the United States on proper application, wouldimmediately deliver from bondage, any person retained as a slave in saidState. And, in like manner, in all instances affecting individuals, the judiciary might be employed to defeat every attempt to violate theConstitution and laws of the United States. 

If Congress possess the power to exclude slavery from Missouri, it stillremains to be shown that they ought to do so. The examination of thisbranch of the subject, for obvious reasons, is attended with peculiardifficulty, and cannot be made without passing over arguments which, tosome of us, might appear to be decisive, but the use of which, in thisplace, would call up feelings, the influence of which would disturb, ifnot defeat, the impartial consideration of the subject. 

Slavery, unhappily, exists within the United States. Enlightened men, inthe States where it is permitted, and everywhere out of them, regret itsexistence among us, and seek for the means of limiting and of mitigatingit. The first introduction of slaves is not imputable to the presentgeneration, nor even to their ancestors. Before the year 1642, the tradeand ports of the colonies were open to foreigners equally as those ofthe mother country; and as early as 1620, a few years only after theplanting of the colony of Virginia, and the same year in which the firstsettlement was made in the old colony of Plymouth, a cargo of negroeswas brought into and sold as slaves in Virginia by a foreign ship. Fromthis beginning, the importation of slaves was continued for nearlytwo centuries. To her honor, Virginia, while a colony, opposed theimportation of slaves, and was the first State to prohibit the same, bya law passed for this purpose in 1778, thirty years before the generalprohibition enacted by Congress in 1808. The laws and customs of theStates in which slavery has existed for so long a period, must have hadtheir influence on the opinions and habits of the citizens, which oughtnot to be disregarded on the present occasion. 

 * * * * *

When the general convention that formed the Constitution took thissubject into their consideration, the whole question was once moreexamined; and while it was agreed that all contributions to the commontreasury should be made according to the ability of the several Statesto furnish the same, the old difficulty recurred in agreeing upon arule whereby such ability should be ascertained, there being no simplestandard by which the ability of individuals to pay taxes can beascertained. A diversity in the selection of taxes has been deemedrequisite to their equalization. Between communities this difficulty isless considerable, and although the rule of relative numbers would notaccurately measure the relative wealth of nations, in States in thecircumstances of the United States, whose institutions, laws, andemployments are so much alike, the rule of numbers is probably as nearequal as any other simple and practical rule can be expected to be(though between the old and new States its equity is defective), --theseconsiderations, added to the approbation which had already been given tothe rule, by a majority of the States, induced the convention to agreethat direct taxes should be apportioned among the States, according tothe whole number of free persons, and three-fifths of the slaves whichthey might respectively contain. 

The rule for apportionment of taxes is not necessarily the mostequitable rule for the apportionment of representatives among theStates; property must not be disregarded in the composition of the firstrule, but frequently is overlooked in the establishment of the second. A rule which might be approved in respect to taxes, would be disapprovedin respect to representatives; one individual possessing twice as muchproperty as another, might be required to pay double the taxes of suchother; but no man has two votes to another's one; rich or poor, each hasbut a single vote in the choice of representatives. 

In the dispute between England and the colonies, the latter denied theright of the former to tax them, because they were not represented inthe English Parliament. They contended that, according to the law of theland, taxation and representation were inseparable. The rule of taxationbeing agreed upon by the convention, it is possible that the maximwith which we successfully opposed the claim of England may have hadan influence in procuring the adoption of the same rule for theapportionment of representatives; the true meaning, however, of thisprinciple of the English constitution is, that a colony or districtis not to be taxed which is not represented; not that its numberof representatives shall be ascertained by its quota of taxes. Ifthree-fifths of the slaves are virtually represented, or their ownersobtain a disproportionate power in legislation, and in the appointmentof the President of the United States, why should not other propertybe virtually represented, and its owners obtain a like power inlegislation, and in the choice of the President? Property is notconfined in slaves, but exists in houses, stores, ships, capital intrade, and manufactures. To secure to the owners of property in slavesgreater political power than is allowed to the owners of other andequivalent property, seems to be contrary to our theory of the equalityof personal rights, inasmuch as the citizens of some States therebybecome entitled to other and greater political power than the citizensof other States. The present House of Representatives consist of onehundred and eighty-one members, which are apportioned among the Statesin a ratio of one representative for every thirty-five thousand federalmembers, which are ascertained by adding to the whole number of freepersons, three-fifths of the slaves. According to the last census, thewhole number of slaves within the United was 1, 191, 364, which entitlesthe States possessing the same to twenty representatives, and twentypresidential electors more than they would be entitled to, were theslaves excluded. By the last census, Virginia contained 582, 104 freepersons, and 392, 518 slaves. In any of the States where slavery isexcluded, 582, 104 free persons would be entitled to elect only sixteenrepresentatives, while in Virginia, 582, 104 free persons, by theaddition of three-fifths of her slaves, become entitled to elect, and doin fact elect, twenty-three representatives, being seven additional oneson account of her slaves. Thus, while 35, 000 free persons are requisiteto elect one representative in a State where slavery is prohibited, 25, 559 free persons in Virginia may and do elect a representative: sothat five free persons in Virginia have as much power in the choiceof Representatives to Congress, and in the appointment of presidentialelectors, as seven free persons in any of the States in which slaverydoes not exist. 

This inequality in the apportionment of representatives was notmisunderstood at the adoption of the Constitution, but no oneanticipated the fact that the whole of the revenue of the United Stateswould be derived from indirect taxes (which cannot be supposed tospread themselves over the several States according to the rule for theapportionment of direct taxes), but it was believed that a part ofthe contribution to the common treasury would be apportioned among theStates by the rule for the apportionment of representatives. The Statesin which slavery is prohibited, ultimately, though with reluctance, acquiesced in the disproportionate number of representatives andelectors that was secured to the slaveholding States. The concessionwas, at the time, believed to be a great one, and has proved tohave been the greatest which was made to secure the adoption of theConstitution. 

Great, however, as this concession was, it was definite, and its fullextent was comprehended. It was a settlement between the originalthirteen States. The considerations arising out of their actualcondition, their past connection, and the obligation which all felt topromote a reformation in the Federal Government, were peculiar to thetime and to the parties, and are not applicable to the new States, whichCongress may now be willing to admit into the Union. 

The equality of rights, which includes an equality of burdens, isa vital principle in our theory of government, and its jealouspreservation is the best security of public and individual freedom;the departure from this principle in the disproportionate power andinfluence, allowed to the slaveholding States, was a necessary sacrificeto the establishment of the Constitution. The effect of this concessionhas been obvious in the preponderance which it has given to theslaveholding States over the other States. Nevertheless, it is anancient settlement, and faith and honor stand pledged not to disturb it. But the extension of this disproportionate power to the new States wouldbe unjust and odious. The States whose power would be abridged, andwhose burdens would be increased by the measure, cannot be expected toconsent to it, and we may hope that the other States are too magnanimousto insist on it. 

 * * * * *

It ought not to be forgotten that the first and main object of thenegotiation which led to the acquisition of Louisiana, was the freenavigation of the Mississippi, a river that forms the sole passage fromthe western States to the ocean. This navigation, although of generalbenefit, has been always valued and desired, as of peculiar advantageto the Western States, whose demands to obtain it were neither equivocalnor unreasonable. But with the river Mississippi, by a sort of coercion, we acquired, by good or ill fortune, as our future measures shalldetermine, the whole province of Louisiana. As this acquisition was madeat the common expense, it is very fairly urged that the advantages to bederived from it should also be common. This, it is said, will not happenif slavery be excluded from Missouri, as the citizens of the Stateswhere slavery is permitted will be shut out, and none but citizens ofStates where slavery is prohibited, can become inhabitants of Missouri. 

But this consequence will not arise from the proposed exclusion ofslavery. The citizens of States in which slavery is allowed, like allother citizens, will be free to become inhabitants of Missouri, in likemanner as they have become inhabitants of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, in which slavery is forbidden. The exclusion of slaves from Missouriwill not, therefore, operate unequally among the citizens of the UnitedStates. The Constitution provides, "that the citizens of each Stateshall be entitled to enjoy all the rights and immunities of citizens ofthe several States"; every citizen may, therefore, remove from oneto another State, and there enjoy the rights and immunities of itscitizens. The proposed provision excludes slaves, not citizens, whoserights it will not, and cannot impair. 

Besides there is nothing new or peculiar in a provision for theexclusion of slavery; it has been established in the States north-westof the river Ohio, and has existed from the beginning in the old Stateswhere slavery is forbidden. The citizens of States where slavery isallowed, may become inhabitants of Missouri, but cannot hold slavesthere, nor in any other State where slavery is prohibited. As well mightthe laws prohibiting slavery in the old States become the subject ofcomplaint, as the proposed exclusion of slavery in Missouri; but thereis no foundation for such complaint in either case. It is further urged, that the admission of slaves into Missouri would be limited to theslaves who are already within the United States; that their health andcomfort would be promoted by their dispersion, and that their numberswould be the same whether they remain confined to the States whereslavery exists, or are dispersed over the new States that may beadmitted into the Union. 

That none but domestic slaves would be introduced into Missouri, and theother new and frontier States, is most fully disproved by the thousandsof fresh slaves, which, in violation of our laws, are annually importedinto Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. 

We may renew our efforts, and enact new laws with heavier penaltiesagainst the importation of slaves: the revenue cutters may morediligently watch our shores, and the naval force may be employed onthe coast of Africa, and on the ocean, to break up the slave trade--butthese means will not put an end to it; so long as markets are open forthe purchase of slaves, so long they will be supplied;--and so long aswe permit the existence of slavery in our new and frontier States, so long slave markets will exist. The plea of humanity is equallyinadmissible, since no one who has ever witnessed the experiment willbelieve that the condition of slaves is made better by the breakingup, and separation of their families, nor by their removal from the oldStates to the new ones; and the objection to the provision of the bill, excluding slavery from Missouri, is equally applicable to the likeprohibitions of the old States: these should be revoked, in order thatthe slaves now confined to certain States, may, for their health andcomfort, and multiplication, be spread over the whole Union. 

Slavery cannot exist in Missouri without the consent of Congress; thequestion may therefore be considered, in certain lights, as a new one, it being the first instance in which an inquiry respecting slavery, in acase so free from the influence of the ancient laws, usages, and mannersof the country, has come before the Senate. 

The territory of Missouri is beyond our ancient limits, and the inquirywhether slavery shall exist there, is open to many of the arguments thatmight be employed, had slavery never existed within the United States. It is a question of no ordinary importance. Freedom and slavery are theparties which stand this day before the Senate; and upon its decisionthe empire of the one or the other will be established in the new Statewhich we are about to admit into the Union. 

If slavery be permitted in Missouri with the climate, and soil, and inthe circumstances of this territory, what hope can be entertained thatit will ever be prohibited in any of the new States that will be formedin the immense region west of the Mississippi? Will the co-extensiveestablishment of slavery and of the new States throughout this region, lessen the dangers of domestic insurrection, or of foreign aggression?Will this manner of executing the great trust of admitting new Statesinto the Union, contribute to assimilate our manners and usages, toincrease our mutual affection and confidence, and to establish thatequality of benefits and burdens which constitutes the true basis of ourstrength and union? Will the militia of the nation, which must furnishour soldiers and seamen, increase as slaves increase? Will theactual disproportion in the military service of the nation be therebydiminished?--a disproportion that will be, as it has been, readilyborne, as between the original States, because it arises out of theircompact of Union, but which may become a badge of inferiority, ifrequired for the protection of those who, being free to choose, persistin the establishment of maxims, the inevitable effect of which willdeprive them of the power to contribute to the common defence, and evenof the ability to protect themselves. There are limits within whichour federal system must stop; no one has supposed that it could beindefinitely extended--we are now about to pass our original boundary;if this can be done without affecting the principles of our freegovernments, it can be accomplished only by the most vigilant attentionto plant, cherish, and sustain the principles of liberty in the newStates, that may be formed beyond our ancient limits; with our utmostcaution in this respect, it may still be justly apprehended that theGeneral Government must be made stronger as we become more extended. 

But if, instead of freedom, slavery is to prevail and spread, as weextend our dominion, can any reflecting man fail to see the necessity ofgiving to the General Government greater powers, to enable it toafford the protection that will be demanded of it? powers that will bedifficult to control, and which may prove fatal to the public liberties. 

WILLIAM PINKNEY, OF MARYLAND. (BORN 1764, DIED 1822. )

ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION'--UNITED STATES

SENATE, FEBRUARY 15, 1820. 

As I am not a very frequent speaker in this assembly, and have shown adesire, I trust, rather to listen to the wisdom of others than to layclaim to superior knowledge by undertaking to advise, even when advice, by being seasonable in point of time, might have some chance of beingprofitable, you will, perhaps, bear with me if I venture to trouble youonce more on that eternal subject which has lingered here, until allits natural interest is exhausted, and every topic connected with itis literally worn to tatters. I shall, I assure you, sir, speak withlaudable brevity--not merely on account of the feeble state of myhealth, and from some reverence for the laws of good taste which forbidme to speak otherwise, but also from a sense of justice to thosewho honor me with their attention. My single purpose, as I suggestedyesterday, is to subject to a friendly, yet close examination, some portions of a speech, imposing, certainly, on account of thedistinguished quarter from whence it came--not very imposing (if I mayso say, without departing from that respect which I sincerely feel andintend to manifest for eminent abilities and long experience) for anyother reason. 

 * * * * *

I confess to you, nevertheless, that some of the principles announcedby the honorable gentleman from New York, with an explicitness thatreflected the highest credit on his candor, did, when they were firstpresented, startle me not a little. They were not perhaps entirely new. Perhaps I had seen them before in some shadowy and doubtful shape, "If shape it might be called, that shape had none, Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb?"

But in the honorable gentleman's speech they were shadowy and doubtfulno longer. He exhibited them in forms so boldly and accurately--withcontours so distinctly traced--with features so pronounced andstriking that I was unconscious for a moment that they might be oldacquaintances. I received them as a _novi hospites_ within these walls, and gazed upon them with astonishment and alarm. I have recovered, however, thank God, from this paroxysm of terror, although not from thatof astonishment. I have sought and found tranquillity and courage inmy former consolatory faith. My reliance is that these principles willobtain no general currency; for, if they should, it requires no gloomyimagination to sadden the perspective of the future. My reliance is uponthe unsophisticated good sense and noble spirit of the American people. I have what I may be allowed to call a proud and patriotic trust, thatthey will give countenance to no principles which, if followed out totheir obvious consequences, will not only shake the goodly fabric of theUnion to its foundations, but reduce it to a melancholy ruin. The peopleof this country, if I do not wholly mistake their character, are wise aswell as virtuous. They know the value of that federal association whichis to them the single pledge and guarantee of power and peace. Theirwarm and pious affections will cling to it as to their only hope ofprosperity and happiness, in defiance of pernicious abstractions, bywhomsoever inculcated, or howsoever seductive or alluring in theiraspect. '

 * * * * *

Sir, it was but the other day that we were forbidden, (properlyforbidden I am sure, for the prohibition came from you, ) to assume thatthere existed any intention to impose a prospective restraint onthe domestic legislation of Missouri--a restraint to act upon itcontemporaneously with its origin as a State, and to continue adhesiveto it through all the stages of its political existence. We are now, however, permitted to know that it is determined by a sort of politicalsurgery to amputate one of the limbs of its local sovereignty, and thusmangled and disparaged, and thus only, to receive it into the bosom ofthe Constitution. It is now avowed that, while Maine is to be usheredinto the Union with every possible demonstration of studious reverenceon our part, and on hers, with colors flying, and all the other gracefulaccompaniments of honorable triumph, this ill-conditioned upstart of theWest, this obscure foundling of a wilderness that was but yesterdaythe hunting-ground of the savage, is to find her way into the Americanfamily as she can, with an humiliating badge of remediless inferioritypatched upon her garments, with the mark of recent, qualifiedmanumission upon her, or rather with a brand upon her forehead to tellthe stogy of her territorial vassalage, and to perpetuate the memory ofher evil propensities. It is now avowed that, while the robust districtof Maine is to be seated by the side of her truly respectable parent, co-ordinate in authority and honor, and is to be dandled into that powerand dignity of which she does not stand in need, but which undoubtedlyshe deserves, the more infantine and feeble Missouri is to be repelledwith harshness, and forbidden to come at all, unless with the ironcollar of servitude about her neck, instead of the civic crown ofrepublican freedom upon her brows, and is to be doomed forever toleading-strings, unless she will exchange those leading-strings forshackles. 

I am told that you have the power to establish this odious and revoltingdistinction, and I am referred for the proofs of that power to variousparts of the Constitution, but principally to that part of it whichauthorizes the admission of new States into the Union. I am myselfof opinion that it is in that part only that the advocates for thisrestriction can, with any hope of success, apply for a license toimpose it; and that the efforts which have been made to find it inother portions of that instrument, are too desperate to require to beencountered. I shall, however, examine those other portions before Ihave done, lest it should be supposed by those who have relied uponthem, that what I omit to answer I believe to be unanswerable. 

The clause of the Constitution which relates to the admission of newStates is in these words: "The Congress may admit new States into thisUnion, " etc. , and the advocates for restriction maintain that the useof the word "may" imports discretion to admit or to reject; and that inthis discretion is wrapped up another--that of prescribing the terms andconditions of admission in case you are willing to admit: "_Cujus estdare ejus est disponere_. " I will not for the present inquire whetherthis involved discretion to dictate the terms of admission belongs toyou or not. It is fit that I should first look to the nature and extentof it. 

I think I may assume that if such a power be anything but nominal, itis much more than adequate to the present object--that it is a powerof vast expansion, to which human sagacity can assign no reasonablelimits--that it is a capacious reservoir of authority, from which youmay take, in all time to come, as occasion may serve, the means ofoppression as well as of benefaction. I know that it professes at thismoment to be the chosen instrument of protecting mercy, and would winupon us by its benignant smiles; but I know, too, it can frown and playthe tyrant, if it be so disposed. Notwithstanding the softness which itnow assumes, and the care with which it conceals its giant proportionsbeneath the deceitful drapery of sentiment, when it next appears beforeyou it may show itself with a sterner countenance and in more awfuldimensions. It is, to speak the truth, sir, a power of colossal size--ifindeed it be not an abuse of language to call it by the gentle name of apower. Sir, it is a wilderness of power, of which fancy in her happiestmood is unable to perceive the far distant and shadowy boundary. Armedwith such a power, with religion in one hand and philanthropy in theother, and followed with a goodly train of public and private virtues, you may achieve more conquests over sovereignties not your own thanfalls to the common lot of even uncommon ambition. By the aid of such apower, skilfully employed, you may "bridge your way" over the Hellespontthat separates State legislation from that of Congress; and you may doso for pretty much the same purpose with which Xerxes once bridged hisway across the Hellespont that separates Asia from Europe. He did so, inthe language of Milton, "the liberties of Greece to yoke. " You may do sofor the analogous purpose of subjugating and reducing the sovereigntiesof States, as your taste or convenience may suggest, and fashioningthem to your imperial will. There are those in this House who appearto think, and I doubt not sincerely, that the particular restraint nowunder consideration is wise, and benevolent, and good; wise as respectsthe Union--good as respects Missouri--benevolent as respects the unhappyvictims whom with a novel kindness it would incarcerate in the south, and bless by decay and extirpation. Let all such beware, lest in theirdesire for the effect which they believe the restriction will produce, they are too easily satisfied that they have the right to impose it. The moral beauty of the present purpose, or even its politicalrecommendations (whatever they may be), can do nothing for a powerlike this, which claims to prescribe conditions _ad libitum_, and tobe competent to this purpose, because it is competent to all. Thisrestriction, if it be not smothered in its birth, will be but a smallpart of the progeny of the prolific power. It teems with a mighty brood, of which this may be entitled to the distinction of comeliness as wellas of primogeniture. The rest may want the boasted loveliness of theirpredecessor, and be even uglier than "Lapland witches". 

 * * * * *

I would not discourage authorized legislation upon those kindly, generous, and noble feelings which Providence has given to us for thebest of purposes; but when power to act is under discussion, I willnot look to the end in view, lest I should become indifferent to thelawfulness of the means. Let us discard from this high constitutionalquestion all those extrinsic considerations which have been forcedinto its discussion. Let us endeavor to approach it with a philosophicimpartiality of temper--with a sincere desire to ascertain theboundaries of our authority, and a determination to keep our wishes insubjection to our allegiance to the Constitution. 

Slavery, we are told in many a pamphlet, memorial, and speech, withwhich the press has lately groaned, is a foul blot upon our otherwiseimmaculate reputation. Let this be conceded--yet you are no nearer thanbefore to the conclusion that you possess power which may deal withother subjects as effectually as with this. Slavery, we are furthertold, with some pomp of metaphor, is a canker at the root of all thatis excellent in this republican empire, a pestilent disease that issnatching the youthful bloom from its cheek, prostrating its honor andwithering its strength. Be it so--yet if you have power to medicine toit in the way proposed, and in virtue of the diploma which you claim, you have also power in the distribution of your political alexipharmicsto present the deadliest drugs to every territory that would become aState, and bid it drink or remain a colony forever. Slavery, we are alsotold, is now "rolling onward with a rapid tide towards the boundlessregions of the West, " threatening to doom them to sterility and sorrow, unless some potent voice can say to it, thus far shalt thou go, and nofarther. Slavery engenders pride and indolence in him who commands, andinflicts intellectual and moral degradation on him who serves. Slavery, in fine, is unchristian and abominable. Sir, I shall not stop to denythat slavery is all this and more; but I shall not think myself the lessauthorized to deny that it is for you to stay the course of this darktorrent, by opposing to it a mound raised up by the labors of thisportentous discretion on the domain of others--a mound which you cannoterect but through the instrumentality of a trespass of no ordinarykind--not the comparatively innocent trespass that beats down a fewblades of grass which the first kind sun or the next refreshing showermay cause to spring again--but that which levels with the groundthe lordliest trees of the forest, and claims immortality for thedestruction which it inflicts. 

I shall not, I am sure, be told that I exaggerate this power. It hasbeen admitted here and elsewhere that I do not. But I want no suchconcession. It is manifest that as a discretionary power it iseverything or nothing--that its head is in the clouds, or that it is amere figment of enthusiastic speculation--that it has no existence, orthat it is an alarming vortex ready to swallow up all such portions ofthe sovereignty of an infant State as you may think fit to cast intoit as preparatory to the introduction into the union of the miserableresidue. No man can contradict me when I say, that if you have thispower, you may squeeze down a new-born sovereign State to the size of apigmy, and then taking it between finger and thumb, stick it into someniche of the Union, and still continue by way of mockery to call it aState in the sense of the Constitution. You may waste it to a shadow, and then introduce it into the society of flesh and blood an object ofscorn and derision. You may sweat and reduce it to a thing of skin andbone, and then place the ominous skeleton beside the ruddy and healthfulmembers of the Union, that it may have leisure to mourn the lamentabledifference between itself and its companions, to brood over itsdisastrous promotion, and to seek in justifiable discontent anopportunity for separation, and insurrection, and rebellion. What mayyou not do by dexterity and perseverance with this terrific power? Youmay give to a new State, in the form of terms which it cannotrefuse, (as I shall show you hereafter, ) a statute book of athousand volumes--providing not for ordinary cases only, but even forpossibilities; you may lay the yoke, no matter whether light or heavy, upon the necks of the latest posterity; you may send this searchingpower into every hamlet for centuries to come, by laws enacted in thespirit of prophecy, and regulating all those dear relations of domesticconcern which belong to local legislation, and which even locallegislation touches with a delicate and sparing hand. This is the firstinroad. But will it be the last? This provision is but a pioneer forothers of a more desolating aspect. It is that fatal bridge of whichMilton speaks, and when once firmly built, what shall hinder you to passit when you please for the purpose of plundering power after power atthe expense of new States, as you will still continue to call them, andraising up prospective codes irrevocable and immortal, which shall leaveto those States the empty shadows of domestic sovereignty, and convertthem into petty pageants, in themselves contemptible, but renderedinfinitely more so by the contrast of their humble faculties with theproud and admitted pretensions of those who having doomed them tothe inferiority of vassals, have condescended to take them into theirsociety and under their protection?

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union. " It isobjected that the word "may" imports power, not obligation--a right todecide--a discretion to grant or refuse. 

To this it might be answered that power is duty on many occasions. Butlet it be conceded that it is discretionary. What consequence follows?A power to refuse, in a case like this, does not necessarily involve apower to exact terms. You must look to the result which is the declaredobject of the power. Whether you will arrive at it, or not, may dependon your will; but you cannot compromise with the result intended andprofessed. 

What then is the professed result? To admit a State into this Union. 

What is that Union? A confederation of States equal insovereignty--capable of everything which the Constitution does notforbid, or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal union, betweenparties equally sovereign. They were sovereign independently of theUnion. The object of the Union was common protection for the exerciseof already existing sovereignty. The parties gave up a portion of thatsovereignty to insure the remainder. As far as they gave it up by thecommon compact they have ceased to be sovereign. The Union provides themeans of defending the residue; and it is into that Union that a newState is to come. By acceding to it, the new State is placed on the samefooting with the original States. It accedes for the same purpose, i. E. , protection for their unsurrendered sovereignty. If it comes in shornof its beams--crippled and disparaged beyond the original States, it isnot into the original Union that it comes. For it is a different sortof Union. The first was Union _inter pares_. This is a Union between"_disparates_"--between giants and a dwarf--between power andfeebleness--between full proportioned sovereignties and a miserableimage of power--a thing which that very Union has shrunk and shrivelledfrom its just size, instead of preserving it in its true dimensions. 

It is into this Union, i. E. , the Union of the Federal Constitution, that you are to admit, or refuse to admit. You can admit into no other. You cannot make the Union, as to the new State, what it is not as to theold; for then it is not this Union that you open for the entrance of anew party. If you make it enter into a new and additional compact, is itany longer the same Union?

We are told that admitting a State into the Union is a compact. Yes, but what sort of a compact? A compact that it shall be a member of theUnion, as the Constitution has made it. You cannot new fashion it. Youmay make a compact to admit, but when admitted the original compactprevails. The Union is a compact, with a provision of political powerand agents for the accomplishment of its objects. Vary that compact asto a new State--give new energy to that political power so as to make itact with more force upon a new State than upon the old--make the willof those agents more effectually the arbiter of the fate of a new Statethan of the old, and it may be confidently said that the new State hasnot entered into this Union, but into another Union. How far the Unionhas been varied is another question. But that it has been varied isclear. 

If I am told that by the bill relative to Missouri, you do not legislateupon a new State, I answer that you do; and I answer further that it isimmaterial whether you do or not. But it is upon Missouri, as a State, that your terms and conditions are to act. Until Missouri is a State, the terms and conditions are nothing. You legislate in the shape ofterms and conditions, prospectively--and you so legislate upon it thatwhen it comes into the Union it is to be bound by a contract degradingand diminishing its sovereignty--and is to be stripped of rights whichthe original parties to the Union did not consent to abandon, and whichthat Union (so far as depends upon it) takes under its protection andguarantee. 

Is the right to hold slaves a right which Massachusetts enjoys? If itis, Massachusetts is under this Union in a different character fromMissouri. The compact of Union for it, is different from thesame compact of Union for Missouri. The power of Congress isdifferent--everything which depends upon the Union is, in that respect, different. 

But it is immaterial whether you legislate for Missouri as a State ornot. The effect of your legislation is to bring it into the Union with aportion of its sovereignty taken away. 

But it is a State which you are to admit. What is a State in the senseof the Constitution? It is not a State in the general--but a State asyou find it in the Constitution. A State, generally, is a body politicor independent political society of men. But the State which you are toadmit must be more or less than this political entity. What must it be?Ask the constitution. It shows what it means by a State by reference tothe parties to it. It must be such a State as Massachusetts, Virginia, and the other members of the American confederacy--a State with fullsovereignty except as the constitution restricts it. 

 * * * * *

In a word, the whole amount of the argument on the other side is, thatyou may refuse to admit a new State, and that therefore if you admit, you may prescribe the terms. 

The answer to that argument is--that even if you can refuse, you canprescribe no terms which are inconsistent with the act you are to do. You can prescribe no conditions which, if carried into effect, wouldmake the new State less a sovereign State than, under the Union as itstands, it would be. You can prescribe no terms which will makethe compact of Union between it and the original States essentiallydifferent from that compact among the original States. You may admit, orrefuse to admit: but if you admit, you must admit a State in the senseof the Constitution--a State with all such sovereignty as belongs to theoriginal parties: and it must be into this Union that you are to admitit, not into a Union of your own dictating, formed out of the existingUnion by qualifications and new compacts, altering its character andeffect, and making it fall short of its protecting energy in referenceto the new State, whilst it acquires an energy of another sort--theenergy of restraint and destruction. 

 * * * * *

One of the most signal errors with which the argument on the other sidehas abounded, is this of considering the proposed restriction as iflevelled at the introduction or establishment of slavery. And hence thevehement declamation, which, among other things, has informed us thatslavery originated in fraud or violence. 

The truth is, that the restriction has no relation, real or pretended, to the right of making slaves of those who are free, or of introducingslavery where it does not already exist. It applies to those who areadmitted to be already slaves, and who (with their posterity) wouldcontinue to be slaves if they should remain where they are at present;and to a place where slavery already exists by the local law. Theircivil condition will not be altered by their removal from Virginia, orCarolina, to Missouri. They will not be more slaves than they now are. Their abode, indeed, will be different, but their bondage the same. Their numbers may possibly be augmented by the diffusion, and I thinkthey will. But this can only happen because their hardships will bemitigated, and their comforts increased. The checks to population, which exist in the older States, will be diminished. The restriction, therefore does not prevent the establishment of slavery, either withreference to persons or place; but simply inhibits the removal fromplace to place (the law in each being the same) of a slave, or make hisemancipation the consequence of that removal. It acts professedly merelyon slavery as it exists, and thus acting restrains its present lawfuleffects. That slavery, like many other human institutions, originatedin fraud or violence, may be conceded: but, however it originated, it isestablished among us, and no man seeks a further establishment of itby new importations of freemen to be converted into slaves. On thecontrary, all are anxious to mitigate its evils, by all the means withinthe reach of the appropriate authority, the domestic legislatures of thedifferent States. 

 * * * * *

Of the declaration of our independence, which has also been quoted insupport of the perilous doctrines now urged upon us, I need not nowspeak at large. I have shown on a former occasion how idle it is to relyupon that instrument for such a purpose, and I will not fatigue you bymere repetition. The self-evident truths announced in the Declarationof Independence are not truths at all, if taken literally; and thepractical conclusions contained in the same passage of that declarationprove that they were never designed to be so received. 

The articles of confederation contain nothing on the subject; whilst theactual Constitution recognizes the legal existence of slavery by variousprovisions. The power of prohibiting the slave trade is involved in thatof regulating commerce, but this is coupled with an express inhibitionto the exercise of it for twenty years. How then can that Constitutionwhich expressly permits the importation of slaves authorize the NationalGovernment to set on foot a crusade against slavery?

The clause respecting fugitive slaves is affirmative and active in itseffects. It is a direct sanction and positive protection of the right ofthe master to the services of his slave as derived under the local lawsof the States. The phraseology in which it is wrapped up still leavesthe intention clear, and the words, "persons held to service or laborin one State under the laws thereof, " have always been interpreted toextend to the case of slaves, in the various acts of Congress whichhave been passed to give efficacy to the provision, and in the judicialapplication of those laws. So also in the clause prescribing the ratioof representation--the phrase, "three-fifths of all other persons, "is equivalent to slaves, or it means nothing. And yet we are told thatthose who are acting under a Constitution which sanctions the existenceof slavery in those States which choose to tolerate it, are at libertyto hold that no law can sanction its existence. 

It is idle to make the rightfulness of an act the measure of sovereignpower. The distinction between sovereign power and the moral rightto exercise it has always been recognized. All political power may beabused, but is it to stop where abuse may begin? The power of declaringwar is a power of vast capacity for mischief, and capable of inflictingthe most wide-spread desolation. But it is given to Congress withoutstint and without measure. Is a citizen, or are the courts of justiceto inquire whether that, or any other law, is just, before they obey orexecute it? And are there any degrees of injustice which will withdrawfrom sovereign power the capacity of making a given law?

 * * * * *

The power is "to admit new States into this Union, " and it may be safelyconceded that here is discretion to admit or refuse. The question is, what must we do if we do anything? What must we admit, and into what?The answer is a State--and into this Union. 

The distinction between Federal rights and local rights, is an idledistinction. Because the new State acquires Federal rights, it is not, therefore, in this Union. The Union is a compact; and is it an equalparty to that compact, because it has equal Federal rights?

How is the Union formed? By equal contributions of power. Make onemember sacrifice more than another, and it becomes unequal. The compactis of two parts:

1. The thing obtained--Federal rights. 2. The price paid--localsovereignty. 

You may disturb the balance of the Union, either by diminishing thething acquired, or increasing the sacrifice paid. 

What were the purposes of coming into the Union among the originalStates? The States were originally sovereign without limit, as toforeign and domestic concerns. But being incapable of protectingthemselves singly, they entered into the Union to defend themselvesagainst foreign violence. The domestic concerns of the people were not, in general, to be acted on by it. The security of the power, of managingthem by domestic legislature, is one of the great objects of the Union. The Union is a means, not an end. By requiring greater sacrificesof domestic power, the end is sacrificed to the means. Suppose thesurrender of all, or nearly all, the domestic powers of legislation wererequired; the means would there have swallowed up the end. 

The argument that the compact may be enforced, shows that the Federalpredicament changed. The power of the Union not only acts on persons orcitizens, but on the faculty of the government, and restrains it in away which the Constitution nowhere authorizes. This new obligation takesaway a right which is expressly "reserved to the people or the States, "since it is nowhere granted to the government of the Union. You cannotdo indirectly what you cannot do directly. It is said that this Unionis competent to make compacts. Who doubts it? But can you make thiscompact? I insist that you cannot make it, because it is repugnant tothe thing to be done. 

The effect of such a compact would be to produce that inequality in theUnion, to which the Constitution, in all its provisions, is adverse. Everything in it looks to equality among the members of the Union. Underit you cannot produce inequality. Nor can you get before-hand of theConstitution, and do it by anticipation. Wait until a State is in theUnion, and you cannot do it; yet it is only upon the State in the Unionthat what you do begins to act. 

But it seems that, although the proposed restrictions may not bejustified by the clause of the Constitution which gives power to admitnew States into the Union, separately considered, there are other partsof the Constitution which, combined with that clause, will warrant it. And first, we are informed that there is a clause in this instrumentwhich declares that Congress shall guarantee to every State a republicanform of government; that slavery and such a form of government areincompatible; and, finally, as a conclusion from these premises, thatCongress not only have a right, but are bound to exclude slavery from anew State. Here again, sir, there is an edifying inconsistency betweenthe argument and the measure which it professes to vindicate. By theargument it is maintained that Missouri cannot have a republican form ofgovernment, and at the same time tolerate negro slavery. By the measureit is admitted that Missouri may tolerate slavery, as to persons alreadyin bondage there, and be nevertheless fit to be received into the Union. What sort of constitutional mandate is this which can thus be madeto bend and truckle and compromise as if it were a simple rule ofexpediency that might admit of exceptions upon motives of countervailingexpediency. There can be no such pliancy in the peremptory provisions ofthe Constitution. They cannot be obeyed by moieties and violated in thesame ratio. They must be followed out to their full extent, or treatedwith that decent neglect which has at least the merit of forbearing torender contumacy obtrusive by an ostentatious display of the very dutywhich we in part abandon. If the decalogue could be observed in thiscasuistical manner, we might be grievous sinners, and yet be liable tono reproach. We might persist in all our habitual irregularities, and still be spotless. We might, for example, continue to covet ourneighbors' goods, provided they were the same neighbors whose goods wehad before coveted--and so of all the other commandments. 

Will the gentlemen tell us that it is the quantity of slaves, not thequality of slavery, which takes from a government the republicanform? Will they tell us (for they have not yet told us) that there areconstitutional grounds (to say nothing of common sense) upon which theslavery which now exists in Missouri may be reconciled with a republicanform of government, while any addition to the number of its slaves (thequality of slavery remaining the same) from the other States, willbe repugnant to that form, and metamorphose it into some nondescriptgovernment disowned by the Constitution? They cannot have recourse tothe treaty of 1803 for such a distinction, since independently of what Ihave before observed on that head, the gentlemen have contended that thetreaty has nothing to do with the matter. 

They have cut themselves off from all chance of a convenient distinctionin or out of that treaty, by insisting that slavery beyond the oldUnited States is rejected by the Constitution, and by the law of Godas discoverable by the aid of either reason or revelation; and moreoverthat the treaty does not include the case, and if it did could not makeit better. They have, therefore, completely discredited their own theoryby their own practice, and left us no theory worthy of being seriouslycontroverted. This peculiarity in reasoning of giving out a universalprinciple, and coupling with it a practical concession that it is whollyfallacious, has indeed run through the greater part of the argumentson the other side; but it is not, as I think, the more imposing on thataccount, or the less liable to the criticism which I have here bestowedupon it. 

 * * * * *

But let us proceed to take a rapid glance at the reasons which have beenassigned for this notion that involuntary servitude and a republicanform of government are perfect antipathies. The gentleman from NewHampshire has defined a republican government to be that in which allthe men participate in its power and privileges; from whence it followsthat where there are slaves, it can have no existence. A definition isno proof, however, and even if it be dignified (as I think it was) withthe name of a maxim, the matter is not much mended. It is Lord Baconwho says "That nothing is so easily made as a maxim"; and certainly adefinition is manufactured with equal facility. A political maxim isthe work of induction, and cannot stand against experience, or stand onanything but experience. But this maxim, or definition, or whatever elseit may be, sets facts at defiance. If you go back to antiquity, you willobtain no countenance for this hypothesis; and if you look at home youwill gain still less. I have read that Sparta, and Rome, and Athens, andmany others of the ancient family, were republics. They were so in formundoubtedly--the last approaching nearer to a perfect democracy than anyother government which has yet been known in the world. Judging ofthem also by their fruits, they were of the highest order of republics. Sparta could scarcely be any other than a republic, when a Spartanmatron could say to her son just marching to battle, "Return victorious, or return no more. "

It was the unconquerable spirit of liberty, nurtured by republicanhabits and institutions, that illustrated the pass of Thermopylae. Yetslavery was not only tolerated in Sparta, but was established by oneof the fundamental laws of Lycurgus, having for its object theencouragement of that very spirit. Attica was full of slaves--yet thelove of liberty was its characteristic. What else was it that foiled thewhole power of Persia at Marathon and Salamis? What other soil than thatwhich the genial sun of republican freedom illuminated and warmed, could have produced such men as Leonidas and Miltiades, Themistocles andEpaminondas? Of Rome it would be superfluous to speak at large. It issufficient to name the mighty mistress of the world, before Sylla gavethe first stab to her liberties and the great dictator accomplishedtheir final ruin, to be reminded of the practicability of union betweencivil slavery and an ardent love of liberty cherished by republicanestablishments. 

If we return home for instruction upon this point, we perceive that sameunion exemplified in many a State, in which "Liberty has a temple inevery house, an altar in every heart, " while involuntary servitude isseen in every direction. 

Is it denied that those States possess a republican form of government?If it is, why does our power of correction sleep? Why is theconstitutional guaranty suffered to be inactive? Why am I permitted tofatigue you, as the representative of a slaveholding State, with thediscussion of the "_nugae canorae_" (for so I think them) that have beenforced into this debate contrary to all the remonstrances of tasteand prudence? Do gentlemen perceive the consequences to which theirarguments must lead if they are of any value? Do they reflect that theylead to emancipation in the old United States--or to an exclusion ofDelaware, Maryland, and all the South, and a great portion of the Westfrom the Union? My honorable friend from Virginia has no business here, if this disorganizing creed be anything but the production of a heatedbrain. The State to which I belong, must "perform a lustration"--mustpurge and purify herself from the feculence of civil slavery, andemulate the States of the North in their zeal for throwing down thegloomy idol which we are said to worship, before her senators can haveany title to appear in this high assembly. It will be in vain to urgethat the old United States are exceptions to the rule--or rather (as thegentlemen express it), that they have no disposition to apply the ruleto them. There can be no exceptions by implication only, to such arule; and expressions which justify the exemption of the old Statesby inference, will justify the like exemption of Missouri, unless theypoint exclusively to them, as I have shown they do not. The guardedmanner, too, in which some of the gentlemen have occasionally expressedthemselves on this subject, is somewhat alarming. They have nodisposition to meddle with slavery in the old United States. Perhapsnot--but who shall answer for their successors? Who shall furnish apledge that the principle once ingrafted into the Constitution, will notgrow, and spread, and fructify, and overshadow the whole land? It is thenatural office of such a principle to wrestle with slavery, wheresoeverit finds it. New States, colonized by the apostles of this principle, will enable it to set on foot a fanatical crusade against all who stillcontinue to tolerate it, although no practicable means are pointed outby which they can get rid of it consistently with their own safety. Atany rate, a present forbearing disposition, in a few or in many, is nota security upon which much reliance can be placed upon a subject as towhich so many selfish interests and ardent feelings are connected withthe cold calculations of policy. Admitting, however, that the old UnitedStates are in no danger from this principle--why is it so? There can beno other answer (which these zealous enemies of slavery can use) thanthat the Constitution recognizes slavery as existing or capable ofexisting in those States. The Constitution, then, admits that slaveryand a republican form of government are not incongruous. It associatesand binds them up together and repudiates this wild imagination whichthe gentlemen have pressed upon us with such an air of triumph. But theConstitution does more, as I have heretofore proved. It concedes thatslavery may exist in a new State, as well as in an old one--since thelanguage in which it recognizes slavery comprehends new States as wellas actual. I trust then that I shall be forgiven if I suggest, that noeccentricity in argument can be more trying to human patience, than aformal assertion that a constitution, to which slave-holding States werethe most numerous parties, in which slaves are treated as propertyas well as persons, and provision is made for the security of thatproperty, and even for an augmentation of it by a temporary importationfrom Africa, with a clause commanding Congress to guarantee a republicanform of government to those very States, as well as to others, authorizes you to determine that slavery and a republican form ofgovernment cannot coexist. 

But if a republican form of government is that in which all the men havea share in the public power, the slave-holding States will not aloneretire from the Union. The constitutions of some of the other States donot sanction universal suffrage, or universal eligibility. They requirecitizenship, and age, and a certain amount of property, to give a titleto vote or to be voted for; and they who have not those qualificationsare just as much disfranchised, with regard to the government and itspower, as if they were slaves. They have civil rights indeed (andso have slaves in a less degree; ) but they have no share in thegovernment. Their province is to obey the laws, not to assist in makingthem. All such States must therefore be forisfamiliated with Virginiaand the rest, or change their system. For the Constitution beingabsolutely silent on those subjects, will afford them no protection. TheUnion might thus be reduced from an Union to an unit. Who does not seethat such conclusions flow from false notions--that the true theory of arepublican government is mistaken--and that in such a government rights, political and civil, may be qualified by the fundamental law, upon suchinducements as the freemen of the country deem sufficient? That civilrights may be qualified as well as political, is proved by athousand examples. Minors, resident aliens, who are in a course ofnaturalization--the other sex, whether maids, or wives, or widows, furnish sufficient practical proofs of this. 

 * * * * *

We are next invited to study that clause of the Constitution whichrelates to the migration or importation, before the year 1808, of suchpersons as any of the States then existing should think proper to admit. It runs thus: "The migration or importation of such persons as anyof the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not beprohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundredand eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation notexceeding ten dollars for each person. "

It is said that this clause empowers Congress, after the year 1808, to prohibit the passage of slaves from State to State, and the word"migration" is relied upon for that purpose. 

 * * * * *

Whatever may be the latitude in which the word "persons" is capable ofbeing received, it is not denied that the word "importation" indicatesa bringing in from a jurisdiction foreign to the United States. The twotermini of the importation, here spoken of, are a foreign country andthe American Union--the first the _terminus a quo_, the second the_terminus ad quem_. The word migration stands in simple connexion withit, and of course is left to the full influence of that connection. The natural conclusion is, that the same termini belong to each, or, inother words, that if the importation must be abroad, so also must bethe migration--no other termini being assigned to the one which are notmanifestly characteristic of the other. This conclusion is so obvious, that to repel it, the word migration requires, as an appendage, explanatory phraseology, giving to it a different beginning from thatof importation. To justify the conclusion that it was intended to mean aremoval from State to State, each within the sphere of the constitutionin which it is used, the addition of the words from one to another Statein this Union, were indispensable. By the omission of these words, theword "migration" is compelled to take every sense of which it is fairlysusceptible from its immediate neighbor, "importation. " In this viewit means a coming, as "importation" means a bringing, from a foreignjurisdiction into the United States. That it is susceptible of thismeaning, nobody doubts. I go further. It can have no other meaning inthe place in which it is found. It is found in the Constitution of thisUnion--which, when it speaks of migration as of a general concern, mustbe supposed to have in view a migration into the domain which itselfembraces as a general government. 

Migration, then, even if it comprehends slaves, does not mean theremoval of them from State to State, but means the coming of slavesfrom places beyond their limits and their power. And if this be so, thegentlemen gain nothing for their argument by showing that slaves werethe objects of this term. 

An honorable gentleman from Rhode Island, whose speech was distinguishedfor its ability, and for an admirable force of reasoning, as well toas by the moderation and mildness of its spirit, informed us, with lessdiscretion than in general he exhibited, that the word "migration" wasintroduced into this clause at the instance of some of the SouthernStates, who wished by its instrumentality to guard against a prohibitionby Congress of the passage into those States of slaves from otherStates. He has given us no authority for this supposition, and it is, therefore, a gratuitous one. How improbable it is, a moment's reflectionwill convince him. The African slave trade being open during the wholeof the time to which the entire clause in question referred, such apurpose could scarcely be entertained; but if it had been entertained, and there was believed to be a necessity for securing it, by arestriction upon the power of Congress to interfere with it, is itpossible that they who deemed it important, would have contentedthemselves with a vague restraint, which was calculated to operatein almost any other manner than that which they desired? If fear andjealousy, such as the honorable gentleman has described, had dictatedthis provision, a better term than that of "migration, " simple andunqualified, and joined, too, with the word "importation, " would havebeen found to tranquilize those fears and satisfy that jealousy. Fearand jealousy are watchful, and are rarely seen to accept a securityshort of their object, and less rarely to shape that security, of theirown accord, in such a way as to make it no security at all. They alwaysseek an explicit guaranty; and that this is not such a guaranty thisdebate has proved, if it has proved nothing else. 

WENDELL PHILLIPS, OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1811, DIED 1884. )

ON THE MURDER OF LOVEJOY;

FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, DECEMBER 8, 1837

MR. CHAIRMAN:

We have met for the freest discussion of these resolutions, and theevents which gave rise to them. [Cries of "Question, " "Hear him, " "Goon, " "No gagging, " etc. ] I hope I shall be permitted to express mysurprise at the sentiments of the last speaker, surprise not only atsuch sentiments from such a man, but at the applause they have receivedwithin these walls. A comparison has been drawn between the events ofthe Revolution and the tragedy at Alton. We have heard it asserted here, in Faneuil Hall, that Great Britain had a right to tax the colonies, and we have heard the mob at Alton, the drunken murderers of Lovejoy, compared to those patriot fathers who threw the tea overboard! Fellowcitizens, is this Faneuil Hall doctrine? ["No, no. "] The mob at Altonwere met to wrest from a citizen his just rights--met to resist thelaws. We have been told that our fathers did the same; and the gloriousmantle of Revolutionary precedent has been thrown over the mobs of ourday. To make out their title to such defence, the gentleman says thatthe British Parliament had a right to tax these colonies. It is manifestthat, without this, his parallel falls to the ground, for Lovejoyhad stationed himself within constitutional bulwarks. He was not onlydefending the freedom of the press, but he was under his own roof, inarms with the sanction of the civil authority. The men who assailed himwent against and over the laws. The mob, as the gentleman terms it--mob, forsooth! certainly we sons of the tea-spillers are a marvellouslypatient generation!--the "orderly mob" which assembled in the OldSouth to destroy the tea, were met to resist, not the laws, but illegalenactions. Shame on the American who calls the tea tax and stamp actlaws! Our fathers resisted, not the King's prerogative, but the King'susurpation. To find any other account, you must read our Revolutionaryhistory upside down. Our State archives are loaded with argumentsof John Adams to prove the taxes laid by the British Parliamentunconstitutional--beyond its power. It was not until this was made outthat the men of New England rushed to arms. The arguments of the CouncilChamber and the House of Representatives preceded and sanctioned thecontest. To draw the conduct of our ancestors into a precedent for mobs, for a right to resist laws we ourselves have enacted, is an insult totheir memory. The difference between the excitements of those days andour own, which the gentleman in kindness to the latter has overlooked, is simply this: the men of that day went for the right, as securedby the laws. They were the people rising to sustain the laws andconstitution of the Province. The rioters of our days go for theirown wills, right or wrong. Sir, when I heard the gentleman lay downprinciples which place the murderers of Alton side by side with Otis andHancock, with Quincy and Adams, I thought those pictured lips [pointingto the portraits in the Hall] would have broken into voice to rebuke therecreant American--the slanderer of the dead. The gentleman said that heshould sink into insignificance if he dared to gainsay the principlesof these resolutions. Sir, for the sentiments he has uttered, on soilconsecrated by the prayers of Puritans and the blood of patriots, theearth should have yawned and swallowed him up. 

[By this time, the uproar in the Hall had risen so high that the speechwas suspended for a short time. Applause and counter applause, cries of"Take that back, " "Make him take back recreant, " "He sha'n't go on tillhe takes it back, " and counter cries of "Phillips or nobody, " continueduntil the pleadings of well-known citizens had somewhat restored order, when Mr. Phillips resumed. ]

Fellow citizens, I cannot take back my words. Surely theAttorney-General, so long and so well known here, needs not the aid ofyour hisses against one so young as I am--my voice never before heardwithin these walls!

 * * * * *

I must find some fault with the statement which has been made of theevents at Alton. It has been asked why Lovejoy and his friends did notappeal to the executive--trust their defence to the police of the city?It has been hinted that, from hasty and ill-judged excitement, the menwithin the building provoked a quarrel, and that he fell in the courseof it, one mob resisting another. Recollect, sir, that they did act withthe approbation and sanction of the Mayor. In strict truth, there wasno executive to appeal to for protection. The Mayor acknowledged thathe could not protect them. They asked him if it was lawful for them todefend themselves. He told them it was, and sanctioned their assemblingin arms to do so. They were not, then, a mob; they were not merelycitizens defending their own property; they were in some sense the_posse comitatus_, adopted for the occasion into the police of the city, acting under the order of a magistrate. It was civil authority resistinglawless violence. Where, then, was the imprudence? Is the doctrine tobe sustained here that it is imprudent for men to aid magistrates inexecuting the laws?

Men are continually asking each other, Had Lovejoy a right to resist?Sir, I protest against the question instead of answering it. Lovejoy didnot resist, in the sense they mean. He did not throw himself back on thenatural right of self-defence. He did not cry anarchy, and let slip thedogs of civil war, careless of the horrors which would follow. Sir, asI understand this affair, it was not an individual protecting hisproperty; it was not one body of armed men resisting another, and makingthe streets of a peaceful city run blood with their contentions. It didnot bring back the scenes in some old Italian cities, where family metfamily, and faction met faction, and mutually trampled the laws underfoot. No! the men in that house were regularly enrolled, under thesanction of the Mayor. There being no militia in Alton, about seventymen were enrolled with the approbation of the Mayor. These relieved eachother every other night. About thirty men were in arms on the nightof the sixth, when the press was landed. The next evening, it was notthought necessary to summon more than half that number; among these wasLovejoy. It was, therefore, you perceive, sir, the police of the cityresisting rioters--civil government breasting itself to the shock oflawless men. 

Here is no question about the right of self-defence. It is in factsimply this: Has the civil magistrate a right to put down a riot?

Some persons seem to imagine that anarchy existed at Alton from thecommencement of these disputes. Not at all. "No one of us, " says aneyewitness and a comrade of Lovejoy, "has taken up arms during thesedisturbances but at the command of the Mayor. " Anarchy did not settledown on that devoted city till Lovejoy breathed his last. Till then thelaw, represented in his person, sustained itself against its foes. When he fell, civil authority was trampled under foot. He had "plantedhimself on his constitutional rights, "--appealed to the laws, --claimedthe protection of the civil authority, --taken refuge under "the broadshield of the Constitution. When through that he was pierced and fell, he fell but one sufferer in a common catastrophe. " He took refuge underthe banner of liberty--amid its folds; and when he fell, its gloriousstars and stripes, the emblem of free institutions, around which clusterso many heart-stirring memories, were blotted out in the martyr's blood. 

It has been stated, perhaps inadvertently, that Lovejoy or his comradesfired first. This is denied by those who have the best means of knowing. Guns were first fired by the mob. After being twice fired on, thosewithin the building consulted together and deliberately returned thefire. But suppose they did fire first. They had a right so to do;not only the right which every citizen has to defend himself, but thefurther right which every civil officer has to resist violence. Evenif Lovejoy fired the first gun, it would not lessen his claim to oursympathy, or destroy his title to be considered a martyr in defence of afree press. The question now is, Did he act within the constitution andthe laws? The men who fell in State Street, on the 5th of March, 1770, did more than Lovejoy is charged with. They were the first assailantsupon some slight quarrel, they pelted the troops with every missilewithin reach. Did this bate one jot of the eulogy with which Hancock andWarren hallowed their memory, hailing them as the first martyrs in thecause of American liberty? If, sir, I had adopted what are called Peaceprinciples, I might lament the circumstances of this case. But all youwho believe as I do, in the right and duty of magistrates to execute thelaws, join with me and brand as base hypocrisy the conduct of those whoassemble year after year on the 4th of July to fight over the battles ofthe Revolution, and yet "damn with faint praise" or load with obloquy, the memory of this man who shed his blood in defence of life, liberty, property, and the freedom of the press!

Throughout that terrible night I find nothing to regret but this, that, within the limits of our country, civil authority should have been soprostrated as to oblige a citizen to arm in his own defence, and to armin vain. The gentleman says Lovejoy was presumptuous and imprudent--he"died as the fool dieth. " And a reverend clergyman of the city tellsus that no citizen has a right to publish opinions disagreeable to thecommunity! If any mob follows such publication, on him rests its guilt. He must wait, forsooth, till the people come up to it and agree withhim! This libel on liberty goes on to say that the want of right tospeak as we think is an evil inseparable from republican institutions!If this be so, what are they worth? Welcome the despotism of the Sultan, where one knows what he may publish and what he may not, rather than thetyranny of this many-headed monster, the mob, where we know not what wemay do or say, till some fellow-citizen has tried it, and paid for thelesson with his life. This clerical absurdity chooses as a check for theabuses of the press, not the law, but the dread of a mob. By so doing, it deprives not only the individual and the minority of their rights, but the majority also, since the expression of their opinion maysometime provoke disturbances from the minority. A few men may make amob as well as many. The majority then, have no right, as Christian men, to utter their sentiments, if by any possibility it may lead to a mob!Shades of Hugh Peters and John Cotton, save us from such pulpits!

Imprudent to defend the liberty of the press! Why? Because the defencewas unsuccessful? Does success gild crime into patriotism, and the wantof it change heroic self-devotion to imprudence? Was Hampden imprudentwhen he drew the sword and threw away the scabbard? Yet he, judged bythat single hour, was unsuccessful. After a short exile, the race hehated sat again upon the throne. 

Imagine yourself present when the first news of Bunker Hill battlereached a New England town. The tale would have run thus: "The patriotsare routed, --the redcoats victorious, Warren lies dead upon the field. "With what scorn would that Tory have been received, who should havecharged Warren with imprudence! who should have said that, bred aphysician, he was "out of place" in that battle, and "died as the fooldieth. " How would the intimation have been received, that Warren and hisassociates should have merited a better time? But if success be indeedthe only criterion of prudence, _Respice finem_, --wait till the end!

_Presumptuous_ to assert the freedom of the press on American ground! Isthe assertion of such freedom before the age? So much before the age asto leave one no right to make it because it displeases the community?Who invents this libel on his country? It is this very thing whichentitles Lovejoy to greater praise. The disputed right which provokedthe Revolution--taxation without representation--is far beneath thatfor which he died. [Here there was a general expression of strongdisapprobation. ] One word, gentlemen. As much as thought is better thanmoney, so much is the cause in which Lovejoy died nobler than a merequestion of taxes. James Otis thundered in this hall when the King didbut touch his pocket. Imagine, if you can, his indignant eloquence hadEngland offered to put a gag upon his lips. The question that stirredthe Revolution touched our civil interests. This concerns us not only ascitizens, but as immortal beings. Wrapped up in its fate, saved or lostwith it, are not only the voice of the statesman, but the instructionsof the pulpit and the progress of our faith. 

The clergy, "marvellously out of place" where free speech is battledfor--liberty of speech on national sins! Does the gentleman rememberthat freedom to preach was first gained, dragging in its train freedomto print? I thank the clergy here present, as I reverence theirpredecessors, who did not so far forget their country in their immediateprofession as to deem it duty to separate themselves from the struggleof '76--the Mayhews and Coopers, who remembered that they were citizensbefore they were clergymen. 

Mr. Chairman, from the bottom of my heart I thank that brave little bandat Alton for resisting. We must remember that Lovejoy had fled from cityto city, --suffered the destruction of three presses patiently. At lengthhe took counsel with friends, men of character, of tried integrity, ofwide views, of Christian principle. They thought the crisis had come; itwas full time to assert the laws. They saw around them, not a communitylike our own, of fixed habits, of character moulded and settled, but one"in the gristle, not yet hardened into the bone of manhood. " Thepeople there, children of our older States, seem to have forgotten theblood-tried principles of their fathers the moment they lost sightof our New England hills. Something was to be done to show them thepriceless value of the freedom of the press, to bring back and set righttheir wandering and confused ideas. He and his advisers looked out ona community, staggering like a drunken man, indifferent to their rightsand confused in their feelings. Deaf to argument, haply they mightbe stunned into sobriety. They saw that of which we cannot judge, thenecessity of resistance. Insulted law called for it. Public opinion, fast hastening on the downward course, must be arrested. 

Does not the event show they judged rightly? Absorbed in a thousandtrifles, how has the nation all at once come to a stand? Men begin, asin 1776 and 1640, to discuss principles, to weigh characters, to findout where they are. Haply we may awake before we are borne over theprecipice. 

I am glad, sir, to see this crowded house, It is good for us to be here. When Liberty is in danger Faneuil Hall has the right, it is her duty, tostrike the key-note for these United States. I am glad, for one reason, that remarks such as those to which I have alluded have been utteredhere. The passage of these resolutions, in spite of this opposition, led by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth, will show more clearly, more decisively, the deep indignation with which Boston regards thisoutrage. 

[Illustration: John Q. Adams]

JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1767, DIED 1848. )

ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL WAR POWER OVER SLAVERY

--HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 25, 1836. 

There are, then, Mr. Chairman, in the authority of Congress and of theExecutive, two classes of powers, altogether different in their nature, and often incompatible with each other--the war power and the peacepower. The peace power is limited by regulations and restricted byprovisions, prescribed within the constitution itself. The war power islimited only by the laws and usages of nations. The power is tremendous;it is strictly constitutional, but it breaks down every barrier soanxiously erected for the protection of liberty, of property, andof life. This, sir, is the power which authorizes you to pass theresolution now before you, and, in my opinion, there is no other. 

And this, sir, is the reason which I was not permitted to give thismorning for voting with only eight associates against the firstresolution reported by the committee on the abolition petitions; not oneword of discussion had been permitted on either of those resolutions. When called to vote upon the first of them, I asked only five minutes ofthe time of the House to prove that it was utterly unfounded, It was notthe pleasure of the House to grant me those five minutes. Sir, I mustsay that, in all the proceedings of the House upon that report, from theprevious question, moved and inflexibly persisted in by a member ofthe committee itself which reported the resolutions, (Mr. Owens, ofGeorgia, ) to the refusal of the Speaker, sustained by the majority ofthe House, to permit the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Glascock) torecord upon the journal his reasons for asking to be excused from votingon that same resolution, the freedom of debate has been stifled in thisHouse to a degree far beyond any thing that ever happened sincethe existence of the Constitution of the United States; nor is it aconsolatory reflection to me how intensely we have been made to feel, in the process of that operation, that the Speaker of this House is aslaveholder. And, sir, as I was not then permitted to assign my reasonsfor voting against that resolution before I gave the vote, I rejoicethat the reason for which I shall vote for the resolution now before thecommittee is identically the same with that for which I voted againstthat. 

[Mr. Adams at this, and at many other passages of this speech, wasinterrupted by calls to order. The Chairman of the Committee (Mr. A. H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, ) in every instance, decided that he was notout of order, but at this passage intimated that he was approachingvery close upon its borders; upon which Mr. Adams said, "Then I am tounder-stand, sir, that I am yet within the bounds of order, but that Imay transcend them hereafter. "]

 * * * * *

And, now, sir, am I to be disconcerted and silenced, or admonished bythe Chair that I am approaching to irrelevant matter, which may warranthim to arrest me in my argument, because I say that the reason for whichI shall vote for the resolution now before the committee, levying aheavy contribution upon the property of my constituents, is identicallythe same with the reason for which I voted against the resolutionreported by the slavery committee, that Congress have no authority tointerfere, in any way, with slavery in any of the States of this Union. Sir, I was not allowed to give my reasons for that vote, and a majorityof my constituents, perhaps proportionately as large as that of thisHouse in favor of that resolution, may and probably will disapprove myvote against, unless my reasons for so voting should be explained tothem. I asked but five minutes of the House to give those reasons, andwas refused. I shall, therefore, take the liberty to give them now, asthey are strictly applicable to the measure now before the Committee, and are my only justification for voting in favor of this resolution. 

I return, then, to my first position, that there are two classes ofpowers vested by the Constitution of the United States in their Congressand Executive Government: the powers to be exercised in the time ofpeace, and the powers incidental to war. That the powers of peace arelimited by provisions within the body of the Constitution itself, butthat the powers of war are limited and regulated only by the laws andusages of nations. There are, indeed, powers of peace conferred uponCongress, which also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the lawsof nations, such as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce, the interchange of public ministers and consuls, and all the personaland social intercourse between the individual inhabitants of the UnitedStates and foreign nations, and the Indian tribes, which require theinterposition of any law. But the powers of war are all regulated by thelaws of nations, and are subject to no other limitation. It is by thispower that I am justified in voting the money of my constituents forthe immediate relief of their fellow-citizens suffering with extremenecessity even for subsistence, by the direct consequence of anIndian war. Upon the same principle, your consuls in foreign ports areauthorized to provide for the subsistence of seamen in distress, andeven for their passage to their own country. 

And it was upon that same principle that I voted against theresolution reported by the slavery committee, "That Congress possess noconstitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the institutionof slavery in any of the States of this confederacy, " to whichresolution most of those with whom I usually concur, and even my owncolleagues in this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that thereis even among the peace powers of Congress no such authority; but in warthere are many ways by which Congress not only have the authority, butare bound to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States. The existing law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the UnitedStates from foreign countries, is itself an interference with theinstitution of slavery in the States. It was so considered by thefounders of the Constitution of the United States, in which it wasstipulated that Congress should not interfere, in that way, with theinstitution, prior to the year 1808. 

During the late war with Great Britain the military and naval commandersof that nation issued proclamations inviting the slaves to repair totheir standards, with promises of freedom and of settlement in some ofthe British colonial establishments. This, surely, was an interferencewith the institution of slavery in the States. By the treaty of peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate all the forts and places in theUnited States, without carrying away any slaves. If the Government ofthe United States had no authority to interfere, in any way, withthe institution of slavery in the States, they would not have hadthe authority to require this stipulation. It is well known thatthis engagement was not fulfilled by the British naval and militarycommanders; that, on the contrary, they did carry away all the slaveswhom they had induced to join them, and that the British Governmentinflexibly refused to restore any of them to their masters; that a claimof indemnity was consequently instituted in behalf of the owners of theslaves, and was successfully maintained. All that series of transactionswas an interference by Congress with the institution of slavery in theStates in one way--in the way of protection and support. It was by theinstitution of slavery alone that the restitution of slaves enticed byproclamations into the British service could be claimed as property. But for the institution of slavery, the British commanders could neitherhave allured them to their standard, nor restored them otherwise thanas liberated prisoners of war. But for the institution of slavery, therecould have been no stipulation that they should not be carried awayas property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of thatengagement. 

But the war power of Congress over the institution of slavery in theStates is yet far more extensive. Suppose the case of a servile war, complicated, as to some extent it is even now, with an Indian war;suppose Congress were called to raise armies, to supply money from thewhole Union, to suppress a servile insurrection: would they have noauthority to interfere with the institution of slavery? The issue of aservile war may be disastrous. By war the slave may emancipate himself;it may become necessary for the master to recognize his emancipation bya treaty of peace; can it for an instant be pretended that Congress, in such a contingency, would have no authority to interfere with theinstitution of slavery, in any way, in the States? Why, it would beequivalent to saying that Congress have no constitutional authority tomake peace. 

[Illustration: John C. Calhoun]

JOHN C. CALHOUN, OF SOUTh CAROLINA (BORN 1782, DIED 1850. )

ON THE SLAVERY QUESTION, SENATE, MARCH 4, 1850

I have, Senators, believed from the first that the agitation of thesubject of slavery would, if not prevented by some timely and effectivemeasure, end in disunion. Entertaining this opinion, I have, on allproper occasions, endeavored to call the attention of both the two greatparties which divide the country to adopt some measure to prevent sogreat a disaster, but without success. The agitation has been permittedto proceed, with almost no attempt to resist it, until it has reached apoint when it can no longer be disguised or denied that the Union is indanger. You have thus had forced upon you the greatest and the gravestquestion that can ever come under your consideration: How can the Unionbe preserved?

To give a satisfactory answer to this mighty question, it isindispensable to have an accurate and thorough knowledge of the natureand the character of the cause by which the Union is endangered. Withoutsuch knowledge it is impossible to pronounce, with any certainty, bywhat measure it can be saved; just as it would be impossible for aphysician to pronounce, in the case of some dangerous disease, with anycertainty, by what remedy the patient could be saved, without similarknowledge of the nature and character of the cause which producedit. The first question, then, presented for consideration, in theinvestigation I propose to make, in order to obtain such knowledge, is:What is it that has endangered the Union?

To this question there can be but one answer: That the immediatecause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the Statescomposing the southern section of the Union. This widely-extendeddiscontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitationof the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since. Thenext question, going one step further back, is: What has caused thiswidely-diffused and almost universal discontent?

It is a great mistake to suppose, as is by some, that it originatedwith demagogues, who excited the discontent with the intention of aidingtheir personal advancement, or with the disappointed ambition of certainpoliticians, who resorted to it as a means of retrieving their fortunes. On the contrary, all the great political influences of the section werearrayed against excitement, and exerted to the utmost to keep the peoplequiet. The great mass of the people of the South were divided, as in theother section, into Whigs and Democrats. The leaders and the presses ofboth parties in the South were very solicitous to prevent excitement andto preserve quiet; because it was seen that the effects of the formerwould necessarily tend to weaken, if not destroy, the political tieswhich united them with their respective parties in the other section. Those who know the strength of the party ties will readily appreciatethe immense force which this cause exerted against agitation, and infavor of preserving quiet. But, great as it was, it was not sufficientto prevent the wide-spread discontent which now pervades the section. No; some cause, far deeper and more powerful than the one supposed, mustexist, to account for discontent so wide and deep. The question thenrecurs: What is the cause of this discontent? It will be found inthe belief of the people of the Southern States, as prevalent asthe discontent itself, that they cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and safety, in the Union. The next question tobe considered is: What has caused this belief?

One of the causes is, undoubtedly, to be traced to the long-continuedagitation of the slavery question on the part of the North, and the manyaggressions which they have made on the rights of the South during thetime. I will not enumerate them at present, as it will be done hereafterin its proper place. 

There is another lying back of it--with which this is intimatelyconnected--that may be regarded as the great and primary cause. This isto be found in the fact, that the equilibrium between the two sections, in the Government as it stood when the Constitution was ratified andthe Government put in action, has been destroyed. At that time there wasnearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample meansto each to protect itself against the aggression of the other; but, asit now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controllingthe Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means ofprotecting itself against its encroachment and oppression. To placethis subject distinctly before you, I have, Senators, prepared a briefstatistical statement, showing the relative weight of the two sectionsin the Government under the first census of 1790, and the last census of1840. 

According to the former, the population of the United States, includingVermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, which then were in their incipientcondition of becoming States, but were not actually admitted, amountedto 3, 929, 827. Of this number the Northern States had 1, 997, 899, and theSouthern 1, 952, 072, making a difference of only 45, 827 in favor of theformer States. 

The number of States, including Vermont, Kentucky, and Tennessee, weresixteen; of which eight, including Vermont, belonged to the northernsection, and eight, including Kentucky and Tennessee, to thesouthern, --making an equal division of the States between the twosections, under the first census. There was a small preponderance in theHouse of Representatives, and in the Electoral College, in favor of thenorthern, owing to the fact that, according to the provisions of theConstitution, in estimating federal numbers five slaves count but three;but it was too small to affect sensibly the perfect equilibrium which, with that exception, existed at the time. Such was the equality ofthe two sections when the States composing them agreed to enter into aFederal Union. Since then the equilibrium between them has been greatlydisturbed. 

According to the last census the aggregate population of the UnitedStates amounted to 17, 063, 357, of which the northern section contained9, 728, 920, and the southern 7, 334, 437, making a difference in roundnumbers, of 2, 400, 000. The number of States had increased from sixteento twenty-six, making an addition of ten States. In the meantimethe position of Delaware had become doubtful as to which section sheproperly belonged. Considering her as neutral, the Northern States willhave thirteen and the Southern States twelve, making a difference inthe Senate of two senators in favor of the former. According to theapportionment under the census of 1840, there were two hundred andtwenty-three members of the House of Representatives, of which theNorth-ern States had one hundred and thirty-five, and the SouthernStates (considering Delaware as neutral) eighty-seven, making adifference in favor of the former in the House of Representatives offorty-eight. The difference in the Senate of two members, added to this, gives to the North in the Electoral College, a majority of fifty. Sincethe census of 1840, four States have been added to the Union--Iowa, Wisconsin, Florida, and Texas. They leave the difference in the Senateas it was when the census was taken; but add two to the side of theNorth in the House, making the present majority in the House in itsfavor fifty, and in the Electoral College fifty-two. 

The result of the whole is to give the northern section a predominancein every department of the Government, and thereby concentrate in itthe two elements which constitute the Federal Government, --majorityof States, and a majority of their population, estimated in federalnumbers. Whatever section concentrates the two in itself possesses thecontrol of the entire Government. 

But we are just at the close of the sixth decade, and the commencementof the seventh. The census is to be taken this year, which must addgreatly to the decided preponderance of the North in the House ofRepresentatives and in the Electoral College. The prospect is, also, that a great increase will be added to its present preponderance in theSenate, during the period of the decade, by the addition of new States. Two territories, Oregon and Minnesota, are already in progress, andstrenuous efforts are making to bring in three additional States' fromthe territory recently conquered from Mexico; which, if successful, willadd three other States in a short time to the northern section, makingfive States; and increasing the present number of its States fromfifteen to twenty, and of its senators from thirty to forty. On thecontrary, there is not a single territory in progress in the southernsection, and no certainty that any additional State will be added to itduring the decade. The prospect then is, that the two sections in thesenate, should the effort now made to exclude the South from the newlyacquired territories succeed, will stand before the end of the decade, twenty Northern States to fourteen Southern (considering Delaware asneutral), and forty Northern senators to twenty-eight Southern. Thisgreat increase of senators, added to the great increase of members ofthe House of Representatives and the Electoral College on the part ofthe North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectuallyand irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when theGovernment commenced. 

Had this destruction been the operation of time, without theinterference of Government, the South would have had no reason tocomplain; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislationof this Government, which was appointed as the common agent of all, andcharged with the protection of the interests and security of all. Thelegislation by which it has been effected may be classed under threeheads. The first is, that series of acts by which the South has beenexcluded from the common territory belonging to all the States asmembers of the Federal Union--which have had the effect of extendingvastly the portion allotted to the northern section, and restrictingwithin narrow limits the portion left the South. The next consistsin adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undueproportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed upon the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the North;and the last is a system of political measures, by which the originalcharacter of the Government has been radically changed. I propose tobestow upon each of these, in the order they stand, a few remarks, withthe view of showing that it is owing to the action of this Governmentthat the equilibrium between the two sections has been destroyed, andthe whole powers of the system centered in a sectional majority. 

The first of the series of Acts by which the South was deprived of itsdue share of the territories, originated with the confederacy whichpreceded the existence of this Government. It is to be found in theprovision of the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exclude the Southentirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohioand the Mississippi rivers, now embracing five States and one Territory. The next of the series is the Missouri compromise, which excluded theSouth from that large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36° 30', excepting what is included in the State of Missouri. The last of theseries excluded the South from the whole of Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of the day, were what are called slave territories, ' andnot free soil; that is, territories belonging to slaveholding powers andopen to the emigration of masters with their slaves. By theseseveral Acts the South was excluded from one million two hundred andthirty-eight thousand and twenty-five square miles--an extent of countryconsiderably exceeding the entire valley of the Mississippi. To theSouth was left the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of36° 30', and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri, with the portion lying south of 36° 30' including the States ofLouisiana and Arkansas, and the territory lying west of the latter, andsouth of 36° 30', called the Indian country. These, with the Territoryof Florida, now the State, make, in the whole, two hundred andeighty-three thousand five hundred and three square miles. To this mustbe added the territory acquired with Texas. If the whole should be addedto the southern section it would make an increase of three hundred andtwenty-five thousand five hundred and twenty, which would make the wholeleft to the South six hundred and nine thousand and twenty-three. But alarge part of Texas is still in contest between the two sections, whichleaves it uncertain what will be the real extent of the proportion ofterritory that may be left to the South. 

I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty withMexico. The North is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriatethe whole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. Ifshe should succeed, it will add to that from which the South has alreadybeen excluded, 526, 078 square miles, and would increase the whole whichthe North has appropriated to herself, to 1, 764, 023, not including theportion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum upthe whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2, 373, 046 square miles of territory, from which the Northwill have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing thenewly acquired territories, about three fourths of the whole, leaving tothe South but about one fourth. 

Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equilibriumbetween the two sections in the Government. 

The next is the system of revenue and disbursements which has beenadopted by the Government. It is well known that the Government hasderived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertaketo show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exportingStates, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the revenue;because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasionsbeen fully discussed. Nor shall I, for the same reason, undertake toshow that a far greater portion of the revenue has been disbursed at theNorth, than its due share; and that the joint effect of these causeshas been, to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under anequal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost toher. If to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not forrevenue, but for protection, --that is, intended to put money, not inthe treasury, but directly into the pockets of the manufacturers, --someconception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long courseof sixty years, has been transferred from South to North. There are nodata by which it can be estimated with any certainty; but it is safe tosay that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the mostmoderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealthof the North, and thus greatly increase her population by attractingemigration from all quarters to that section. 

This, combined with the great primary cause, amply explains why theNorth has acquired a preponderance in every department of the Governmentby its disproportionate increase of population and States. The former, as has been shown, has increased, in fifty years, 2, 400, 000 over thatof the South. This increase of population, during so long a period, is satisfactorily accounted for, by the number of emigrants, and theincrease of their descendants, which have been attracted to the northernsection from Europe and the South, in consequence of the advantagesderived from the causes assigned. If they had not existed--if the Southhad retained all the capital which had been extracted from her by thefiscal action of the Government; and, if it had not been excluded bythe ordinance of 1787 and the Missouri compromise, from the region lyingbetween the Ohio and the Mississippi rivers, and between the Mississippiand the Rocky Mountains north of 36° 30'--it scarcely admits of adoubt, that it would have divided the emigration with the North, andby retaining her own people, would have at least equalled the North inpopulation under the census of 1840, and probably under that about tobe taken. She would also, if she had retained her equal rights in thoseterritories, have maintained an equality in the number of States withthe North, and have preserved the equilibrium between the two sectionsthat existed at the commencement of the Government. The loss, then, ofthe equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this Government. 

But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the twosections, the action of the Government was leading to a radical changein its character, by concentrating all the power of the system initself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by whichthis great change has been consummated. If it did, it would not bedifficult to show that the process commenced at an early period of theGovernment; and that it proceeded, almost without interruption, step bystep, until it virtually absorbed its entire powers; but withoutgoing through the whole process to establish the fact, it may be donesatisfactorily by a very short statement. 

That the Government claims, and practically maintains, the right todecide in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcelybe denied by any one conversant with the political history of thecountry. That it also claims the right to resort to force to maintainwhatever power it claims against all opposition is equally certain. Indeed it is apparent, from what we daily hear, that this has become theprevailing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I ask, what limitation can possibly be placed upon the powers of agovernment claiming and exercising such rights? And, if none can be, how can the separate governments of the States maintain and protectthe powers reserved to them by the Constitution--or the people of theseveral States maintain those which are reserved to them, and amongothers, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, notonly their separate State Constitutions and Governments, but also theConstitution and Government of the United States? But, if they have noconstitutional means of maintaining them against the right claimed bythis Government, it necessarily follows, that they hold them at itspleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are inreality concentrated in it. It also follows, that the character of theGovernment has been changed in consequence, from a federal republic, asit originally came from the hands of its framers, into a greatnational consolidated democracy. It has indeed, at present, all thecharacteristics of the latter, and not of the former, although it stillretains its outward form. 

The result of the whole of those causes combined is, that the North hasacquired a decided ascendency over every department of this Government, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. A singlesection governed by the will of the numerical majority, has now, infact, the control of the Government and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional federal republic, is now converted, inreality, into one as absolute as that of the Autocrat of Russia, and asdespotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed. 

As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Government, it ismanifest that on all questions between it and the South, where there isa diversity of interests, the interest of the latter will be sacrificedto the former, however oppressive the effects may be; as the Southpossesses no means by which it can resist, through the action of theGovernment. But if there was no question of vital importance to theSouth, in reference to which there was a diversity of views between thetwo sections, this state of things might be endured without the hazardof destruction to the South. But such is not the fact. There is aquestion of vital importance to the southern section, in reference towhich the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite andhostile as they can possibly be. 

I refer to the relation between the two races in the southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Everyportion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostileto it. Those most opposed and hostile, regard it as a sin, and considerthemselves under the most sacred obligation to use every effort todestroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive that they havepower, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsiblefor not suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Thoseless opposed and hostile, regarded it as a crime--an offence againsthumanity, as they call it; and, although not so fanatical, feelthemselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object; whilethose who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and astain on the character of what they call the Nation, and feel themselvesaccordingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the southern section regards the relation as one which cannot bedestroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, andthe section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness; and accordinglythey feel bound, by every consideration of interest and safety, todefend it. 

This hostile feeling on the part of the North toward the socialorganization of the South long lay dormant, and it only required somecause to act on those who felt most intensely that they were responsiblefor its continuance, to call it into action. The increasing power ofthis Government, and of the control of the northern section over all itsdepartments, furnished the cause. It was this which made the impressionon the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to preventthe Government from doing whatever it might choose to do. This wassufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the North inaction, for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between thetwo races in the South. 

The first organized movement toward it commenced in 1835. Then, for thefirst time, societies were organized, presses established, lecturerssent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiarypublications scattered over the whole South, through the mail. The Southwas thoroughly aroused. Meetings were held everywhere, and resolutionsadopted, calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest thethreatened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt measures for theirown protection, if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, petitions poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to abolishslavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit, what they called, the internal slave trade between the States--announcing at the sametime, that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, not only in theDistrict, but in the States and throughout the Union. At this period, the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little orno personal influence. 

Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy with them ortheir cause. The members of each party presented their petitions withgreat reluctance. Nevertheless, small, and contemptible as the partythen was, both of the great parties of the North dreaded them. Theyfelt, that though small, they were organized in reference to a subjectwhich had a great and commanding influence over the northern mind. Each party, on that account, feared to oppose their petitions, lestthe opposite party should take advantage of the one who might do so, byfavoring them. The effect was, that both united in insisting that thepetitions should be received, and that Congress should take jurisdictionover the subject. To justify their course, they took the extraordinaryground, that Congress was bound to receive petitions on every subject, however objectionable they might be, and whether they had, or had not, jurisdiction over the subject. Those views prevailed in the Houseof Representatives, and partially in the Senate; and thus the partysucceeded in their first movements, in gaining what they proposed--aposition in Congress, from which agitation could be extended over thewhole Union. This was the commencement of the agitation, which has eversince continued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered theUnion itself. 

As for myself, I believed at that early period, if the party who got upthe petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would in the end, if notarrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, andcalled upon both parties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction;but in vain. Had my voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to takejurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation whichfollowed would have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gaveimpulse to the agitation, and which has brought us to our presentperilous condition, would have become extinguished, from the want offuel to feed the flame. That was the time for the North to have shownher devotion to the Union; but, unfortunately, both of the greatparties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining partyascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten. 

What has since followed are but natural consequences. With the successof their first movement, this small fanatical party began to acquirestrength; and with that, to become an object of courtship to both thegreat parties. The necessary consequence was, a further increase ofpower, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both the other partieswith their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both; and thegreat mass of the population of the North, who, whatever may be theiropinion of the original abolition party, which still preserves itsdistinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to cooperate in carrying out their measures. With the increase of theirinfluence, they extended the sphere of their action. In a short timeafter the commencement of their first movement, they had acquiredsufficient influence to induce the legislatures of most of the NorthernStates to pass acts, which in effect abrogated the clause of theConstitution that provides for the delivery up of fugitive slaves. Notlong after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, magazines, and dock-yards, and all other places where Congress had exclusivepower of legislation. This was followed by petitions and resolutions oflegislatures of the Northern States, and popular meetings, to excludethe Southern States from all territories acquired, or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of any State hereafter into the Union, which, by its constitution, does not prohibit slavery. And Congress isinvoked to do all this, expressly with the view of the final abolitionof slavery in the States. That has been avowed to be the ultimate objectfrom the beginning of the agitation until the present time; and yet thegreat body of both parties of the North, with the full knowledge of thefact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have co-operated with themin almost all their measures. 

Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet advanced. Now I ask, Senators, what is there to prevent its further progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, unless some decisive measureshould be adopted to prevent it? Has any one of the causes, which hasadded to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginninguntil it has attained its present magnitude, diminished in force? Is theoriginal cause of the movement--that slavery is a sin, and ought to besuppressed--weaker now than at the commencement? Or is the abolitionparty less numerous or influential, or have they less influence with, or less control over the two great parties of the North in elections? Orhas the South greater means of influencing or controlling the movementsof this Government now, than it had when the agitation commenced? Toall these questions but one answer can be given: No, no, no. The veryreverse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favorof agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it firstcommenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the Southare weaker. Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, what isto stop this agitation, before the great and final object at which itaims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain, that if something is not done to arrest it, the Southwill be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, asevents are now moving, it will not require the South to secede, in orderto dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which itspast history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show. 

It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by asingle blow. The cords which bound these States together in one commonUnion, are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be thework of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, thatthe cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder. Alreadythe agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the mostimportant, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceedto show. 

The cords that bind the States together are not only many, but variousin character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical; some political;others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, andothers to the feeling of duty and obligation. 

The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature, consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all ofwhich originally embraced the whole Union. All these denominations, withthe exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much uponthe principle of our political institutions. Beginning with smallermeetings, corresponding with the political divisions of the country, their organization terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of Congress. At thesemeetings the principal clergymen and lay members of the respectivedenominations from all parts of the Union, met to transact businessrelating to their common concerns. It was not confined to whatappertained to the doctrines and discipline of the respectivedenominations, but extended to plans for disseminating theBible--establishing missions, distributing tracts--and of establishingpresses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, witha view of diffusing religious information--and for the support of theirrespective doctrines and creeds. All this combined contributedgreatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The ties which held eachdenomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole Uniontogether, but, powerful as they were, they have not been able to resistthe explosive effect of slavery agitation. 

The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive force, wasthat of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous and strongties which held it together, are all broken, and its unity is gone. Theynow form separate churches; and, instead of that feeling of attachmentand devotion to the interests of the whole church which was formerlyfelt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged inlitigation about what was formerly their common property. 

The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists--one of the largestand most respectable of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian isnot entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. Thatof the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestantdenominations which remains unbroken and entire. 

The strongest cord, of a political character, consists of the many andpowerful ties that have held together the two great parties which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government. They both extended to every portion of the Union, and stronglycontributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord hasfared no better than the spiritual. It resisted, for a long time, theexplosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under itsforce--if not entirely, in a great measure. Nor is there one of theremaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent theUnion has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it canbe, by sundering and weakening the cords which bind it together. 

If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increasedintensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothingwill be left to hold the States together except force. But, surely, thatcan, with no propriety of language, be called a Union, when the onlymeans by which the weaker is held connected with the stronger portionis force. It may, indeed, keep them connected; but the connection willpartake much more of the character of subjugation, on the part of theweaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent States, inone confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the Government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of Union. 

Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, thequestion again recurs, How can the Union be saved? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is by adopting suchmeasures as will satisfy the States belonging to the southern section, that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor andtheir safety. There is, again, only one way by which this can beeffected, and that is by removing the causes by which this belief hasbeen produced. Do this, and discontent will cease, harmony and kindfeelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension ofdanger to the Union be removed. The question, then, is, How can this bedone? But, before I undertake to answer this question, I propose to showby what the Union cannot be saved. 

It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendidor numerous. The cry of "Union, Union, the glorious Union!" can no moreprevent disunion than the cry of "Health, health, glorious health!" onthe part of the physician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. Solong as the Union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regardedin the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of theStates, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pronouncingeulogies on it. 

Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we cannotbelieve to be sincere. It usually comes from our assailants. But wecannot believe them to be sincere; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to the Constitution. It made theUnion, --and to destroy the Constitution would be to destroy theUnion. But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to theConstitution is to abstain, on the one hand, from violating it, andto repel, on the other, all attempts to violate it. It is only byfaithfully performing these high duties that the Constitution can bepreserved, and with it the Union. 

But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by ourassailants, when brought to this test? Have they abstained fromviolating the Constitution? Let the many acts passed by the NorthernStates to set aside and annul the clause of the Constitution providingfor the delivery up of fugitive slaves answer. I cite this, not thatit is the only instance (for there are many others), but because theviolation in this particular is too notorious and palpable to be denied. Again: Have they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of theConstitution? Let their course in reference to the agitation of theslavery question, which was commenced and has been carried on forfifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in theStates--an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional, --answer. Letthem show a single instance, during this long period, in which they havedenounced the agitators or their attempts to effect what is admitted tobe unconstitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forwardfor that purpose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believethat they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the Union, oravoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigorof their assaults and to weaken the force of our resistance?

Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the partof those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounceeulogies upon the Union, evidently with the intent of charging uswith disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against ourassailants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unitewith us in repelling these assaults, and denouncing the authors asenemies of the Union. Why they avoid this, and pursue the course theydo, it is for them to explain. 

Nor can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the illustriousSoutherner whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of thePotomac. He was one of us, --a slave-holder and a planter. We havestudied his history, and find nothing in it to justify submission towrong. On the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation, that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he wasprompt and decided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, weprofited by his example. 

Nor can we find any thing in his history to deter us from secedingfrom the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it wasinstituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the meansof oppressing instead of protecting us. On the contrary, we find muchin his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity ofdeciding between submission and disunion. 

There existed then, as well as now, a union--between the parent countryand her colonies. It was a union that had much to endear it to thepeople of the colonies. Under its protecting and superintending care, the colonies were planted and grew up and prospered, through a longcourse of years, until they be-came populous and wealthy. Its benefitswere not limited to them. Their extensive agricultural and otherproductions, gave birth to a flourishing commerce, which richly rewardedthe parent country for the trouble and expense of establishing andprotecting them. Washing-ton was born and grew up to manhood under thatUnion. He acquired his early distinction in its service, and there isevery reason to believe that he was devotedly attached to it. But hisdevotion was a national one. He was attached to it, not as an end, butas a means to an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, insteadof affording protection, was converted into the means of oppressingthe colonies, he did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the greatmovement by which that union was forever severed, and the independenceof these States established. This was the great and crowning gloryof his life, which has spread his fame over the whole globe, and willtransmit it to the latest posterity. 

Nor can the plan proposed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, nor that of the administration, save the Union. I shall pass by, without remark, the plan proposed by the Senator. I, however, assurethe distinguished and able Senator, that, in taking this course, nodisrespect whatever is intended to him or to his plan. I have adoptedit because so many Senators of distinguished abilities, who were presentwhen he delivered his speech, and explained his plan, and who were fullycapable to do justice to the side they support, have replied tohim. * * *

Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the questionwith which I commenced, How can the Union be saved? There is but oneway by which it can with any certainty; and that is, by a full and finalsettlement, on the principle of justice, of all the questions at issuebetween the two sections. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer, but theConstitution; and no concession or surrender to make. She has alreadysurrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such asettlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause ofdiscontent, by satisfying the South that she could remain honorablyand safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternalfeelings between the sections, which existed anterior to the Missouriagitation. Nothing else can, with any certainty, finally and foreversettle the question at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union. 

But can this be done? Yes, easily; not by the weaker party, for it can, of itself do nothing, --not even protect itself--but by the stronger. TheNorth has only to will it to accomplish it--to do justice by concedingto the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do herduty by causing the stipulations relative to fugitive slaves to befaithfully fulfilled, to cease the agitation of the slave question, andto provide for the insertion of a provision in the Constitution, by anamendment, which will restore to the South, in substance, the powershe possessed of protecting herself, before the equilibrium between thesections was destroyed by the action of this Government. There will beno difficulty in devising such a provision--one that will protect theSouth, and which, at the same time, will improve and strengthen theGovernment, instead of impairing and weakening it. 

But will the North agree to this? It is for her to answer the question. But, I will say, she cannot refuse, if she has half the love for theUnion which she professes to have, or without justly exposing herself tothe charge that her love of power and aggrandizement is far greater thanher love of the Union. At all events the responsibility of saving theUnion rests on the North, and not on the South. The South cannot saveit by any act of hers, and the North may save it without any sacrificewhatever, unless to do justice, and to perform her duties under theConstitution, should be regarded by her as a sacrifice. 

It is time, Senators, that there should be an open and manly avowal onall sides, as to what is intended to be done. If the question is not nowsettled, it is uncertain whether it ever can hereafter be; and we, as the representatives of the States of this Union, regarded asgovernments, should come to a distinct understanding as to ourrespective views, in order to ascertain whether the great questions atissue can be settled or not. If you, who represent the stronger portion, cannot agree to settle on the broad principle of justice and duty, sayso; and let the States we both represent agree to separate and part inpeace. If you are unwilling we should part in peace, tell us so, andwe shall know what to do, when you reduce the question to submission orresistance. If you remain silent, you will compel us to infer by youracts what you intend. In that case, California will become the testquestion. If you admit her, under all the difficulties that oppose heradmission, you compel us to infer that you intend to exclude us fromthe whole of the acquired territories, with the intention of destroying, irretrievably, the equilibrium between the two sections. We would beblind not to perceive in that case, that your real objects are power andaggrandizement, and infatuated, not to act accordingly. 

I have now, Senators, done my duty in ex-pressing my opinions fully, freely and candidly, on this solemn occasion. In doing so, I have beengoverned by the motives which have governed me in all the stages of theagitation of the slavery question since its commencement. I have exertedmyself, during the whole period, to arrest it, with the intention ofsaving the Union, if it could be done; and if it could not, to savethe section where it has pleased Providence to cast my lot, and which Isincerely believe has justice and the Constitution on its side. Havingfaithfully done my duty to the best of my ability, both to the Union andmy section, throughout this agitation, I shall have the consolation, letwhat will come, that I am free from all responsibility. 

[Illustration: Daniel Webster]

DANIEL WEBSTER, OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN, 1782, DIED, 1852. )

ON THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION;

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MARCH 7, 1850. 

MR. PRESIDENT:

I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massachusetts man, nor as a northernman, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the UnitedStates. It is fortunate that there is a Senate of the United States; abody not yet moved from its propriety, nor lost to a just sense of itsown dignity and its own high responsibilities, and a body to whichthe country looks, with confidence, for wise, moderate, patriotic, andhealing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the midst ofstrong agitations and are surrounded by very considerable dangers toour institutions and government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the North, and the stormy South combine to throw the wholesea into commotion, to toss its billows to the skies, and disclose itsprofoundest depths. I do not affect to regard myself, Mr. President, as holding, or fit to hold, the helm in this combat with the politicalelements; but I have a duty to perform, and I mean to perform it withfidelity, not without a sense of existing dangers, but not withouthope. I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for I amlooking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, ifwreck there must be, but for the good of the whole, and the preservationof all; and there is that which will keep me to my duty during thisstruggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear for many days. Ispeak to-day for the preservation of the Union. "Hear me for mycause. " I speak to-day out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for therestoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make theblessings of this Union so rich, and so dear to us all. These are thetopics that I propose to myself to discuss; these are the motives, and the sole motives, that influence me in the wish to communicatemy opinions to the Senate and the country; and if I can do anything, however little, for the promotion of these ends, I shall haveaccomplished all that I expect. 

* * * We all know, sir, that slavery has existed in the world from timeimmemorial. There was slavery in the earliest periods of history, amongthe Oriental nations. There was slavery among the Jews; the theocraticgovernment of that people issued no injunction against it. There wasslavery among the Greeks. * * * At the introduction of Christianity, theRoman world was full of slaves, and I suppose there is to be found noinjunction against that relation between man and man in the teachingsof the Gospel of Jesus Christ or of any of his apostles. * * * Now, sir, upon the general nature and influence of slavery there exists a widedifference of opinion between the northern portion of this country andthe southern. It is said on the one side, that, although not the subjectof any injunction or direct prohibition in the New Testament, slaveryis a wrong; that it is founded merely in the right of the strongest; andthat it is an oppression, like unjust wars, like all those conflicts bywhich a powerful nation subjects a weaker to its will; and that, in itsnature, whatever may be said of it in the modifications which have takenplace, it is not according to the meek spirit of the Gospel. It is not"kindly affectioned"; it does not "seek another's, and not its own";it does not "let the oppressed go free. " These are sentiments that arecherished, and of late with greatly augmented force, among the people ofthe Northern States. They have taken hold of the religious sentiment ofthat part of the country, as they have, more or less, taken hold of thereligious feelings of a considerable portion of mankind. The South uponthe other side, having been accustomed to this relation between the tworaces all their lives; from their birth, having been taught, in general, to treat the subjects of this bondage with care and kindness, and Ibelieve, in general, feeling great kindness for them, have not takenthe view of the subject which I have mentioned. There are thousands ofreligious men, with consciences as tender as any of their brethren atthe North, who do not see the unlawfulness of slavery; and there aremore thousands, perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in itsorigin, and as a matter depending upon natural rights, yet take thingsas they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation of thesociety in which they live, can see no way in which, let their opinionson the abstract question be what they may, it is in the power of thisgeneration to relieve themselves from this relation. And candor obligesme to say, that I believe they are just as conscientious many of them, and the religious people, all of them, as they are at the North who holddifferent opinions. * * *

There are men who, with clear perceptions, as they think, of their ownduty, do not see how too eager a pursuit of one duty may involve them inthe violation of others, or how too warm an embracement of one truthmay lead to a disregard of other truths just as important. As I heard itstated strongly, not many days ago, these persons are disposed to mountupon some particular duty, as upon a war-horse, and to drive furiouslyon and upon and over all other duties that may stand in the way. Thereare men who, in reference to disputes of that sort, are of opinion thathuman duties may be ascertained with the exactness of mathematics. Theydeal with morals as with mathematics; and they think what is right maybe distinguished from what is wrong with the precision of an algebraicequation. They have, therefore, none too much charity toward others whodiffer from them. They are apt, too, to think that nothing is good butwhat is perfect, and that there are no compromises or modifications tobe made in consideration of difference of opinion or in deference toother men's judgment. If their perspicacious vision enables them todetect a spot on the face of the sun, they think that a good reason whythe sun should be struck down from heaven. They prefer the chanceof running into utter darkness to living in heavenly light, if thatheavenly light be not absolutely without any imperfection. * * *

But we must view things as they are. Slavery does exist in theUnited States. It did exist in the States before the adoption of thisConstitution, and at that time. Let us, therefore, consider for amoment what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regardto slavery, --in regard to slavery, at the time this Constitution wasadopted. A remarkable change has taken place since; but what did thewise and great men of all parts of the country think of slavery then? Inwhat estimation did they hold it at the time when this Constitution wasadopted? It will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historicalresearch back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authenticrecords still existing among us, that there was no diversity of opinionbetween the North and the South upon the subject of slavery. It will befound that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moraland political evil. It will not be found that, either at the North orat the South, there was much, though there was some, invective againstslavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it waspolitical; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the placeof free labor, society became less strong and labor less productive;and therefore we find from all the eminent men of the time the clearestexpression of their opinion that slavery is an evil. They ascribed itsexistence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity oftemper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mothercountry, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon thecolonies. * * * You observe, sir, that the term slave, or slavery, isnot used in the Constitution. The Constitution does not require that"fugitive slaves" shall be delivered up. It requires that persons heldto service in one State, and escaping into another, shall be deliveredup. Mr. Madison opposed the introduction of the term slave, or slavery, into the Constitution; for he said, that he did not wish to see itrecognized by the Constitution of the United States of America thatthere could be property in men. * * *

Here we may pause. There was, if not an entire unanimity, a generalconcurrence of sentiment running through the whole community, andespecially entertained by the eminent men of all parts of the country. But soon a change began, at the North and the South, and a differenceof opinion showed itself; the North growing much more warm and strongagainst slavery, and the South growing much more warm and strong in itssupport. Sir, there is no generation of mankind whose opinions are notsubject to be influenced by what appear to them to be their presentemergent and exigent interests. I impute to the South no particularlyselfish view in the change which has come over her. I impute to hercertainly no dishonest view. All that has happened has been natural. It has followed those causes which always influence the human mind andoperate upon it. What, then, have been the causes which have created sonew a feeling in favor of slavery in the South, which have changed thewhole nomenclature of the South on that subject, so that, from beingthought and described in the terms I have mentioned and will not repeat, it has now become an institution, a cherished institution, in thatquarter; no evil, no scourge, but a great religious, social, and moralblessing, as I think I have heard it latterly spoken of? I suppose this, sir, is owing to the rapid growth and sudden extension of the cottonplantations of the South. So far as any motive consistent with honor, justice, and general judgment could act, it was the cotton interestthat gave a new desire to promote slavery, to spread it, and to use itslabor. 

I again say that this change was produced by causes which must alwaysproduce like effects. The whole interest of the South became connected, more or less, with the extension of slavery. If we look back to thehistory of the commerce of this country in the early years of thisgovernment, what were our exports? Cotton was hardly, or but to a verylimited extent, known. In 1791 the first parcel of cotton of the growthof the United States was exported, and amounted only to 19, 200 pounds. It has gone on increasing rapidly, until the whole crop may now, perhaps, in a season of great product and high prices, amount to ahundred millions of dollars. In the years I have mentioned, there wasmore of wax, more of indigo, more of rice, more of almost every articleof export from the South, than of cotton. When Mr. Jay negotiated thetreaty of 1794 with England, it is evident from the Twelfth Article ofthe Treaty, which was suspended by the Senate, that he did not know thatcotton was exported at all from the United States. 

 * * * * *

Sir, there is not so remarkable a chapter in our history of politicalevents, political parties, and political men as is afforded by thisadmission of a new slave-holding territory, so vast that a bird cannotfly over it in a week. New England, as I have said, with some of herown votes, supported this measure. Three-fourths of the votes ofliberty-loving Connecticut were given for it in the other house, and onehalf here. There was one vote for it from Maine but, I am happy to say, not the vote of the honorable member who addressed the Senate the daybefore yesterday, and who was then a Representative from Maine in theHouse of Representatives; but there was one vote from Maine, ay, andthere was one vote for it from Massachusetts, given by a gentleman thenrepresenting, and now living in, the district in which the prevalence ofFree Soil sentiment for a couple of years or so has defeated the choiceof any member to represent it in Congress. Sir, that body of Northernand Eastern men who gave those votes at that time are now seen takingupon themselves, in the nomenclature of politics, the appellation ofthe Northern Democracy. They undertook to wield the destinies of thisempire, if I may give that name to a Republic, and their policy was, and they persisted in it, to bring into this country and under thisgovernment all the territory they could. They did it, in the case ofTexas, under pledges, absolute pledges, to the slave interest, and theyafterwards lent their aid in bringing in these new conquests, to taketheir chance for slavery or freedom. My honorable friend from Georgia, in March, 1847, moved the Senate to declare that the war ought not tobe prosecuted for the conquest of territory, or for the dismemberment ofMexico. The whole of the Northern Democracy voted against it. He did notget a vote from them. It suited the patriotic and elevated sentiments ofthe Northern Democracy to bring in a world from among the mountains andvalleys of California and New Mexico, or any other part of Mexico, andthen quarrel about it; to bring it in, and then endeavor to put uponit the saving grace of the Wilmot Proviso. There were two eminent andhighly respectable gentlemen from the North and East, then leadinggentlemen in the Senate (I refer, and I do so with entire respect, forI entertain for both of those gentlemen, in general, high regard, to Mr. Dix of New York and Mr. Niles of Connecticut), who both voted for theadmission of Texas. They would not have that vote any other way than asit stood; and they would have it as it did stand. I speak of thevote upon the annexation of Texas. Those two gentlemen would have theresolution of annexation just as it is, without amendment; and theyvoted for it just as it is, and their eyes were all open to its truecharacter. The honorable member from South Carolina who addressed usthe other day was then Secretary of State. His correspondence with Mr. Murphy, the Charge d'Affaires of the United States in Texas, had beenpublished. That correspondence was all before those gentlemen, and theSecretary had the boldness and candor to avow in that correspondence, that the great object sought by the annexation of Texas was tostrengthen the slave interest of the South. Why, sir, he said so in somany words. 

Mr. Calhoun. Will the honorable Senator permit me to interrupt him for amoment? Mr. Webster. Certainly. 

Mr. Calhoun. I am very reluctant to interrupt the honorable gentleman;but, upon a point of so much importance, I deem it right to put myself_rectus in curia_. I did not put it upon the ground assumed by theSenator. I put it upon this ground; that Great Britain had announced tothis country, in so many words, that her object was to abolish slaveryin Texas, and, through Texas, to accomplish the abolition of slaveryin the United States and the world. The ground I put it on was, that itwould make an exposed frontier, and, if Great Britain succeeded inher object, it would be impossible that that frontier could be securedagainst the aggressions of the Abolitionists; and that this Governmentwas bound, under the guaranties of the Constitution, to protect usagainst such a state of things. 

Mr. Webster. That comes, I suppose, Sir, to exactly the same thing. Itwas, that Texas must be obtained for the security of the slave interestof the South. 

Mr. Calhoun. Another view is very distinctly given. 

Mr. Webster. That was the object set forth in the correspondence of aworthy gentleman not now living, who preceded the honorable member fromSouth Carolina in the Department of State. There repose on the filesof the Department, as I have occasion to know, strong letters from Mr. Upshur to the United States Minister in England, and I believe there aresome to the same Minister from the honorable Senator himself, assertingto this effect the sentiments of this government; namely, that GreatBritain was expected not to interfere to take Texas out of the handsof its then existing government and make it a free country. But myargument, my suggestion, is this: that those gentlemen who composed theNorthern Democracy when Texas was brought into the Union saw clearlythat it was brought in as a slave country, and brought in for thepurpose of being maintained as slave territory, to the Greek Kalends. I rather think the honorable gentleman who was then Secretary of Statemight, in some of his correspondence with Mr. Murphy, have suggestedthat it was not expedient to say too much about this object, lest itshould create some alarm. At any rate, Mr. Murphy wrote to him thatEngland was anxious to get rid of the constitution of Texas, because itwas a constitution establishing slavery; and that what the UnitedStates had to do was to aid the people of Texas in upholding theirconstitution; but that nothing should be said which should offend thefanatical men of the North. But, Sir, the honorable member did avow thisobject himself, openly, boldly, and manfully; he did not disguise hisconduct or his motives. 

Mr. Calhoun. Never, never. 

Mr. Webster. What he means he is very apt to say. 

Mr. Calhoun. Always, always. 

Mr. Webster. And I honor him for it. 

This admission of Texas was in 1845. Then in 1847, _flagrante bello_between the United States and Mexico, the proposition I have mentionedwas brought forward by my friend from Georgia, and the NorthernDemocracy voted steadily against it. Their remedy was to apply tothe acquisitions, after they should come in, the Wilmot Proviso. Whatfollows? These two gentlemen, worthy and honorable and influential men(and if they had not been they could not have carried the measure), these two gentlemen, members of this body, brought in Texas, and bytheir votes they also pre-vented the passage of the resolution of thehonorable member from Georgia, and then they went home and took the leadin the Free Soil party. And there they stand, Sir! They leave us here, bound in honor and conscience by the resolutions of annexation; theyleave us here, to take the odium of fulfilling the obligations infavor of slavery which they voted us into, or else the greater odium ofviolating those obligations, while they are at home making capital androusing speeches for free soil and no slavery. And therefore I say, Sir, that there is not a chapter in our history, respecting public measuresand public men, more full of what would create surprise, and more fullof what does create, in my mind, extreme mortification, than that of theconduct of the Northern Democracy on this subject. 

Mr. President, sometimes when a man is found in a new relation to thingsaround him and to other men, he says the world has changed, and that heis not changed. I believe, sir, that our self-respect leads us oftento make this declaration in regard to ourselves when it is not exactlytrue. An individual is more apt to change, perhaps, than all theworld around him. But under the present circumstances, and under theresponsibility which I know I incur by what I am now stating here, Ifeel at liberty to recur to the various expressions and statements, made at various times, of my own opinions and resolutions respecting theadmission of Texas, and all that has followed. 

* * * On other occasions, in debate here, I have expressed mydetermination to vote for no acquisition, or cession, or annexation, North or South, East or West. My opinion has been, that we haveterritory enough, and that we should follow the Spartan maxim: "Improve, adorn what you have, "--seek no further. I think that it was in someobservations that I made on the three million loan bill that I avowedthis sentiment. In short, sir, it has been avowed quite as often in asmany places, and before as many assemblies, as any humble opinions ofmine ought to be avowed. 

But now that, under certain conditions, Texas is in the Union, with allher territory, as a slave State, with a solemn pledge also that, if sheshall be divided into many States, those States may come in as slaveStates south of 36° 30', how are we to deal with this subject? I know noway of honest legislation, when the proper time comes for the enactment, but to carry into effect all that we have stipulated to do. * * *That is the meaning of the contract which our friends, the northernDemocracy, have left us to fulfil; and I, for one, mean to fulfil it, because I will not violate the faith of the Government. What I meanto say is, that the time for the admission of new States formed out ofTexas, the number of such States, their boundaries, the requisite amountof population, and all other things connected with the admission, arein the free discretion of Congress, except this: to wit, that when newStates formed out of Texas are to be admitted, they have a right, bylegal stipulation and contract, to come in as slave States. 

Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excludedfrom these territories by a law even superior to that which admits andsanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth. That law settles forever, with astrength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot existin California or New Mexico. Understand me, sir; I mean slavery as weregard it; the slavery of the colored race as it exists in the southernStates. I shall not discuss the point, but leave it to the learnedgentlemen who have undertaken to discuss it; but I suppose there isno slavery of that description in California now. I understand thatpeonism, a sort of penal servitude, exists there, or rather a sort ofvoluntary sale of a man and his offspring for debt, an arrangement of apeculiar nature known to the law of Mexico. But what I mean to sayis, that it is impossible that African slavery, as we see it among us, should find its way, or be introduced, into California and New Mexico, as any other natural impossibility. California and New Mexico areAsiatic in their formation and scenery. They are composed of vast ridgesof mountains of great height, with broken ridges and deep valleys. The sides of these mountains are entirely barren; their tops cappedby perennial snow. There may be in California, now made free by itsconstitution, and no doubt there are, some tracts of valuable land. But it is not so in New Mexico. Pray, what is the evidence which everygentleman must have obtained on this subject, from information sought byhimself or communicated by others? I have inquired and read all I couldfind, in order to acquire information on this important subject. What isthere in New Mexico that could, by any possibility, induce anybody to gothere with slaves! There are some narrow strips of tillable land on theborders of the rivers; but the rivers themselves dry up before midsummeris gone. All that the people can do in that region is to raise somelittle articles, some little wheat for their tortillas, and that byirrigation. And who expects to see a hundred black men cultivatingtobacco, corn, cotton, rice, or any thing else, on lands in New Mexico, made fertile by irrigation?

I look upon it, therefore, as a fixed fact, to use the currentexpression of the day, that both California and New Mexico are destinedto be free, so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, inregard to New Mexico, will be but partially, for a great length of time;free by the arrangement of things ordained by the Power above us. I havetherefore to say, in this respect also, that this country is fixedfor freedom, to as many persons as shall ever live in it, by a lessrepealable law than that which attaches to the right of holding slavesin Texas; and I will say further, that, if a resolution or a bill werenow before us, to provide a territorial government for New Mexico, I would not vote to put any prohibition into it whatever. Such aprohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would haveupon the territory; and I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm anordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of God. I would put in noWilmot proviso for the mere purpose of a taunt or a reproach. I wouldput into it no evidence of the votes of superior power, exercised for nopurpose but to wound the pride, whether a just and a rational pride, oran irrational pride, of the citizens of the southern States. I have nosuch object, no such purpose. They would think it a taunt, an indignity;they would think it to be an act taking away from them what they regardas a proper equality of privilege. Whether they expect to realize anybenefit from it or not, they would think it at least a plain theoreticwrong; that something more or less derogatory to their character andtheir rights had taken place. I propose to inflict no such wound uponanybody, unless something essentially important to the country, andefficient to the preservation of liberty and freedom, is to be effected. I repeat, therefore, sir, and, as I do not propose to address the Senateoften on this subject, I repeat it because I wish it to be distinctlyunderstood, that, for the reasons stated, if a proposition were now hereto establish a government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert aprovision for a prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it. * * *Sir, we hear occasionally of the annexation of Canada; and if there beany man, any of the northern Democracy, or any of the Free Soil party, who supposes it necessary to insert a Wilmot Proviso in a territorialgovernment for New Mexico, that man would, of course, be of opinion thatit is necessary to protect the ever-lasting snows of Canada from thefoot of slavery by the same overspreading wing of an act of Congress. Sir, wherever there is a substantive good to be done, wherever there isa foot of land to be prevented from becoming slave territory, I am readyto assert the principle of the exclusion of slavery. I am pledged toit from the year 1837; I have been pledged to it again and again; and Iwill perform these pledges; but I will not do a thing unnecessarilythat wounds the feelings of others, or that does discredit to my ownunderstanding. * * *

Mr. President, in the excited times in which we live, there is foundto exist a state of crimination and recrimination between the Northand South. There are lists of grievances produced by each; and thosegrievances, real or supposed, alienate the minds of one portion of thecountry from the other, exasperate the feelings, and subdue the sense offraternal affection, patriotic love, and mutual regard. I shall bestow alittle attention, sir, upon these various grievances existing on the oneside and on the other. I begin with complaints of the South. I will notanswer, further than I have, the general statements of the honorableSenator from South Carolina, that the North has prospered at theexpense of the South in consequence of the manner of administering thisGovernment, in the collection of its revenues, and so forth. These aredisputed topics, and I have no inclination to enter into them. But Iwill allude to other complaints of the South, and especially to onewhich has in my opinion, just foundation; and that is, that there hasbeen found at the North, among individuals and among legislators, adisinclination to perform fully their constitutional duties in regardto the return of persons bound to service who have escaped into the freeStates. In that respect, the South, in my judgment, is right, and theNorth is wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is boundby oath, like every other officer in the country, to support theConstitution of the United States; and the article of the Constitutionwhich says to these States that they shall deliver up fugitives fromservice, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article. No man fulfils his duty in any legislature who sets himself to findexcuses, evasions, escapes from this constitutional obligation. Ihave always thought that the Constitution addressed itself to thelegislatures of the States or to the States themselves. It says thatthose persons escaping to other States "shall be delivered up, " and Iconfess I have always been of the opinion that it was an injunctionupon the States themselves. When it is said that a person escaping intoanother State, and coming therefore within the jurisdiction of thatState, shall be delivered up, it seems to me the import of the clauseis, that the State itself, in obedience to the Constitution, shall causehim to be delivered up. That is my judgment. I have always entertainedthat opinion, and I entertain it now. But when the subject, some yearsago, was before the Supreme Court of the United States, the majorityof the judges held that the power to cause fugitives from service tobe delivered up was a power to be exercised under the authority of thisGovernment. I do not know, on the whole, that it may not have beena fortunate decision. My habit is to respect the result of judicialdeliberations and the solemnity of judicial decisions. As it now stands, the business of seeing that these fugitives are delivered up resides inthe power of Congress and the national judicature, and my friend at thehead of the Judiciary Committee has a bill on the subject now before theSenate, which, with some amendments to it, I propose to support, withall its provisions, to the fullest extent. And I desire to call theattention of all sober-minded men at the North, of all conscientiousmen, of all men who are not carried away by some fanatical idea or somefalse impression, to their constitutional obligations. I put it to allthe sober and sound minds at the North as a question of morals anda question of conscience. What right have they, in their legislativecapacity, or any other capacity, to endeavor to get round thisConstitution, or to embarrass the free exercise of the rights secured bythe Constitution, to the person whose slaves escape from them? None atall; none at all. Neither in the forum of conscience, nor before theface of the Constitution, are they, in my opinion, justified in suchan attempt. Of course it is a matter for their consideration. Theyprobably, in the excitement of the times, have not stopped to considerthis. They have followed what seemed to be the current of thought and ofmotives, as the occasion arose, and they have neglected to investigatefully the real question, and to consider their constitutionalobligations; which, I am sure, if they did consider, they would fulfilwith alacrity. I repeat, therefore, sir, that here is a well-foundedground of complaint against the North, which ought to be removed, whichis now in the power of the different departments of this government toremove; which calls for the enactment of proper laws authorizing thejudicature of this Government, in the several States, to do all that isnecessary for the recapture of fugitive slaves and for their restorationto those who claim them. Wherever I go, and whenever I speak on thesubject, and when I speak here I desire to speak to the whole North, Isay that the South has been injured in this respect, and has a rightto complain; and the North has been too careless of what I think theConstitution peremptorily and emphatically enjoins upon her as a duty. 

Complaint has been made against certain resolutions that emanate fromlegislatures at the North, and are sent here to us, not only on thesubject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congressto consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. I should besorry to be called upon to present any resolutions here which could notbe referable to any committee or any power in Congress; and therefore Ishould be unwilling to receive from the legislature of Massachusetts anyinstructions to present resolutions expressive of any opinion whateveron the subject of slavery, as it exists at the present moment in theStates, for two reasons: because I do not consider that I, as herrepresentative here, have any thing to do with it. It has become, in myopinion, quite too common; and if the legislatures of the States do notlike that opinion, they have a great deal more power to put it down thanI have to uphold it; it has become, in my opinion, quite too common apractice for the State legislatures to present resolutions here on allsubjects and to instruct us on all subjects. There is no public man thatrequires instruction more than I do, or who requires information morethan I do, or desires it more heartily; but I do not like to have it intoo imperative a shape. * * *

Then, sir, there are the Abolition societies, of which I am unwilling tospeak, but in regard to which I have very clear notions and opinions. Ido not think them useful. I think their operations for the last twentyyears have produced nothing good or valuable. At the same time, Ibelieve thousands of their members to be honest and good men, perfectlywell-meaning men. They have excited feelings; they think they must dosomething for the cause of liberty; and, in their sphere of action, they do not see what else they can do than to contribute to an abolitionpress, or an abolition society, or to pay an abolition lecturer. I donot mean to impute gross motives even to the leaders of these societies, but I am not blind to the consequences of their proceedings. I cannotbut see what mischief their interference with the South has produced. And is it not plain to every man? Let any gentleman who entertainsdoubts on this point, recur to the debates in the Virginia House ofDelegates in 1832, and he will see with what freedom a proposition madeby Mr. Jefferson Randolph, for the gradual abolition of slavery wasdiscussed in that body. Every one spoke of slavery as he thought; veryignominous and disparaging names and epithets were applied to it. Thedebates in the House of Delegates on that occasion, I believe were allpublished. They were read by every colored man who could read, and tothose who could not read, those debates were read by others. At thattime Virginia was not unwilling or afraid to discuss this question, andto let that part of her population know as much of the discussion asthey could learn. That was in 1832. As has been said by the honorablemember from South Carolina, these abolition societies commenced theircourse of action in 1835. It is said, I do not know how true it may be, that they sent incendiary publications into the slave States; at anyrate, they attempted to arouse, and did arouse, a very strong feeling;in other words, they created great agitation in the North againstSouthern slavery. Well, what was the result? The bonds of the slaveswere bound more firmly than before, their rivets were more stronglyfastened. Public opinion, which in Virginia had begun to be exhibitedagainst slavery, and was opening out for the discussion of the question, drew back and shut itself up in its castle. I wish to know whetheranybody in Virginia can now talk openly, as Mr. Randolph, GovernorMcDowel, and others talked in 1832, and sent their remarks to the press?We all know the fact, and we all know the cause; and every thing thatthese agitating people have done has been, not to enlarge, but torestrain, not to set free, but to bind faster, the slave population ofthe South. * * *

There are also complaints of the North against the South. I need not goover them particularly. The first and gravest is, that the North adoptedthe Constitution, recognizing the existence of slavery in the States, and recognizing the right, to a certain extent, of the representationof slaves in Congress, under a state of sentiment and expectationwhich does not now exist; and that by events, by circumstances, bythe eagerness of the South to acquire territory and extend her slavepopulation, the North finds itself, in regard to the relative influenceof the South and the North, of the free States and the slave States, where it never did expect to find itself when they agreed to the compactof the Constitution. They complain, therefore, that, instead of slaverybeing regarded as an evil, as it was then, an evil which all hopedwould be extinguished gradually, it is now regarded by the South as aninstitution to be cherished, and preserved, and extended; an institutionwhich the South has already extended to the utmost of her power by theacquisition of new territory. 

Well, then, passing from that, everybody in the North reads; andeverybody reads whatsoever the newspapers contain; and the news-papers, some of them, especially those presses to which I have alluded, arecareful to spread about among the people every reproachful sentimentuttered by any Southern man bearing at all against the North; everything that is calculated to exasperate and to alienate; and there aremany such things, as everybody will admit, from the South, or fromportions of it, which are disseminated among the reading people; andthey do exasperate, and alienate, and produce a most mischievous effectupon the public mind at the North. Sir, I would not notice things ofthis sort appearing in obscure quarters; but one thing has occurredin this debate which struck me very forcibly. An honorable member fromLouisiana addressed us the other day on this subject. I suppose there isnot a more amiable and worthy gentleman in this chamber, nor a gentlemanwho would be more slow to give offence to any body, and he did not meanin his remarks to give offence. But what did he say? Why, sir, he tookpains to run a contrast between the slaves of the South and the laboringpeople of the North, giving the preference, in all points of condition, and comfort, and happiness to the slaves of the South. The honorablemember, doubtless, did not suppose that he gave any offence, or did anyinjustice. He was merely expressing his opinion. But does he know howremarks of that sort will be received by the laboring people of theNorth? Why, who are the laboring people of the North? They are thewhole North. They are the people who till their own farms with their ownhands; freeholders, educated men, independent men. Let me say, sir, thatfive sixths of the whole property of the North is in the hands of thelaborers of the North; they cultivate their farms, they educatetheir children, they provide the means of independence. If they are notfreeholders, they earn wages; these wages accumulate, are turned intocapital, into new freeholds, and small capitalists are created. Suchis the case, and such the course of things, among the industrious andfrugal. And what can these people think when so respectable and worthya gentleman as the member from Louisiana undertakes to prove that theabsolute ignorance and the abject slavery of the South are more inconformity with the high purposes and destiny of immortal, rational, human beings, than the educated, the independent free labor of theNorth?

There is a more tangible and irritating cause of grievance at theNorth. Free blacks are constantly employed in the vessels of the North, generally as cooks or stewards. When the vessel arrives at a southernport, these free colored men are taken on shore, by the police ormunicipal authority, imprisoned, and kept in prison till the vesselis again ready to sail. This is not only irritating, but exceedinglyunjustifiable and oppressive. Mr. Hoar's mission, some time ago to SouthCarolina, was a well-intended effort to remove this cause of complaint. The North thinks such imprisonments illegal and unconstitutional; and asthe cases occur constantly and frequently they regard it as a grievance. 

Now, sir, so far as any of these grievances have their foundation inmatters of law, they can be redressed, and ought to be redressed; and sofar as they have their foundation in matters of opinion, in sentiment, in mutual crimination and recrimination, all that we can do is toendeavor to allay the agitation, and cultivate a better feeling and morefraternal sentiments between the South and the North. 

Mr. President, I should much prefer to have heard from every memberon this floor declarations of opinion that this Union could never bedissolved, than the declaration of opinion by anybody, that in anycase, under the pressure of any circumstances, such a dissolutionwas possible. I hear with distress and anguish the word "secession, "especially when it falls from the lips of those who are patriotic, andknown to the country, and known all over the world for their politicalservices. Secession! Peaceable secession! Sir, your eyes and mine arenever destined to see that miracle. The dismemberment of this vastcountry without convulsion! The breaking up of the fountains of thegreat deep without ruffling the surface! Who is so foolish--I begeverybody's pardon--as to expect to see any such thing? Sir, he whosees these States, now revolving in harmony around a common centre, andexpects to see them quit their places and fly off without convulsion, may look the next hour to see the heavenly bodies rush from theirspheres, and jostle against each other in the realms of space, withoutcausing the wreck of the universe. There can be no such thing as apeaceable secession. Peaceable secession is an utter impossibility. Isthe great Constitution under which we live, covering this whole country, is it to be thawed and melted away by secession, as the snows on themountain melt under the influence of a vernal sun, disappear almostunobserved, and run off? No, sir! No, sir! I will not state what mightproduce the disruption of the Union; but, sir, I see as plainly as I cansee the sun in heaven what that disruption itself must produce; I seethat it must produce war, and such a war as I will not describe, in itstwofold character. 

Peaceable secession! Peaceable secession! The concurrent agreementof all the members of this great Republic to separate! A voluntaryseparation, with alimony on one side and on the other. Why, what wouldbe the result? Where is the line to be drawn? What States are to secede?What is to remain American? What am I to be? An American no longer? Am Ito become a sectional man, a local man, a separatist, with no country incommon with the gentlemen who sit around me here, or who fill the otherhouse of Congress? Heaven forbid! Where is the flag of the Republicto remain? Where is the eagle still to tower? or is he to cower, andshrink, and fall to the ground? Why, sir, our ancestors, our fathersand our grandfathers, those of them that are yet living amongst us withprolonged lives, would rebuke and reproach us; and our children andour grandchildren would cry out shame upon us, if we of this generationshould dishonor these ensigns of the power of the Government and theharmony of that Union which is every day felt among us with so much joyand gratitude. What is to become of the army? What is to become of thenavy? What is to become of the public lands? How is each of the thirtyStates to defend itself? I know, although the idea has not been stateddistinctly, there is to be, or it is supposed possible that therewill be, a Southern Confederacy. I do not mean, when I allude to thisstatement, that any one seriously contemplates such a state of things. I do not mean to say that it is true, but I have heard it suggestedelsewhere, that the idea has been entertained, that, after thedissolution of this Union, a Southern Confederacy might be formed. I amsorry, sir, that it has ever been thought of, talked of, in the wildestflights of human imagination. But the idea, so far as it exists, mustbe of a separation, assigning the slave States to one side, and the freeStates to the other. Sir, I may express myself too strongly, perhaps, but there are impossibilities in the natural as well as in the physicalworld, and I hold the idea of the separation of these States, those thatare free to form one government, and those that are slave-holding toform another, as such an impossibility. We could not separate the Statesby any such line, if we were to draw it. We could not sit down hereto-day and draw a line of separation that would satisfy any five menin the country. There are natural causes that would keep and tie ustogether, and there are social and domestic relations which we could notbreak if we would, and which we should not if we could. 

Sir, nobody can look over the face of this country at the presentmoment, nobody can see where its population is the most dense andgrowing, without being ready to admit, and compelled to admit, that erelong the strength of America will be in the Valley of theMississippi. Well, now, sir, I beg to inquire what the wildestenthusiast has to say on the possibility of cutting that river in two, and leaving free States at its source and on its branches, and slaveStates down near its mouth, each forming a separate government? Pray, sir, let me say to the people of this country, that these things areworthy of their pondering and of their consideration. Here, sir, arefive millions of freemen in the free States north of the river Ohio. Can anybody suppose that this population can be severed, by a line thatdivides them from the territory of a foreign and alien government, down somewhere, the Lord knows where, upon the lower banks ofthe Mississippi? What would become of Missouri? Will she join thearrondissement of the slave States? Shall the man from the Yellowstoneand the Platte be connected, in the new republic, with the man who liveson the southern extremity of the Cape of Florida? Sir, I am ashamed topursue this line of remark. I dislike it, I have an utter disgust forit. I would rather hear of natural blasts and mildews, war, pestilence, and famine, than to hear gentlemen talk of secession. To break up thisgreat Government! to dismember this glorious country! to astonish Europewith an act of folly such as Europe for two centuries has never beheldin any government or any people! No, sir! no, sir! There will be nosecession! Gentlemen are not serious when they talk of secession. 

Sir, I hear there is to be a convention held at Nashville. I am bound tobelieve that if worthy gentlemen meet at Nashville in convention, theirobject will be to adopt conciliatory counsels; to advise the South toforbearance and moderation, and to advise the North to forbearance andmoderation; and to inculcate principles of brotherly love and affection, and attachment to the Constitution of the country as it now is. Ibelieve, if the convention meet at all, it will be for this purpose; forcertainly, if they meet for any purpose hostile to the Union, they havebeen singularly inappropriate in their selection of a place. I remember, sir, that, when the treaty of Amiens was concluded between France andEngland, a sturdy Englishman and a distinguished orator, who regardedthe conditions of the peace as ignominious to England, said in the Houseof Commons, that if King William could know the terms of that treaty, hewould turn in his coffin! Let me commend this saying to Mr. Windham, inall its emphasis and in all its force, to any persons who shall meet atNashville for the purpose of concerting measures for the overthrow ofthis Union over the bones of Andrew Jackson. * * *

And now, Mr. President, instead of speaking of the possibility orutility of secession, instead of dwelling in those caverns of darkness, instead of groping with those ideas so full of all that is horrid andhorrible, let us come out into the light of the day; let us enjoy thefresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belongto us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit forour consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to themagnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; letour comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, ouraspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in acase that calls for men. Never did there devolve on any generation ofmen higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of thisConstitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to liveunder it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightestlinks in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, tograpple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages tocome. We have a great, popular, Constitutional Government, guardedby law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the wholepeople. No monarchical throne presses these States together, no ironchain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under aGovernment popular in its form, representative in its character, foundedupon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to lastforever. In all its history it has been beneficent; it has trodden downno man's liberty; it has crushed no State. Its daily respiration isliberty and patriotism; its yet youthful veins are full of enterprise, courage, and honorable love of glory and renown. Large before, thecountry has now, by recent events, become vastly larger. This Republicnow extends, with a vast breadth across the whole continent. The twogreat seas of the world wash the one and the other shore. We realize, on a mighty scale, the beautiful description of the ornamental border ofthe buckler of Achilles:

 "Now, the broad shield complete, the artist crowned With his last hand, and poured the ocean round; In living silver seemed the waves to roll, And beat the buckler's verge, and bound the whole. "

[Illustration: Henry Clay]

HENRY CLAY, OF KENTUCKY, (BORN 1777, DIED 1852. )

ON THE COMPROMISE OF 1850; UNITED STATES SENATE, JULY 22, 1850. 

MR. PRESIDENT:

In the progress of this debate it has been again and again argued thatperfect tranquillity reigns throughout the country, and that there isno disturbance threatening its peace, endangering its safety, but thatwhich was produced by busy, restless politicians. It has been maintainedthat the surface of the public mind is perfectly smooth and undisturbedby a single billow. I most heartily wish I could concur in this pictureof general tranquillity that has been drawn upon both sides of theSenate. I am no alarmist; nor, I thank God, at the advanced age at whichHis providence has been pleased to allow me to reach, am I very easilyalarmed by any human event; but I totally misread the signs of thetimes, if there be that state of profound peace and quiet, that absenceof all just cause of apprehension of future danger to this confederacy, which appears to be entertained by some other senators. Mr. President, all the tendencies of the times, I lament to say, are towarddisquietude, if not more fatal consequences. When before, in the midstof profound peace with all the nations of the earth, have we seen aconvention, representing a considerable portion of one great part ofthe Republic, meet to deliberate about measures of future safety inconnection with great interests of that quarter of the country? Whenbefore have we seen, not one, but more--some half a dozen legislativebodies solemnly resolving that if any one of these measures--theadmission of California, the adoption of the Wilmot proviso, theabolition of slavery in the District of Columbia--should be adopted byCongress, measures of an extreme character, for the safety of the greatinterests to which I refer, in a particular section of the country, would be resorted to? For years, this subject of the abolition ofslavery, even within this District of Columbia, small as is the numberof slaves here, has been a source of constant irritation and disquiet. So of the subject of the recovery of fugitive slaves who have escapedfrom their lawful owners: not a mere border contest, as has beensupposed--although there, undoubtedly, it has given rise to moreirritation than in other portions of the Union--but everywherethrough-out the slave-holding country it has been felt as a great evil, a great wrong which required the intervention of congressional power. But these two subjects, unpleasant as has been the agitation to whichthey have given rise, are nothing in comparison to those which havesprung out of the acquisitions recently made from the Republic ofMexico. These are not only great and leading causes of just apprehensionas respects the future, but all the minor circumstances of the dayintimate danger ahead, whatever may be its final issue and consequence. * * *

Mr. President, I will not dwell upon other concomitant causes, allhaving the same tendency, and all well calculated to awaken, to arouseus--if, as I hope the fact is, we are all of us sincerely desirousof preserving this Union--to rouse us to dangers which really exist, without underrating them upon the one hand, or magnifying them upon theother. * * *

It has been objected against this measure that it is a compromise. Ithas been said that it is a compromise of principle, or of aprinciple. Mr. President, what is a compromise? It is a work of mutualconcession--an agreement in which there are reciprocal stipulations--awork in which, for the sake of peace and concord, one party abates hisextreme demands in consideration of an abatement of extreme demandsby the other party: it is a measure of mutual concession--a measure ofmutual sacrifice. Undoubtedly, Mr. President, in all such measuresof compromise, one party would be very glad to get what he wants, andreject what he does not desire, but which the other party wants. Butwhen he comes to reflect that, from the nature of the Government and itsoperations, and from those with whom he is dealing, it is necessary uponhis part, in order to secure what he wants, to grant something to theother side, he should be reconciled to the concession which he has made, in consequence of the concession which he is to receive, if there is nogreat principle involved, such as a violation of the Constitution of theUnited States. I admit that such a compromise as that ought never to besanctioned or adopted. But I now call upon any senator in his place topoint out from the beginning to the end, from California to New Mexico, a solitary provision in this bill which is violative of the Constitutionof the United States. 

Sir, adjustments in the shape of compromise may be made withoutproducing any such consequences as have been apprehended. There may bea mutual forbearance. You forbear on your side to insist upon theapplication of the restriction denominated the Wilmot proviso. Isthere any violation of principle there? The most that can be said, evenassuming the power to pass the Wilmot proviso, which is denied, is thatthere is a forbearance to exercise, not a violation of, the power topass the proviso. So, upon the other hand, if there was a power inthe Constitution of the United States authorizing the establishmentof slavery in any of the Territories--a power, however, which iscontroverted by a large portion of this Senate--if there was a powerunder the Constitution to establish slavery, the forbearance to exercisethat power is no violation of the Constitution, any more than theConstitution is violated by a forbearance to exercise numerous powers, that might be specified, that are granted in the Constitution, and thatremain dormant until they come to be exercised by the properlegislative authorities. It is said that the bill presents the state ofcoercion--that members are coerced, in order to get what they want, tovote for that which they disapprove. Why, sir, what coercion is there?* * * Can it be said upon the part of our Northern friends, because theyhave not got the Wilmot proviso incorporated in the territorial partof the bill, that they are coerced--wanting California, as they do, somuch--to vote for the bill, if they do vote for it? Sir, they mighthave imitated the noble example of my friend (Senator Cooper, ofPennsylvania), from that State upon whose devotion to this Union I placeone of my greatest reliances for its preservation. What was the courseof my friend upon this subject of the Wilmot proviso? He voted for it;and he could go back to his constituents and say, as all of you could goback and say to your constituents, if you chose to do so--"We wanted theWilmot proviso in the bill; we tried to get it in; but the majority ofthe Senate was against it. " The question then came up whether we shouldlose California, which has got an interdiction in her constitution, which, in point of value and duration, is worth a thousand Wilmotprovisos; we were induced, as my honorable friend would say, to take thebill and the whole of it together, although we were disappointed in ourvotes with respect to the Wilmot proviso--to take it, whatever omissionsmay have been made, on account of the superior amount of good itcontains. * * *

Not the reception of the treaty of peace negotiated at Ghent, nor anyother event which has occurred during my progress in public life, evergave such unbounded and universal satisfaction as the settlement of theMissouri compromise. We may argue from like causes like effects. Then, indeed, there was great excitement. Then, indeed, all the legislaturesof the North called out for the exclusion of Missouri, and all thelegislatures of the South called out for her admission as a State. Then, as now, the country was agitated like the ocean in the midst ofa turbulent storm. But now, more than then, has this agitation beenincreased. Now, more than then, are the dangers which exist, if thecontroversy remains unsettled, more aggravated and more to be dreaded. The idea of disunion was then scarcely a low whisper. Now, it has becomea familiar language in certain portions of the country. The public mindand the public heart are becoming familiarized with that most dangerousand fatal of all events--the disunion of the States. People begin tocontend that this is not so bad a thing as they had supposed. Like theprogress in all human affairs, as we approach danger it disappears, itdiminishes in our conception, and we no longer regard it with that awfulapprehension of consequences that we did before we came into contactwith it. Everywhere now there is a state of things, a degree of alarmand apprehension, and determination to fight, as they regard it, againstthe aggressions of the North. That did not so demonstrate itself at theperiod of the Missouri compromise. It was followed, in consequence ofthe adoption of the measure which settled the difficulty of Missouri, by peace, harmony, and tranquillity. So, now, I infer, from the greateramount of agitation, from the greater amount of danger, that, if youadopt the measures under consideration, they, too, will be followed bythe same amount of contentment, satisfaction, peace, and tranquillity, which ensued after the Missouri compromise. * * *

The responsibility of this great measure passes from the hands of thecommittee, and from my hands. They know, and I know, that it is an awfuland tremendous responsibility. I hope that you will meet it with a justconception and a true appreciation of its magnitude, and the magnitudeof the consequences that may ensue from your decision one way or, theother. The alternatives, I fear, which the measure presents, are concordand increased discord; a servile civil war, originating in its causeson the lower Rio Grande, and terminating possibly in its consequenceson the upper Rio Grande in the Santa Fe country, or the restoration ofharmony and fraternal kindness. I believe from the bottom of my soul, that the measure is the reunion of this Union. I believe it is the doveof peace, which, taking its aerial flight from the dome of the Capitol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to allthe remotest extremities of this distracted land. I believe that it willbe attended with all these beneficent effects. And now let us discardall resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, all personaldesires, all love of place, all hankerings after the gilded crumbs whichfall from the table of power. Let us forget popular fears, fromwhatever quarter they may spring. Let us go to the limpid fountain ofunadulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn lustration, returndivested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities, and thinkalone of our God, our country, our consciences, and our gloriousUnion--that Union without which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of military despotism, or foreigndomination. 

Mr. President, what is an individual man? An atom, almost invisiblewithout a magnifying glass--a mere speck upon the surface of theimmense universe; not a second in time, compared to immeasurable, never-beginning, and never-ending eternity; a drop of water in the greatdeep, which evaporates and is borne off by the winds; a grain of sand, which is soon gathered to the dust from which it sprung. Shall a beingso small, so petty, so fleeting, so evanescent, oppose itself to theonward march of a great nation, which is to subsist for ages and ages tocome; oppose itself to that long line of posterity which, issuing fromour loins, will endure during the existence of the world? Forbid it, God. Let us look to our country and our cause, elevate ourselves to thedignity of pure and disinterested patriots, and save our country fromall impending dangers. What if, in the march of this nation to greatnessand power, we should be buried beneath the wheels that propel it onward!What are we--what is any man--worth who is not ready and willing tosacrifice himself for the benefit of his country when it is necessary? ** *

If this Union shall become separated, new unions, new confederacies willarise. And with respect to this, if there be any--I hope there is no onein the Senate--before whose imagination is flitting the idea of a greatSouthern Confederacy to take possession of the Balize and the mouthof the Mississippi, I say in my place never! never! NEVER! will we whooccupy the broad waters of the Mississippi and its upper tributariesconsent that any foreign flag shall float at the Balize or upon theturrets of the Crescent City--NEVER! NEVER! I call upon all the South. Sir, we have had hard words, bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasantfeelings toward each other in the progress of this great measure. Let usforget them. Let us sacrifice these feelings. Let us go to the altar ofour country and swear, as the oath was taken of old, that we will standby her; that we will support her; that we will uphold her Constitution;that we will preserve her Union; and that we will pass this great, comprehensive, and healing system of measures, which will hush all thejarring elements, and bring peace and tranquillity to our homes. 

Let me, Mr. President, in conclusion, say that the most disastrousconsequences would occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, doingnothing to satisfy and tranquillize the country upon these greatquestions. What will be the judgment of mankind, what the judgment ofthat portion of mankind who are looking upon the progress of this schemeof self-government as being that which holds the highest hopes andexpectations of ameliorating the condition of mankind--what will theirjudgment be? Will not all the monarchs of the Old World pronounce ourglorious Republic a disgraceful failure? What will be the judgment ofour constituents, when we return to them and they ask us: "How haveyou left your country? Is all quiet--all happy? Are all the seeds ofdistraction or division crushed and dissipated?" And, sir, when youcome into the bosom of your family, when you come to converse with thepartner of your fortunes, of your happiness, and of your sorrows, andwhen in the midst of the common offspring of both of you, she asks you:"Is there any danger of civil war? Is there any danger of the torchbeing applied to any portion of the country? Have you settled thequestions which you have been so long discussing and deliberatingupon at Washington? Is all peace and all quiet?" what response, Mr. President, can you make to that wife of your choice and those childrenwith whom you have been blessed by God? Will you go home and leave allin disorder and confusion--all unsettled--all open? The contentions andagitations of the past will be increased and augmented by the agitationsresulting from our neglect to decide them. Sir, we shall stand condemnedby all human judgment below, and of that above it is not for me tospeak. We shall stand condemned in our own consciences, by our ownconstituents, and by our own country. The measure may be defeated. I have been aware that its passage for many days was not absolutelycertain. From the first to the last, I hoped and believed it would pass, because from the first to the last I believed it was founded on theprinciples of just and righteous concession of mutual conciliation. Ibelieve that it deals unjustly by no part of the Republic; that it savestheir honor, and, as far as it is dependent upon Congress, saves theinterests of all quarters of the country. But, sir, I have known thatthe decision of its fate depended upon four or five votes in the Senateof the United States, whose ultimate judgment we could not count uponthe one side or the other with absolute certainty. Its fate is nowcommitted to the Senate, and to those five or six votes to which I havereferred. It may be defeated. It is possible that, for the chastisementof our sins and transgressions, the rod of Providence may be stillapplied to us, may be still suspended over us. But, if defeated, itwill be a triumph of ultraism and impracticability--a triumph of a mostextraordinary conjunction of extremes; a victory won by abolitionism; avictory achieved by freesoilism; a victory of discord and agitation overpeace and tranquillity; and I pray to Almighty God that it may not, inconsequence of the inauspicious result, lead to the most unhappy anddisastrous consequences to our beloved country. 

MR. BARNWELL:--It is not my intention to reply to the argument of theSenator from Kentucky, but there were expressions used by him not alittle disrespectful to a friend whom I hold very dear. * * * It is truethat his political opinions differ very widely from those of the Senatorfrom Kentucky. It may be true, that he, with many great statesmen, maybelieve that the Wilmot proviso is a grievance to be resisted "to theutmost extremity" by those whose rights it destroys and whose honor itdegrades. It is true that he may believe * * * that the admission ofCalifornia will be the passing of the Wilmot proviso, when we here inCongress give vitality to an act otherwise totally dead, and by ourlegislation exclude slaveholders from that whole broad territory on thePacific; and, entertaining this opinion, he may have declared that thecontingency will then have occurred which will, in the judgment of mostof the slave-holding States, as expressed by their resolutions, justifyresistance as to an intolerable aggression. If he does entertain andhas expressed such sentiments, he is not to be held up as peculiarly adisunionist. Allow me to say, in reference to this matter, I regret thatyou have brought it about, but it is true that this epithet "disunionist"is likely soon to have very little terror in it in the South. Words donot make things. "Rebel" was designed as a very odious term when appliedby those who would have trampled on the rights of our ancestors, but Ibelieve that the expression became not an ungrateful one to the earsof those who resisted them. It was not the lowest term of abuse to callthose who were conscious that they were struggling against oppression;and let me assure gentlemen that the term disunionist is rapidlyassuming at the South the meaning which rebel took when it was baptizedin the blood of Warren at Bunker Hill, and illustrated by the gallantryof Jasper at Fort Moultrie. * * *

MR. CLAY:--Mr. President, I said nothing with respect to the characterof Mr. Rhett, for I might as well name him. I know him personally, and have some respect for him. But, if he pronounced the sentimentattributed to him--of raising the standard of disunion and of resistanceto the common government, whatever he has been, if he follows up thatdeclaration by corresponding overt acts, he will be a traitor, and Ihope he will meet the fate of a traitor. 

THE PRESIDENT:--The Chair will be under the necessity of ordering thegallery to be cleared if there is again the slightest interruption. Hehas once already given warning that he is under the necessity of keepingorder. The Senate chamber is not a theatre. 

MR. CLAY:--Mr. President, I have heard with pain and regret aconfirmation of the remark I made, that the sentiment of disunion isbecoming familiar. I hope it is confined to South Carolina. I do notregard as my duty what the honorable Senator seems to regard as his. IfKentucky to-morrow unfurls the banner of resistance unjustly, I neverwill fight under that banner. I owe a paramount allegiance to the wholeUnion--a subordinate one to my own State. When my State is right--whenit has a cause for resistance--when tyranny, and wrong, and oppressioninsufferable arise, I will then share her fortunes; but if she summonsme to the battle-field, or to support her in any cause which is unjust, against the Union, never, never will I engage with her in such cause. 

WENDELL PHILLIPS, OF MASSACIUSETTS. (BORN 1811, DIED 1884. )

ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE ABOLITION MOVEMENT, BEFORE THE MASSACHUSETTSANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, AT BOSTON, JANUARY 27, 1853. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN:

I have to present, from the business committee, the followingresolution:

Resolved; That the object of this society is now, as it has always been, to convince our countrymen, by arguments addressed to their hearts andconsciences, that slave-holding is a heinous crime, and that the duty, safety, and interest of all concerned demand its immediate abolitionwithout expatriation. 

I wish, Mr, Chairman, to notice some objections that have been made toour course ever since Mr. Garrison began his career, and which have beenlately urged again, with considerable force and emphasis, in thecolumns of the London Leader, the able organ of a very respectable andinfluential class in England. * * * The charges to which I refer arethese: That, in dealing with slave-holders and their apologists, weindulge in fierce denunciations, instead of appealing to their reasonand common sense by plain statements and fair argument; that we mighthave won the sympathies and support of the nation, if we would havesubmitted to argue this question with a manly patience; but, instead ofthis, we have outraged the feelings of the community by attacks, unjustand unnecessarily severe, on its most valued institutions, and gratifiedour spleen by indiscriminate abuse of leading men, who were often honestin their intentions, however mistaken in their views; that we haveutterly neglected the ample means that lay around us to convert thenation, submitted to no discipline, formed no plan, been guided by noforesight, but hurried on in childish, reckless, blind, and hot-headedzeal, --bigots in the narrowness of our views, and fanatics in our blindfury of invective and malignant judgment of other men's motives. 

There are some who come upon our platform, and give us the aid of namesand reputations less burdened than ours with popular odium, who areperpetually urging us to exercise charity in our judgments of thoseabout us, and to consent to argue these questions. These men are everparading their wish to draw a line between themselves and us, because they must be permitted to wait, --to trust more to reason thanfeeling, --to indulge a generous charity, --to rely on the sure influenceof simple truth, uttered in love, etc. , etc. I reject with scorn allthese implications that our judgments are uncharitable, --that we arelacking in patience, --that we have any other dependence than on thesimple truth, spoken with Christian frankness, yet with Christianlove. These lectures, to which you, sir, and all of us, have so oftenlistened, would be impertinent, if they were not rather ridiculous forthe gross ignorance they betray of the community, of the cause, and ofthe whole course of its friends. 

The article in the _Leader_ to which I refer is signed "ION, " and maybe found in the _Liberator_ of December 17, 1852. * * * "Ion" quotesMr Garrison's original declaration in the _Liberator_: "I am aware thatmany object to the severity of my language; but is there not causefor severity? I _will_ be as harsh as truth and as uncompromising asjustice. I am in earnest, --I will not equivocate, --I will not excuse, --Iwill not retreat a single inch, --AND I WILL BE HEARD. It is pretendedthat I am retarding the cause of emancipation by the coarseness of myinvective and the precipitancy of my measures. The charge is not true. On this question, my influence, humble as it is, is felt at thismoment to a considerable extent, and shall be felt in coming years, notperniciously, but beneficially; not as a curse, but as a blessing; andposterity will bear testimony that I was right. I desire to thankGod that He enables me to disregard 'the fear of man which bringeth asnare, ' and to speak His truth in its simplicity and power. " * * *

"Ion's" charges are the old ones, that we Abolitionists are hurting ourown cause; that, instead of waiting for the community to come up to ourviews, and endeavoring to remove prejudice and enlighten ignorance bypatient explanation and fair argument, we fall at once, like children, to abusing every thing and everybody; that we imagine zeal will supplythe place of common sense; that we have never shown any sagacityin adapting our means to our ends; have never studied the nationalcharacter, or attempted to make use of the materials which lay all aboutus to influence public opinion, but by blind, childish, obstinate furyand indiscriminate denunciation, have become "honestly impotent, andconscientious hinderances. "

I claim, before you who know the true state of the case, I claim forthe antislavery movement with which this society is identified, that, looking back over its whole course, and considering the men connectedwith it in the mass, it has been marked by sound judgment, unerringforesight, the most sagacious adaptation of means to ends, the strictestself-discipline, the most thorough research, and an amount of patientand manly argument addressed to the conscience and intellect of thenation, such as no other cause of the kind, in England or this country, has ever offered. I claim, also, that its course has been marked by acheerful surrender of all individual claims to merit or leadership, --themost cordial welcoming of the slightest effort, of every honest attempt, to lighten or to break the chain of the slave. I need not waste time byrepeating the superfluous confession that we are men, and therefore donot claim to be perfect. Neither would I be understood as denying thatwe use denunciation, and ridicule, and every other weapon that the humanmind knows. We must plead guilty, if there be guilt in not knowinghow to separate the sin from the sinner. With all the fondness forabstractions attributed to us, we are not yet capable of that. We arefighting a momentous battle at desperate odds, --one against a thousand. Every weapon that ability or ignorance, wit, wealth, prejudice, orfashion can command, is pointed against us. The guns are shotted totheir lips. The arrows are poisoned. Fighting against such an array, wecannot afford to confine ourselves to any one weapon. The cause is notours, so that we might, rightfully, postpone or put in peril the victoryby moderating our demands, stifling our convictions, or filing downour rebukes, to gratify any sickly taste of our own, or to spare thedelicate nerves of our neighbor. Our clients are three millions ofChristian slaves, standing dumb suppliants at the threshold of theChristian world. They have no voice but ours to utter their complaints, or to demand justice. The press, the pulpit, the wealth, the literature, the prejudices, the political arrangements, the present self-interestof the country, are all against us. God has given us no weapon butthe truth, faithfully uttered, and addressed, with the old prophets'directness, to the conscience of the individual sinner. The elementswhich control public opinion and mould the masses are against us. We canbut pick off here and there a man from the triumphant majority. We havefacts for those who think, arguments for those who reason; but he whocannot be reasoned out of his prejudices must be laughed out of them; hewho cannot be argued out of his selfishness must be shamed out of it bythe mirror of his hateful self held up relentlessly before his eyes. Welive in a land where every man makes broad his phylactery, inscribingthereon, "All men are created equal, "--"God hath made of one blood allnations of men. " It seems to us that in such a land there must be, onthis question of slavery, sluggards to be awakened, as well as doubtersto be convinced. Many more, we verily believe, of the first than ofthe last. There are far more dead hearts to be quickened, than confusedintellects to be cleared up, --more dumb dogs to be made to speak, thandoubting consciences to be enlightened. We have use, then, sometimes, for something beside argument. 

What is the denunciation with which we are charged? It is endeavoring, in our faltering human speech, to declare the enormity of the sin ofmaking merchandize of men, --of separating husband and wife, --taking theinfant from its mother and selling the daughter to prostitution, --ofa professedly Christian nation denying, by statute, the Bible to everysixth man and woman of its population, and making it illegal for "twoor three" to meet together, except a white man be present! What isthis harsh criticism of motives with which we are charged? It issimply holding the intelligent and deliberate actor responsible for thecharacter and consequences of his acts. Is there any thing inherentlywrong in such denunciation of such criticism? This we may claim, --wehave never judged a man but out of his own mouth. We have seldom, ifever, held him to account, except for acts of which he and his ownfriends were proud. All that we ask the world and thoughtful men to noteare the principles and deeds on which the American pulpit and Americanpublic men plume themselves. We always allow our opponents to painttheir own pictures. Our humble duty is to stand by and assure thespectators that what they would take for a knave or a hypocrite isreally, in American estimation, a Doctor of Divinity or a Secretary ofState. 

The South is one great brothel, where half a million of women areflogged to prostitution, or, worse still, are degraded to believe ithonorable. The public squares of half our great cities echo to the wailof families torn asunder at the auction-block; no one of our fair riversthat has not closed over the negro seeking in death a refuge from a lifetoo wretched to bear; thousands of fugitives skulk along our highways, afraid to tell their names, and trembling at the sight of a human being;free men are kidnapped in our streets, to be plunged into that hellof slavery; and now and then one, as if by miracle, after long yearsreturns to make men aghast with his tale. The press says, "It is allright"; and the pulpit cries, "Amen. " They print the Bible in everytongue in which man utters his prayers; and they get the money to do soby agreeing never to give the book, in the language our mothers taughtus, to any negro, free or bond, south of Mason and Dixon's line. Thepress says, "It is all right"; and the pulpit cries, "Amen. " The slavelifts up his imploring eyes, and sees in every face but ours the faceof an enemy. Prove to me now that harsh rebuke, indignant denunciation, scathing sarcasm, and pitiless ridicule are wholly and alwaysunjustifiable; else we dare not, in so desperate a case, throw away anyweapon which ever broke up the crust of an ignorant prejudice, roused aslumbering conscience, shamed a proud sinner, or changed in any way theconduct of a human being. Our aim is to alter public opinion. Did welive in a market, our talk should be of dollars and cents, and we wouldseek to prove only that slavery was an unprofitable investment. Werethe nation one great, pure church, we would sit down and reason of"righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come. " Had slavery fortifieditself in a college, we would load our cannons with cold facts, andwing our arrows with arguments. But we happen to live in the world, --theworld made up of thought and impulse, of self-conceit and self-interest, of weak men and wicked. To conquer, we must reach all. Our object is notto make every man a Christian or a philosopher, but to induce every oneto aid in the abolition of slavery. We expect to accomplish our objectlong before the nation is made over into saints or elevated intophilosophers. To change public opinion, we use the very tools by whichit was formed. That is, all such as an honest man may touch. 

All this I am not only ready to allow, but I should be ashamed to thinkof the slave, or to look into the face of my fellow-man, if itwere otherwise. It is the only thing which justifies us to our ownconsciences, and makes us able to say we have done, or at least tried todo, our duty. 

So far, however you distrust my philosophy, you will not doubt mystatements. That we have denounced and rebuked with unsparing fidelitywill not be denied. Have we not also addressed ourselves to that otherduty, of arguing our question thoroughly?--of using due discretion andfair sagacity in endeavoring to promote our cause? Yes, we have. Everystatement we have made has been doubted. Every principle we have laiddown has been denied by overwhelming majorities against us. No one stephas ever been gained but by the most laborious research and the mostexhausting argument. And no question has ever, since Revolutionary days, been so thoroughly investigated or argued here, as that of slavery. Ofthat research and that argument, of the whole of it, the old-fashioned, fanatical, crazy Garrisonian antislavery movement has been the author. From this band of men has proceeded every important argument or ideawhich has been broached on the antislavery question from 1830 to thepresent time. I am well aware of the extent of the claim I make. Irecognize, as fully as any one can, the ability of the new laborers, theeloquence and genius with which they have recommended this cause to thenation, and flashed conviction home on the conscience of the community. I do not mean, either, to assert that they have in every instanceborrowed from our treasury their facts and arguments. Left tothemselves, they would probably have looked up the one and originatedthe other. As a matter of fact, however, they have generally made useof the materials collected to their hands. * * * When once brought fullyinto the struggle, they have found it necessary to adopt the same means, to rely on the same arguments, to hold up the same men and the samemeasures to public reprobation, with the same bold rebuke and unsparinginvective that we have used. All their conciliatory bearing, theirpainstaking moderation, their constant and anxious endeavor to draw abroad line between their camp and ours, have been thrown away. Just sofar as they have been effective laborers, they have found, as we have, their hands against every man, and every man's hand against them. Themost experienced of them are ready to acknowledge that our plan has beenwise, our course efficient, and that our unpopularity is no fault ofours, but flows necessarily and unavoidably from our position. "I shouldsuspect, " says old Fuller, "that his preaching had no salt in it, if nogalled horse did wince. " Our friends find, after all, that men do notso much hate us as the truth we utter and the light we bring. They findthat the community are not the honest seekers after truth which theyfancied, but selfish politicians and sectarian bigots, who shiver, likeAlexander's butler, whenever the sun shines on them. Experience hasdriven these new laborers back to our method. We have no quarrel withthem--would not steal one wreath of their laurels. All we claim is, that, if they are to be complimented as prudent, moderate, Christian, sagacious, statesmanlike reformers, we deserve the same praise; for theyhave done nothing that we, in our measure, did not attempt before. 

I claim this, that the cause, in its recent aspect, has put on nothingbut timidity. It has taken to itself no new weapons of recent years; ithas become more compromising, --that is all! It has become neither morepersuasive, more earnest, more Christian, more charitable, nor moreeffective than for the twenty years pre-ceding. Mr. Hale, the head ofthe Free Soil movement, after a career in the Senate that would do honorto any man, --after a six years' course which entitles him to the respectand confidence of the antislavery public, can put his name, withinthe last month, to an appeal from the city of Washington, signed by aHouston and a Cass, for a monument to be raised to Henry Clay! If thatbe the test of charity and courtesy, we cannot give it to the world. Some of the leaders of the Free Soil party of Massachusetts, afterexhausting the whole capacity of our language to paint the treachery ofDaniel Webster to the cause of liberty, and the evil they thought he wasable and seeking to do, --after that, could feel it in their hearts toparade themselves in the funeral procession got up to do him honor! Inthis we allow we cannot follow them. The deference which every gentlemanowes to the proprieties of social life, that self-respect and regard toconsistency which is every man's duty, --these, if no deeper feelings, will ever prevent us from giving such proofs of this newly inventedChristian courtesy. We do not play politics, antislavery is no half-jestwith us; it is a terrible earnest, with life or death, worse than lifeor death, on the issue. It is no lawsuit, where it matters not to thegood feeling of opposing counsel which way the verdict goes, and whereadvocates can shake hands after the decision as pleasantly as before. When we think of such a man as Henry Clay, his long life, his mightyinfluence cast always into the scale against the slave, of thatirresistible fascination with which he moulded every one to his will;when we remember that, his conscience acknowledging the justice of ourcause, and his heart open on every other side to the gentlest impulses, he could sacrifice so remorselessly his convictions and the welfare ofmillions to his low ambition; when we think how the slave trembled atthe sound of his voice, and that, from a multitude of breaking heartsthere went up nothing but gratitude to God when it pleased him to callthat great sinner from this world, we cannot find it in our hearts, wecould not shape our lips to ask any man to do him honor. No amount ofeloquence, no sheen of official position, no loud grief of partisanfriends, would ever lead us to ask monuments or walk in fine processionsfor pirates; and the sectarian zeal or selfish ambition which gives up, deliberately and in full knowledge of the facts, three million of humanbeings to hopeless ignorance, daily robbery, systematic prostitution, and murder, which the law is neither able nor undertakes to preventor avenge, is more monstrous, in our eyes, than the love of gold whichtakes a score of lives with merciful quickness on the high seas. Haynauon the Danube is no more hateful to us than Haynau on the Potomac. Whygive mobs to one and monuments to the other?

If these things be necessary to courtesy, I cannot claim that we arecourteous. We seek only to be honest men, and speak the same of the deadas of the living. If the grave that hides their bodies could swallowalso the evil they have done and the example they leave, we might enjoyat least the luxury of forgetting them. But the evil that men do livesafter them, and example acquires tenfold authority when it speaks fromthe grave. History, also, is to be written. How shall a feeble minority, without weight or influence in the country, with no jury of millions toappeal to--denounced, vilified, and contemned, --how shall we make wayagainst the overwhelming weight of some colossal reputation, if we donot turn from the idolatrous present, and appeal to the human race?saying to your idols of to-day: "Here we are defeated; but we will writeour judgment with the iron pen of a century to come, and it shall neverbe forgotten, if we can help it, that you were false in your generationto the claims of the slave!" * * *

We are weak here, --out-talked, out-voted. You load our names withinfamy, and shout us down. But our words bide their time. We warn theliving that we have terrible memories, and their sins are never to beforgotten. We will gibbet the name of every apostate so black and highthat his children's children shall blush to bear it. Yet we bear nomalice, --cherish no resentment. We thank God that the love of fame, "that last infirmity of noble minds, " is shared by the ignoble. In ournecessity, we seize this weapon in the slave's behalf, and teach cautionto the living by meting out relentless justice to the dead. * * *"These, Mr. Chairman, are the reasons why, we take care that 'the memoryof the wicked shall rot. '"

I have claimed that the antislavery cause has, from the first, been ablyand dispassionately argued, every objection candidly examined, and everydifficulty or doubt anywhere honestly entertained treated with respect. Let me glance at the literature of the cause, and try not so much, ina brief hour, to prove this assertion, as to point out the sources fromwhich any one may satisfy himself of its truth. 

I will begin with certainly the ablest and perhaps the most honeststatesman who has ever touched the slave question. Any one who willexamine John Quincy Adams' speech on Texas, in 1838, will see thathe was only seconding the full and able exposure of the Texas plot, prepared by Benjamin Lundy, to one of whose pamphlets Dr. Channing, in his "Letter to Henry Clay, " has confessed his obligation. Every oneacquainted with those years will allow that the North owes its earliestknowledge and first awakening on that subject to Mr. Lundy, who madelong journeys and devoted years to the investigation. His labors havethis attestation, that they quickened the zeal and strengthened thehands of such men as Adams and Channing. I have been told that Mr. Lundyprepared a brief for Mr. Adams, and furnished him the materials for hisspeech on Texas. 

Look next at the right of petition. Long before any member of Congresshad opened his mouth in its defence, the Abolition presses and lecturershad examined and defended the limits of this right with profoundhistorical research and eminent constitutional ability. So thoroughlyhad the work been done, that all classes of the people had made up theirminds about it long before any speaker of eminence had touched it inCongress. The politicians were little aware of this. When Mr. Adamsthrew himself so gallantly into the breach, it is said he wroteanxiously home to know whether he would be supported in Massachusetts, little aware of the outburst of popular gratitude which the northernbreeze was even then bringing him, deep and cordial enough to wipe awaythe old grudge Massachusetts had borne him so long. Mr. Adams himselfwas only in favor of receiving the petitions, and advised to refusetheir prayer, which was the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia. He doubted the power of Congress to abolish. His doubts wereexamined by Mr. William Goodell, in two letters of most acute logic, and of masterly ability. If Mr. Adams still retained his doubts, it iscertain at least that he never expressed them afterward. When Mr. Clayparaded the same objections, the whole question of the power of Congressover the District was treated by Theodore D. Weld in the fullest manner, and with the widest research, --indeed, leaving nothing to be added:an argument which Dr. Channing characterized as "demonstration, " andpronounced the essay "one of the ablest pamphlets from the Americanpress. " No answer was ever attempted. The best proof of its ability isthat no one since has presumed to doubt the power. Lawyers and statesmenhave tacitly settled down into its full acknowledgment. 

The influence of the Colonization Society on the welfare of the coloredrace was the first question our movement encountered. To the closelogic, eloquent appeals, and fully sustained charges of Mr. Garrison'sletters on that subject no answer was ever made. Judge Jay followedwith a work full and able, establishing every charge by the most patientinvestigation of facts. It is not too much to say of these two volumes, that they left the Colonization Society hopeless at the North. It daresnever show its face before the people, and only lingers in some fewnooks of sectarian pride, so secluded from the influence of presentideas as to be almost fossil in their character. 

The practical working of the slave system, the slave laws, the treatmentof slaves, their food, the duration of their lives, their ignorance andmoral condition, and the influence of Southern public opinion on theirfate, have been spread out in a detail and with a fulness of evidencewhich no subject has ever received before in this country. Witness thewords of Phelps, Bourne, Rankin, Grimke, the _Anti-slavery Record_, and, above all, that encyclopaedia of facts and storehouse of arguments, the_Thousand Witnesses_ of Mr. Theodore D. Weld. He also prepared that fulland valuable tract for the World's Convention called _Slavery and theInternal Slave-Trade_ in the United States, published in London in 1841. Unique in antislavery literature is Mrs. Child's _Appeal_, one of theablest of our weapons, and one of the finest efforts of her rare genius. 

_The Princeton Review_, I believe, first challenged the Abolitioniststo an investigation of the teachings of the Bible on slavery. That fieldhad been somewhat broken by our English predecessors. But in England thepro-slavery party had been soon shamed out of the attempt to drag theBible into their service, and hence the discussion there had been shortand some-what superficial. The pro-slavery side of the question has beeneagerly sustained by theological reviews and doctors of divinity withoutnumber, from the half-way and timid faltering of Wayland up to theunblushing and melancholy recklessness of Stuart. The argument on theother side has come wholly from the Abolitionists; for neither Dr. Haguenor Dr. Barnes can be said to have added any thing to the wide research, critical acumen, and comprehensive views of Theodore D. Weld, BeriahGreen, J. G. Fee, and the old work of Duncan. 

On the constitutional questions which have at various times arisen, --thecitizenship of the colored man, the soundness of the "Prigg" decision, the constitutionality of the old Fugitive Slave Law, the trueconstruction of the slave-surrender clause, --nothing has been added, either in the way of fact or argument, to the works of Jay, Weld, AlvanStewart, E. G. Loring, S. E. Sewall, Richard Hildreth, W. I. Bowditch, the masterly essays of the _Emancipator_ at New York and the _Liberator_at Boston, and the various addresses of the Massachusetts and AmericanSocieties for the last twenty years. The idea of the antislaverycharacter of the Constitution, --the opiate with which Free Soil quietsits conscience for voting under a pro-slavery government, --I heard firstsuggested by Mr. Garrison in 1838. It was elaborately argued thatyear in all our antislavery gatherings, both here and in New York, andsustained with great ability by Alvan Stewart, and in part by T. D. Weld. The antislavery construction of the Constitution was ably arguedin 1836, in the _Antislavery Magazine_, by Rev. Samuel J. May, one ofthe very first to seek the side of Mr. Garrison, and pledge to the slavehis life and efforts, --a pledge which thirty years of devoted laborshave redeemed. If it has either merit or truth, they are due to nolegal learning recently added to our ranks, but to some of the oldand well-known pioneers. This claim has since received the fullestinvestigation from Mr. Lysander Spooner, who has urged it with all hisunrivalled ingenuity, laborious research, and close logic. He writesas a lawyer, and has no wish, I believe, to be ranked with any class ofanti-slavery men. 

The influence of slavery on our Government has received the profoundestphilosophical investigation from the pen of Richard Hildreth, in hisinvaluable essay on _Despotism in America_, --a work which deserves aplace by the side of the ablest political disquisitions of any age. 

Even the vigorous mind of Rantoul, the ablest man, without doubt, ofthe Democratic party, and perhaps the ripest politician in New England, added little or nothing to the store-house of antislavery argument. ** * His speeches on our question, too short and too few, are remarkablefor their compact statement, iron logic, bold denunciation, and thewonderful light thrown back upon our history. Yet how little do theypresent which was not familiar for years in our anti-slaverymeetings! Look, too, at the last great effort of the idol of so manythousands, --Mr. Senator Sumner, --the discussion of a great nationalquestion, of which it has been said that we must go back to Webster'sreply to Hayne, and Fisher Ames on the Jay treaty, to find its equal inCongress, --praise which we might perhaps qualify, if any adequate reportwere left us of some of the noble orations of Adams. No one can be blindto the skilful use he has made of his materials, the consummate abilitywith which he has marshalled them, and the radiant glow which his geniushas thrown over all. Yet, with the exception of his reference to theantislavery debate in Congress in 1817, there is hardly a train ofthought or argument, and no single fact in the whole speech, which hasnot been familiar in our meetings and essays for the last tenyears. * * *

The relations of the American Church to slavery, and the duties ofprivate Christians, the whole casuistry of this portion of the question, so momentous among descendants of the Puritans, --have been discussedwith great acuteness and rare common-sense by Messrs. Garrison, Goodell, Gerrit Smith, Pillsbury, and Foster. They have never attempted to judgethe American Church by any standard except that which she has herselflaid down, --never claimed that she should be perfect, but have contentedthemselves by demanding that she should be consistent. They have neverjudged her except out of her own mouth, and on facts asserted by herown presses and leaders. The sundering of the Methodist and Baptistdenominations, and the universal agitation of the religious world, are the best proof of the sagacity with which their measures have beenchosen, the cogent arguments they have used, and the indisputablefacts on which their criticisms have been founded. In nothing have theAbolitionists shown more sagacity or more thorough knowledge of theircountrymen than in the course they have pursued in relation to theChurch. None but a New-Englander can appreciate the power which churchorganizations wield over all who share the blood of the Puritans. Theinfluence of each sect over its own members is overwhelming, oftenshutting out, or controlling, all other influences. We have Popes here, all the more dangerous because no triple crown puts you on your guard. * * * In such a land, the Abolitionists early saw, that, for a moralquestion like theirs, only two paths lay open: to work through theChurch; that failing, to join battle with it. Some tried long, likeLuther, to be Protestants, and yet not come out of Catholicism; buttheir eyes were soon opened. Since then we have been convinced that, tocome out from the Church, to hold her up as the bulwark of slavery, andto make her shortcomings the main burden of our appeals to the religioussentiment of the community, was our first duty and best policy. Thiscourse alienated many friends, and was a subject of frequent rebuke fromsuch men as Dr. Channing. But nothing has ever more strengthened thecause, or won it more influence; and it has had the healthiest effect onthe Church itself. * * *

Unable to command a wide circulation for our books and journals, we havebeen obliged to bring ourselves into close contact with the people, andto rely mainly on public addresses. These have been our most efficientinstrumentality. For proof that these addresses have been full ofpertinent facts, sound sense, and able arguments, we must necessarilypoint to results, and demand to be tried by our fruits. Within theselast twenty years it has been very rare that any fact stated by ourlecturers has been disproved, or any statement of theirs successfullyimpeached. And for evidence of the soundness, simplicity, and pertinencyof their arguments we can only claim that our converts and co-laborersthroughout the land have at least the reputation of being specially able"to give a reason for the faith that is in them. "

I remember that when, in 1845, the present leaders of the Free Soilparty, with Daniel Webster in their company, met to draw up theAnti-Texas Address of the Massachusetts Convention, they sent toAbolitionists for anti-slavery facts and history, for the remarkabletestimonies of our Revolutionary great men which they wished to quote. When, many years ago, the Legislature of Massachusetts wished to send toCongress a resolution affirming the duty of immediate emancipation, thecommittee sent to William Lloyd Garrison to draw it up, and it standsnow on our statute-book as he drafted it. 

How vigilantly, how patiently, did we watch the Texas plot from itscommencement! The politic South felt that its first move had been toobold, and thenceforward worked underground. For many a year men laughedat us for entertaining any apprehensions. It was impossible to rouse theNorth to its peril. David Lee Child was thought crazy because he wouldnot believe there was no danger. His elaborate "_Letters on TexasAnnexation_" are the ablest and most valuable contribution that hasbeen made toward a history of the whole plot. Though we foresaw andproclaimed our conviction that annexation would be, in the end, a fatalstep for the South, we did not feel at liberty to relax our opposition, well knowing the vast increase of strength it would give, at first, tothe slave power. I remember being one of a committee which waitedon Abbott Lawrence, a year or so only before annexation, to ask hiscountenance to some general movement, without distinction of party, against the Texas scheme. He smiled at our fears, begged us to haveno apprehensions; stating that his correspondence with leading men atWashington enabled him to assure us annexation was impossible, and thatthe South itself was determined to defeat the project. A short timeafter, Senators and Representatives from Texas took their seats inCongress!

Many of these services to the slave were done before I joined his cause. In thus referring to them, do not suppose me merely seeking occasion ofeulogy on my predecessors and present co-laborers. I recall these thingsonly to rebut the contemptuous criticism which some about us make theexcuse for their past neglect of the movement, and in answer to"Ion's" representation of our course as reckless fanaticism, childishimpatience, utter lack of good sense, and of our meetings as scenes onlyof excitement, of reckless and indiscriminate denunciation. I assertthat every social, moral, economical, religious, political, andhistorical aspect of the question has been ably and patiently examined. And all this has been done with an industry and ability which have leftlittle for the professional skill, scholarly culture, and historicallearning of the new laborers to accomplish. If the people are still indoubt, it is from the inherent difficulty of the subject, or a hatred oflight, not from want of it. * * *

Sir, when a nation sets itself to do evil, and all its leading forces, wealth, party, and piety, join in the career, it is impossible but thatthose who offer a constant opposition should be hated and maligned, nomatter how wise, cautious, and well planned their course may be. Weare peculiar sufferers in this way. The community has come to hate itsreproving Nathan so bitterly, that even those whom the relenting part ofit are beginning to regard as standard-bearers of the antislavery hostthink it unwise to avow any connection or sympathy with him. I refer tosome of the leaders of the political movement against slavery. They feelit to be their mission to marshal and use as effectively as possiblethe present convictions of the people. They cannot afford to encumberthemselves with the odium which twenty years of angry agitation haveengendered in great sects sore from unsparing rebuke, parties galled byconstant defeat, and leading men provoked by unexpected exposure. Theyare willing to confess, privately, that our movement produced theirs, and that its continued existence is the very breath of their life. But, at the same time, they would fain walk on the road without being soiledby too close contact with the rough pioneers who threw it up. They arewise and honorable, and their silence is very expressive. 

When I speak of their eminent position and acknowledged ability, anotherthought strikes me. Who converted these men and their distinguishedassociates? It is said we have shown neither sagacity in plans, nor candor in discussion, nor ability. Who, then, or what convertedBurlingame and Wilson, Sumner and Adams, Palfrey and Mann, Chase andHale, and Phillips and Giddings? Who taught the _Christian Register_, the _Daily Advertiser_, and that class of prints, that there were suchthings as a slave and a slave-holder in the land, and so gave them somemore intelligent basis than their mere instincts to hate William LloydGarrison? What magic wand was it whose touch made the todying servilityof the land start up the real demon that it was, and at the sametime gathered into the slave's service the professional ability, ripeculture, and personal integrity which grace the Free Soil ranks? Wenever argue! These men, then, were converted by simple denunciation!They were all converted by the "hot, " "reckless, " "ranting, " "bigoted, ""fanatic" Garrison, who never troubled himself about facts, nor stoppedto argue with an opponent, but straightway knocked him down! My oldand valued friend, Mr. Sumner, often boasts that he was a reader of the_Liberator_ before I was. Do not criticise too much the agency by whichsuch men were converted. That blade has a double edge. Our recklesscourse, our empty rant, our fanaticism, has made Abolitionists of someof the best and ablest men in the land. We are inclined to go on, andsee if, even with such poor tools, we cannot make some more. Antislaveryzeal and the roused conscience of the "godless comeouters" made thetrembling South demand the Fugitive Slave Law, and the Fugitive SlaveLaw provoked Mrs. Stowe to the good work of "Uncle Tom. " That issomething! Let me say, in passing, that you will nowhere find an earlieror more generous appreciation, or more flowing eulogy, of these men andtheir labors, than in the columns of the _Liberator_. No one, howeverfeeble, has ever peeped or muttered, in any quarter, that the vigilanteye of the _Pioneer_ has not recognized him. He has stretched out theright hand of a most cordial welcome the moment any man's face wasturned Zionward. 

I do not mention these things to praise Mr. Garrison; I do not standhere for that purpose. You will not deny--if you do, I can proveit--that the movement of the Abolitionists converted these men. Theirconstituents were converted by it. The assault upon the right ofpetition, upon the right to print and speak of slavery, the denial ofthe right of Congress over the District, the annexation of Texas, the Fugitive Slave Law, were measures which the anti-slavery movementprovoked, and the discussion of which has made all the Abolitionists wehave. The antislavery cause, then, converted these men; it gave them aconstituency; it gave them an opportunity to speak, and it gave them apublic to listen. The antislavery cause gave them their votes, got themtheir offices, furnished them their facts, gave them their audience. If you tell me they cherished all these principles in their own breastsbefore Mr. Garrison appeared, I can only say, if the anti-slaverymovement did not give them their ideas, it surely gave the courage toutter them. 

In such circumstances, is it not singular that the name of William LloydGarrison has never been pronounced on the floor of the United StatesCongress linked with any epithet but that of contempt! No one of thosemen who owe their ideas, their station, their audience, to him, have ever thought it worth their while to utter one word in gratefulrecognition of the power which called them into being. When obliged, bythe course of their argument, to treat the question historically, theycan go across the water to Clarkson and Wilberforce--yes, to a safesalt-water distance. As Daniel Webster, when he was talking to thefarmers of Western New York, and wished to contrast slave labor and freelabor, did not dare to compare New York with Virginia--sister States, under the same government, planted by the same race, worshipping at thesame altar, speaking the same language--identical in all respects, savethat one in which he wished to seek the contrast; but no; he comparedit with Cuba--the contrast was so close! Catholic--Protestant;Spanish--Saxon; despotism--municipal institutions; readers of Lope deVega and of Shakespeare; mutterers of the Mass--children of the Bible!But Virginia is too near home! So is Garrison! One would have thoughtthere was something in the human breast which would sometimes breakthrough policy. These noble-hearted men whom I have named must surelyhave found quite irksome the constant practice of what Dr. Gardiner usedto call "that despicable virtue, prudence. " One would have thought, whenthey heard that name spoken with contempt, their ready eloquence wouldhave leaped from its scabbard to avenge even a word that threatenedhim with insult. But it never came--never! I do not say I blame them. Perhaps they thought they should serve the cause better by drawing abroad black line between themselves and him. Perhaps they thought theDevil could be cheated: I do not!

 * * * * *

Caution is not always good policy in a cause like ours. It is said that, when Napoleon saw the day going against him, he used to throw awayall the rules of war, and trust himself to the hot impetuosity of hissoldiers. The masses are governed more by impulse than conviction, andeven were it not so, the convictions of most men are on our side, and this will surely appear, if we can only pierce the crust of theirprejudice or indifference. I observe that our Free Soil friends neverstir their audience so deeply as when some individual leaps beyond theplatform, and strikes upon the very heart of the people. Men listen todiscussions of laws and tactics with ominous patience. It is when Mr. Sumner, in Faneuil Hall, avows his determination to disobey theFugitive Slave Law, and cries out: "I was a man before I was aCommissioner, "--when Mr. Giddings says of the fall of slavery, quotingAdams: "Let it come. If it must come in blood, yet I say let itcome!"--that their associates on the platform are sure they arewrecking the party, --while many a heart beneath beats its first pulse ofanti-slavery life. 

These are brave words. When I compare them with the general tone of FreeSoil men in Congress, I distrust the atmosphere of Washington and ofpolitics. These men move about, Sauls and Goliaths among us, taller bymany a cubit. There they lose port and stature. Mr. Sumner's speechin the Senate unsays no part of his Faneuil Hall pledge. But, thoughdiscussing the same topic, no one would gather from any word or argumentthat the speaker ever took such ground as he did in Faneuil Hall. Itis all through, the law, the manner of the surrender, not the surrenderitself, of the slave, that he objects to. As my friend Mr. Pillsburyso forcibly says, so far as any thing in the speech shows, he puts theslave behind the jury trial, behind the habeas corpus act, and behindthe new interpretation of the Constitution, and says to the slaveclaimant: "You must get through all these before you reach him; but, ifyou can get through all these, you may have him!" It was no tone likethis which made the old Hall rock! Not if he got through twelve jurytrials, and forty habeas corpus acts, and constitutions built highas yonder monument, would he permit so much as the shadow of a littlefinger of the slave claimant to touch the slave! At least so he wasunderstood. * * *

Mr. Mann, in his speech of February 5, 1850, says: "The States beingseparated, I would as soon return my own brother or sister into bondage, as I would return a fugitive slave. Before God, and Christ, and allChristian men, they are my brothers and sisters. " What a condition! Fromthe lips, too, of a champion of the Higher Law! Whether the Statesbe separate or united, neither my brother nor any other man's brothershall, with my consent, go back to bondage! So speaks the heart--Mr. Mann's version is that of the politician. 

This seems to me a very mistaken strain. Whenever slavery is banishedfrom our national jurisdiction, it will be a momentous gain, a vaststride. But let us not mistake the half-way house for the end of thejourney. I need not say that it matters not to Abolitionists under whatspecial law slavery exists. Their battle lasts while it exists anywhere, and I doubt not Mr. Sumner and Mr. Giddings feel themselves enlistedfor the whole war. I will even suppose, what neither of these gentlemenstates, that their plan includes not only that slavery shall beabolished in the District and Territories but that the slave basisof representation shall be struck from the Constitution, and theslave-surrender clause construed away. But even then does Mr. Giddingsor Mr. Sumner really believe that slavery, existing in its full force inthe States, "will cease to vex our national politics?" Can they point toany State where a powerful oligarchy, possessed of immense wealth, hasever existed without attempting to meddle in the government? Even now, does not manufacturing, banking, and commercial capital perpetually vexour politics? Why should not slave capital exert the same influence?Do they imagine that a hundred thousand men, possessed of two thousandmillions of dollars, which they feel the spirit of the age is seekingto tear from their grasp, will not eagerly catch at all the support theycan obtain by getting the control of the government? In a land where thedollar is almighty, "where the sin of not being rich is only atoned forby the effort to become so, " do they doubt that such an oligarchy willgenerally succeed? Besides, banking and manufacturing stocks are noturged by despair to seek a controlling influence in politics. They knowthey are about equally safe, whichever party rules--that no party wishesto legislate their rights away. Slave property knows that its beingallowed to exist depends on its having the virtual control of thegovernment. Its constant presence in politics is dictated, therefore, by despair, as well as by the wish to secure fresh privileges. Money, however, is not the only strength of the slave power. That, indeed, wereenough, in an age when capitalists are our feudal barons. But, thoughdriven entirely from national shelter, the slave-holders would have thestrength of old associations, and of peculiar laws in their own States, which give those States wholly into their hands. A weaker prestige, fewer privileges, and less comparative wealth, have enabled the Britisharistocracy to rule England for two centuries, though the root of theirstrength was cut at Naseby. It takes ages for deeply-rooted institutionsto die; and driving slavery into the States will hardly be our Naseby. ** *

And Mr. Sumner "knows no better aim, under the Constitution, than tobring back the government to where it was in 1789!" Has the voyage beenso very honest and prosperous a one, in his opinion, that his onlywish is to start again with the same ship, the same crew, and the samesailing orders? Grant all he claims as to the state of public opinion, the intentions of leading men, and the form of our institutions at thatperiod; still, with all these checks on wicked men, and helps to goodones, here we are, in 1853, according to his own showing, ruled byslavery, tainted to the core with slavery, and binding the infamousFugitive Slave Law like an honorable frontlet on our brows. The moreaccurate and truthful his glowing picture of the public virtue of 1789, the stronger my argument. If even all those great patriots, and all thatenthusiasm for justice and liberty, did not avail to keep us safein such a Union, what will? In such desperate circumstances, can hisstatesmanship devise no better aim than to try the same experiment overagain, under precisely the same conditions? What new guaranties does hepropose to prevent the voyage from being again turned into a piraticalslave-trading cruise? None! Have sixty years taught us nothing? In 1660, the English thought, in recalling Charles II. , that the memory of thatscaffold which had once darkened the windows of Whitehall would beguaranty enough for his good behavior. But, spite of the spectre, Charles II. Repeated Charles I. , and James outdid him. Wiser by thisexperience, when the nation in 1689 got another chance, they trustedto no guaranties, but so arranged the very elements of their governmentthat William III. Could not repeat Charles I. Let us profit by thelesson. * * *

If all I have said to you is untrue, if I have exaggerated, explain tome this fact. In 1831, Mr. Garrison commenced a paper advocating thedoctrine of immediate emancipation. He had against him the thirtythousand churches and all the clergy of the country, --its wealth, itscommerce, its press. In 1831, what was the state of things? There wasthe most entire ignorance and apathy on the slave question. If menknew of the existence of slavery, it was only as a part of picturesqueVirginia life. No one preached, no one talked, no one wrote about it. Nowhisper of it stirred the surface of the political sea. The church heardof it occasionally, when some colonization agent asked funds to sendthe blacks to Africa. Old school-books tainted with some antislaveryselections had passed out of use, and new ones were compiled to suit thetimes. Soon as any dissent from the prevailing faith appeared, every oneset himself to crush it. The pulpits preached at it; the press denouncedit; mobs tore down houses, threw presses into the fire and the stream, and shot the editors; religious conventions tried to smother it; partiesarrayed themselves against it. Daniel Webster boasted in the Senate, that he had never introduced the subject of slavery to that body, andnever would. Mr. Clay, in 1839, makes a speech for the Presidency, inwhich he says, that to discuss the subject of slavery is moral treason, and that no man has a right to introduce the subject into Congress. Mr. Benton, in 1844, laid down his platform, and he not only denies theright, but asserts that he never has and never will discuss the subject. Yet Mr. Clay, from 1839 down to his death, hardly made a remarkablespeech of any kind, except on slavery. Mr. Webster, having indulged nowand then in a little easy rhetoric, as at Niblo's and elsewhere, openshis mouth in 1840, generously contributing his aid to both sides, andstops talking about it only when death closes his lips. Mr. Benton'ssix or eight speeches in the United States Senate have all been on thesubject of slavery in the Southwestern section of the country, and formthe basis of whatever claim he has to the character of a statesman, andhe owes his seat in the next Congress somewhat, perhaps, to anti-slaverypretentions! The Whig and Democratic parties pledged themselves just asemphatically against the antislavery discussion, --against agitation andfree speech. These men said: "It sha'n't be talked about; it won't betalked about!" These are your statesmen!--men who understand the presentthat is, and mould the future! The man who understands his own time, andwhose genius moulds the future to his views, he is a statesman, is henot? These men devoted themselves to banks, to the tariff, to internalimprovements, to constitutional and financial questions. They said toslavery: "Back! no entrance here! We pledge ourselves against you. "And then there came up a little printer-boy, who whipped them intothe traces, and made them talk, like Hotspur's starling, nothingBUT slavery. He scattered all these gigantic shadows, --tariff, bank, constitutional questions, financial questions; and slavery, likethe colossal head in Walpole's romance, came up and filled the wholepolitical horizon! Yet you must remember he is not a statesman! he isa "fanatic. " He has no discipline, --Mr. "Ion" says so; he does notunderstand the "discipline that is essential to victory"! This man didnot understand his own time, he did not know what the future was tobe, --he was not able to shape it--he had no "prudence, "--he had no"foresight"! Daniel Webster says, "I have never introduced this subject, and never will, "--and dies broken-hearted because he had not beenable to talk enough about it! Benton says, "I will never speak ofslavery, "--and lives to break with his party on this issue! Clay says itis "moral treason" to introduce the subject into Congress--and lives tosee Congress turned into an antislavery debating society, to suit thepurpose of one "too powerful individual. " * * * Remember who it wasthat said in 1831: "I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will notexcuse--I will not retreat a single inch--and I will be heard!" Thatspeaker has lived twenty-two years, and the complaint of twenty-threemillions of people is, "Shall we never hear of any thing but slavery?"* * * "Well, it is all HIS fault" [pointing to Mr. Garrison]. * * * Itseems to me that such men may point to the present aspect of the nation, to their originally avowed purpose, to the pledges and efforts of allyour great men against them, and then let you determine to which sidethe credit of sagacity and statesmanship belongs. Napoleon busiedhimself at St. Helena in showing how Wellington ought to have conqueredat Waterloo. The world has never got time to listen to the explanation. Sufficient for it that the allies entered Paris. 

It may sound strange to some, this claim for Mr. Garrison of a profoundstatesmanship. "Men have heard him styled a mere fanatic so longthat they are incompetent to judge him fairly. " "The phrases men areaccustomed, " says Goethe, "to repeat incessantly, end by becomingconvictions, and ossify the organs of intelligence. " I cannot acceptyou, therefore, as my jury. I appeal from Festus to Csar, from theprejudice of our streets to the common-sense of the world, and to yourchildren. 

Every thoughtful and unprejudiced mind must see that such an evil asslavery will yield only to the most radical treatment. If you considerthe work we have to do, you will not think us needlessly aggressive, or that we dig down unnecessarily deep in laying the foundations of ourenterprise. A money power of two thousand millions of dollars, as theprices of slaves now range, held by a small body of able and desperatemen; that body raised into a political aristocracy by specialconstitutional provisions; cotton, the product of slave labor, formingthe basis of our whole foreign commerce, and the commercial class thussubsidized; the press bought up, the pulpit reduced to vassalage, theheart of the common people chilled by a bitter prejudice against theblack race; our leading men bribed, by ambition, either to silence oropen hostility;--in such a land, on what shall an Abolitionist rely?On a few cold prayers, mere lip-service, and never from the heart? Ona church resolution, hidden often in its records, and meant only as adecent cover for servility in daily practice? On political parties, withtheir superficial influence at best, and seeking ordinarily only to useexisting prejudices to the best advantage? Slavery has deeper root herethan any aristocratic institution has in Europe; and politics is but thecommon pulse-beat, of which revolution is the fever-spasm. Yet we haveseen European aristocracy survive storms which seemed to reach downto the primal strata of European life. Shall we, then, trust to merepolitics, where even revolution has failed? How shall the stream riseabove its fountain? Where shall our church organizations or partiesget strength to attack their great parent and moulder, the slave power?Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made methus? The old jest of one who tried to lift himself in his own basket, is but a tame picture of the man who imagines that, by working solelythrough existing sects and parties, he can destroy slavery. Mechanicssay nothing, but an earthquake strong enough to move all Egypt can bringdown the pyramids. 

Experience has confirmed these views. The Abolitionists who have actedon them have a "short method" with all unbelievers. They have but topoint to their own success, in contrast with every other man's failure. To waken the nation to its real state, and chain it to the considerationof this one duty, is half the work. So much we have done. Slavery hasbeen made the question of this generation. To startle the South tomadness, so that every step she takes, in her blindness, is one stepmore toward ruin, is much. This we have done. Witness Texas and theFugitive Slave Law. 

To have elaborated for the nation the only plan of redemption, pointedout the only exodus from this "sea of troubles, " is much. This we claimto have done in our motto of IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL, EMANCIPATION ONTHE SOIL. The closer any statesmanlike mind looks into the question, the more favor our plan finds with it. The Christian asks fairly ofthe infidel, "If this religion be not from God, how do you explain itstriumph, and the history of the first three centuries?" Our questionis similar. If our agitation has not been wisely planned and conducted, explain for us the history of the last twenty years! Experience is asafe light to walk by, and he is not a rash man who expects success infuture from the same means which have secured it in times past. 

CHARLES SUMNER, OF MASSACHUSETTS. (BORN 1811, DIED 1874. )

ON THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW--

IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, AUGUST 26, 1852. 

THURSDAY, 26TH AUGUST, 1852. --The Civil and Diplomatic AppropriationBill being under consideration, the following amendment was moved by Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the recommendation of the Committee on Finance:

"That, where the ministerial officers of the United States have or shallincur extraordinary expense in executing the laws thereof, the paymentof which is not specifically provided for, the President of the UnitedStates is authorized to allow the payment thereof, under the specialtaxation of the District or Circuit Court of the District in whichthe said services have been or shall be rendered, to be paid from theappropriation for defraying the expenses of the Judiciary. "

Mr. Sumner seized the opportunity for which he had been waiting, and atonce moved the following amendment to the amendment:

"Provided, That no such allowance shall be authorized for any expensesincurred in executing the Act of September 18, 1850, for the surrenderof fugitives from service or labor; which said Act is hereby repealed. "

On this he took the floor, and spoke as follows:

MR. PRESIDENT, Here is a provision for extraordinary expense incurred in executing thelaws of the United States. Extraordinary expenses! Sir, beneath thesespecious words lurks the very subject on which, by a solemn vote of thisbody, I was refused a hearing. Here it is; no longer open to thecharge of being an "abstraction, " but actually presented for practicallegislation; not introduced by me, but by the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Hunter), on the recommendation of an important committee of the Senate;not brought forward weeks ago, when there was ample time for discussion, but only at this moment, without any reference to the late period ofthe session. The amendment which I offer proposes to remove one chiefoccasion of these extraordinary expenses. Beyond all controversy orcavil it is strictly in order. And now, at last, among these final, crowded days of our duties here, but at this earliest opportunity, Iam to be heard, --not as a favor, but as a right. The graceful usagesof this body may be abandoned, but the established privileges ofdebate cannot be abridged. Parliamentary courtesy may be forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. The subject is broadly before theSenate. By the blessing of God it shall be discussed. 

Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly sought to securepermanence for his imperfect institutions by providing that the citizenwho at any time attempted their repeal or alteration should appear inthe public assembly with a halter about his neck, ready to be drawn, if his proposition failed. A tyrannical spirit among us, in unconsciousimitation of this antique and discarded barbarism, seeks to surround anoffensive institution with similar safeguard. 

In the existing distemper of the public mind, and at this presentjuncture, no man can enter upon the service which I now undertake, with-out personal responsibility, such as can be sustained only bythat sense of duty which, under God, is always our best support. Thatpersonal responsibility I accept. Before the Senate and the country letme be held accountable for this act and for every word which I utter. 

With me, Sir, there is no alternative. Painfully convinced of theunutterable wrong and woe of Slavery, --profoundly believing, that, according to the true spirit of the Constitution and the sentiments ofthe Fathers, it can find no place under our National Government, --thatit is in every respect sectional, and in no respect national, --that itis always and everywhere creature and dependent of the States, and neveranywhere creature or dependent of the Nation, --and that the Nation cannever, by legislative or other act, impart to it any support, under theConstitution of the United States, --with these convictions I couldnot allow this session to reach its close without making or seizing anopportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty of the late intolerable enactment for the recovery offugitive slaves. Full well I know, Sir, the difficulties of thisdiscussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverseconclusions strong and sincere as my own. Full well I know that I amin a small minority, with few here to whom I can look for sympathy orsupport. Full well I know that I must utter things unwelcome to manyin this body, which I cannot do without pain. Full well I know that theinstitution of Slavery in our country, which I now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful, possessing a power to shake the wholeland, with a sensitiveness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. Butwhile these things may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, theycannot change my duty, or my determination to perform it. For this Iwillingly forget myself and all personal consequences. The favor andgood-will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, Sir, grateful to me as they justly are, I am ready, if required, tosacrifice. Whatever I am or may be I freely offer to this cause. 

Here allow, for one moment, a reference to myself and my position. Sir, I have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I call no partymaster. By sentiment, education, and conviction a friend of Human Rightsin their utmost expansion, I have ever most sincerely embraced theDemocratic Idea, --not, indeed, as represented or professed by anyparty, but according to its real significance, as transfigured in theDeclaration of Independence and in the injunctions of Christianity. Inthis idea I see no narrow advantage merely for individuals or classes, but the sovereignty of the people, and the greatest happiness of allsecured by equal laws. Amidst the vicissitudes of public affairs I shallhold fast always to this idea, and to any political party which trulyembraces it. 

Party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by anyrelations to the office which gives me a title to be heard on thisfloor. Here, Sir, I speak proudly. By no effort, by no desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United States. Never before have I heldpublic office of any kind. With the ample opportunities of private lifeI was content. No tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription thanthis: "Here lies one who, without the honors or emoluments of publicstation, did something for his fellowmen. " From such simple aspirationsI was taken away by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, andplaced at this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation ofany kind, beyond what was implied in my life and published words. Theearnest friends by whose confidence I was first designated asked nothingfrom me, and throughout the long conflict which ended in my electionrejoiced in the position which I most carefully guarded. To all mylanguage was uniform: that I did not desire to be brought forward;that I would do nothing to promote the result; that I had no pledges orpromises to offer; that the office should seek me, and not I the office;and that it should find me in all respects an independent man, bound tono party and to no human being, but only, according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. Again, Sir, I speak with pride, both formyself and others, when I add that these avowals found a sympathizingresponse. In this spirit I have come here, and in this spirit I shallspeak to-day. 

Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing from party ties, Ithrow myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I ask yourattention; I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly, for I shallspeak openly and from the strength of my convictions. I may speak warmly, for I shall speak from the heart. But in no event can I forget theamenities which belong to debate, and which especially become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my whole soul; but here I need only borrowthe language of slaveholders; nor would it accord with my habits ormy sense of justice to exhibit them as the impersonation of theinstitution--Jefferson calls it the "enormity"--which they cherish. Of them I do not speak; but without fear and without favor, as withoutimpeachment of any person, I assail this wrong. Again, Sir, I may err;but it will be with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways ofthe Republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all itsoriginal altar-fires about me. 

And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the objection, that thereis a final settlement, in principle and substance, of the question ofslavery, and that all discussion of it is closed. Both the old politicalparties, by formal resolutions, in recent conventions at Baltimore, haveunited in this declaration. On a subject which for years has agitatedthe public mind, which yet palpitates in every heart and burns on everytongue, which in its immeasurable importance dwarfs all other subjects, which by its constant and gigantic presence throws a shadow acrossthese halls, which at this very time calls for appropriations to meetextraordinary expenses it has caused, they impose the rule of silence. According to them, Sir, we may speak of everything except that alonewhich is most present in all our minds. 

To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that, with flagrantinconsistency, it challenges the very discussion it pretends to forbid. Their very declaration, on the eve of an election, is, of course, submitted to the consideration and ratification of the people. Debate, inquiry, discussion, are the necessary consequence. Silence becomesimpossible. Slavery, which you profess to banish from public attention, openly by your invitation enters every political meeting and everypolitical convention. Nay, at this moment it stalks into this Senate, crying, like the daughters of the horseleech, "Give! give. "

But no unanimity of politicians can uphold the baseless assumption, thata law, or any conglomerate of laws, under the name of compromise, orhowsoever called, is final. Nothing can be plainer than this, --that byno parliamentary device or knot can any legislature tie the hands ofa succeeding legislature, so as to prevent the full exercise of itsconstitutional powers. Each legislature, under a just sense of itsresponsibility, must judge for itself; and if it think proper, it mayrevise, or amend, or absolutely undo the work of any predecessor. The laws of the Medes and Persians are said proverbially to have beenunalterable; but they stand forth in history as a single example wherethe true principles of all law have been so irrationally defied. 

To make a law final, so as not to be reached by Congress, is, by merelegislation, to fasten a new provision on the Constitution. Nay, more;it gives to the law a character which the very Constitution does notpossess. The wise Fathers did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but, anticipating progress, theydeclared expressly that their great Act is not final. According to theConstitution itself, there is not one of its existing provisions--noteven that with regard to fugitives from labor--which may not at alltimes be reached by amendment, and thus be drawn into debate. Thisis rational and just. Sir, nothing from man's hands, nor law, norconstitution, can be final. Truth alone is final. 

Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical also. Theresponsibility for the recent Slave Act, and for slavery everywherewithin the jurisdiction of Congress, necessarily involves the right todiscuss them. To separate these is impossible. Like the twenty-fifthrule of the House of Representatives against petitions on Slavery, --nowrepealed and dishonored, --the Compromise, as explained and urged, is acurtailment of the actual powers of legislation, and a perpetualdenial of the indisputable principle, that the right to deliberate iscoextensive with the responsibility for an act. To sustain Slavery itis now proposed to trample on free speech. In any country this would begrievous; but here, where the Constitution expressly provides againstabridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage. In vain do wecondemn the despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors with whichthey repress Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power. For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Senator of the United States, representing a free Commonwealth, Iprotest against this wrong. 

On Slavery, as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard. That right I cannot, I will not abandon. "Give me the liberty toknow, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, aboveall liberties"; these are glowing words, flashed from the soul of JohnMilton in his struggles with English tyranny. With equal fervor theycould be echoed now by every American not already a slave. 

But, Sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical. Convictions of theheart cannot be repressed. Utterances of conscience must be heard. Theybreak forth with irrepressible might. As well attempt to check the tidesof ocean, the currents of the Mississippi, or the rushing waters ofNiagara. The discussion of Slavery will proceed, wherever two or threeare gathered together, --by the fireside, on the highway, at the publicmeeting, in the church. The movement against Slavery is from theEverlasting Arm. Even now it is gathering its forces, soon to beconfessed everywhere. It may not be felt yet in the high places ofoffice and power, but all who can put their ears humbly to the groundwill hear and comprehend its incessant and advancing tread. 

The relations of the National Government to Slavery, though plain andobvious, are constantly misunderstood. A popular belief at this momentmakes Slavery a national institution, and of course renders its supporta national duty. The extravagance of this error can hardly be surpassed. An institution which our fathers most carefully omitted to name in theConstitution, which, according to the debates in the Convention, they refused to cover with any "sanction, " and which, at the originalorganization of the Government, was merely sectional, existing nowhereon the national territory, is now, above all other things, blazoned asnational. Its supporters pride themselves as national. The old politicalparties, while upholding it, claim to be national. A National Whigis simply a Slavery Whig, and a National Democrat is simply a SlaveryDemocrat, in contradistinction to all who regard Slavery as a sectionalinstitution, within the exclusive control of the States and with whichthe nation has nothing to do. 

As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange perversion, Freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold it, under theNational Constitution, are made to share this same epithet. Honestefforts to secure its blessings everywhere within the jurisdiction ofCongress are scouted as sectional; and this cause, which the foundersof our National Government had so much at heart, is called Sectionalism. These terms, now belonging to the common places of political speech, areadopted and misapplied by most persons without reflection. But here isthe power of Slavery. According to a curious tradition of the Frenchlanguage, Louis XIV. , the Grand Monarch, by an accidental error ofspeech, among supple courtiers, changed the gender of a noun. Butslavery does more. It changes word for word. It teaches men to saynational instead of sectional, and sectional instead of national. 

Slavery national! Sir, this is a mistake and absurdity, fit to have aplace in some new collection of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir ThomasBrowne, with the ancient, but exploded stories, that the toad has agem in its head, and that ostriches digest iron. According to the truespirit of the Constitution, and the sentiments of the Fathers, Slavery, and not Freedom, is sectional, while Freedom, and not Slavery, isnational. On this unanswerable proposition I take my stand, and herecommences my argument. 

The subject presents itself under two principal heads: _First, the truerelations of the National Government to Slavery_, wherein it will appearthat there is no national fountain from which Slavery can be derived, and no national power, under the Constitution, by which it can besupported. Enlightened by this general survey, we shall be prepared toconsider, _secondly, the true nature of the provision for the renditionof fugitives from service_, and herein especially the unconstitutionaland offensive legislation of Congress in pursuance thereof. 

I. 

And now for THE TRUE RELATIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SLAVERY. These are readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-establishedprinciples. 

If slavery be national, if there be any power in the National Governmentto withhold this institution, --as in the recent Slave Act, --it mustbe by virtue of the Constitution. Nor can it be by mere inference, implication, or conjecture. According to the uniform admission of courtsand jurists in Europe, again and again promulgated in our country, slavery can be derived only from clear and special recognition. "Thestate of Slavery, " said Lord Mansfield, pronouncing judgment in thegreat case of Sommersett, "is of such a nature that it is incapableof being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only bypositive law. . . . _It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered tosupport it but positive law_. "

 * * * * *

Of course every power to uphold slavery must have an origin as distinctas that of Slavery itself. Every presumption must be as strong againstsuch a power as against slavery. A power so peculiar and offensive, so hostile to reason, so repugnant to the law of Nature and the inbornrights of man, --which despoils its victim of the fruits of labor, --whichsubstitutes concubinage for marriage, --which abrogates the relation ofparent and child, --which, by denial of education, abases the intellect, prevents a true knowledge of God, and murders the very soul, --which, amidst a plausible physical comfort, degrades man, created in thedivine image, to the state of a beast, --such a power, so eminent, sotranscendent, so tyrannical, so unjust, can find no place in any systemof government, unless by virtue of positive sanction. It can spring fromno doubtful phrase. It must be declared by unambiguous words, incapableof a double sense. 

 * * * * *

Sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpretation, which, as appliedto the Constitution, fill it with the breath of freedom, --

 "Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt. "

To the history and prevailing sentiments of the times we may turn forfurther assurance. In the spirit of freedom the Constitution was formed. In this spirit our fathers always spoke and acted. In this spirit theNational Government was first organized under Washington. And here Irecall a scene, in itself a touch-stone of the period, and an examplefor us, upon which we may look with pure national pride, while we learnanew the relations of the National Government to Slavery. 

The Revolution was accomplished. The feeble Government of theConfederation passed away. The Constitution, slowly matured in aNational Convention, discussed before the people, defended by masterlypens, was adopted. The Thirteen States stood forth a Nation, where wasunity without consolidation, and diversity without discord. The hopes ofall were anxiously hanging upon the new order of things and the mightyprocession of events. With signal unanimity Washington was chosenPresident. Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, he repaired to NewYork, --where the first Congress had commenced its session, --to assumehis place as Chief of the Republic. On the 30th of April, 1789, theorganization of the Government was completed by his inauguration. Entering the Senate Chamber, where the two Houses were assembled, he wasinformed that they awaited his readiness to receive the oath of office. Without delay, attended by the Senators and Representatives, withfriends and men of mark gathered about him, he moved to the balcony infront of the edifice. A countless multitude, thronging the open ways, and eagerly watching this great espousal, "With reverence look on his majestic face, Proud to be less, but of his godlike race. "

The oath was administered by the Chancellor of New York. At such time, and in such presence, beneath the unveiled heavens, Washington firsttook this vow upon his lips: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfullyexecute the office of President of the United States, and will, to thebest of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ofthe United States. "

Over the President, on this new occasion, floated the national flag, with its stripes of red and white, its stars on a field of blue. Ashis patriot eye rested upon the glowing ensign, what currents must haverushed swiftly through his soul. In the early days of the Revolution, inthose darkest hours about Boston, after the Battle of Bunker Hill, andbefore the Declaration of Independence, the thirteen stripes had beenfirst unfurled by him, as the emblem of Union among the Colonies forthe sake of Freedom. By him, at that time, they had been named the UnionFlag. Trial, struggle, and war were now ended, and the Union, which theyfirst heralded, was unalterably established. To every beholder thesememories, must have been full of pride and consolation. But, lookingback upon the scene, there is one circumstance which, more than all itsother associations, fills the soul, --more even than the suggestions ofUnion, which I prize so much. AT THIS MOMENT, WHEN WASHINGTON TOOKHIS FIRST OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THENATIONAL ENSIGN, NOWHERE WITHIN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, COVERED A SINGLESLAVE. Then, indeed, was Slavery Sectional, and Freedom National. 

On the sea an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, to the nationalscandal, was still tolerated under the national flag. In the States, as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter of local laws, Slaveryunhappily found a home. But in the only terrritories at this timebelonging to the nation, the broad region of the Northwest, it wasalready made impossible, by the Ordinance of Freedom, even before theadoption of the Constitution. The District of Columbia, with its FatalDowry, was not yet acquired. 

The government thus organized was Anti-slavery in character. Washingtonwas a slave-holder, but it would be unjust to his memory not to say thathe was an Abolitionist also. His opinions do not admit of question. 

 * * * * *

By the side of Washington, as, standing beneath the national flag, heswore to support the Constitution, were illustrious men, whose livesand recorded words now rise in judgment. There was John Adams, theVice-President, great vindicator and final negotiator of our nationalindependence, whose soul, flaming with Freedom, broke forth in the earlydeclaration, that "consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious breach oftrust, " and whose immitigable hostility to this wrong is immortal in hisdescendants. There was also a companion in arms and attached friend, of beautiful genius, the yet youthful and "incomparable" Hamilton, --fitcompanion in early glories and fame with that darling of Englishhistory, Sir Philip Sidney, to whom the latter epithet has beenreserved, --who, as member of the Abolition Society of New York, hadrecently united in a solemn petition for those who, though "free by thelaws of God; are held in Slavery by the laws of this State. " There, too, was a noble spirit, of spotless virtue, the ornament of human nature, who, like the sun, ever held an unerring course, --John Jay. Filling theimportant post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Confederation, he found time to organize the "Society for Promoting the Manumissionof Slaves" in New York, and to act as its President, until, by thenomination of Washington, he became Chief Justice of the United States. In his sight Slavery was an "iniquity, " "a sin of crimson dye, " againstwhich ministers of the Gospel should testify, and which the Governmentshould seek in every way to abolish. "Till America comes into thismeasure, " he wrote, "her prayers to Heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression, but it is just. Were I in your legislature, I would prepare a bill for the purpose with great care, and I wouldnever cease moving it till it became a law or I ceased to be a member. "Such words as these, fitly coming from our leaders, belong to the trueglories of the country:

 "While we such precedents can boast at home, Keep thy Fabricius and thy Cato, Rome!"

They stood not alone. The convictions and earnest aspirations of thecountry were with them. At the North these were broad and general. Atthe South they found fervid utterance from slaveholders. By earlyand precocious efforts for "total emancipation, " the author ofthe Declaration of Independence placed himself foremost among theAbolitionists of the land. In language now familiar to all, andwhich can never die, he perpetually denounced Slavery. He exposed itspernicious influence upon master as well as slave, declared that thelove of justice and the love of country pleaded equally for the slave, and that "the abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest object ofdesire. " He believed that "the sacred side was gaining daily recruits, "and confidently looked to the young for the accomplishment of thisgood work. In fitful sympathy with Jefferson was another honored son ofVirginia, the Orator of Liberty, Patrick Henry, who, while confessingthat he was a master of slaves, said: "I will not, I cannot justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue as toown the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my wantof conformity to them. " At this very period, in the Legislature ofMaryland, on a bill for the relief of oppressed slaves, a young man, afterwards by consummate learning and forensic powers acknowledged headof the American bar, William Pinkney, in a speech of earnest, truthful eloquence, --better for his memory than even his professionalfame, --branded Slavery as "iniquitous and most dishonorable, " "foundedin a disgraceful traffic, " "its continuance as shameful as its origin, "and he openly declared, that "by the eternal principles of naturaljustice, no master in the State has a right to hold his slave in bondagefor a single hour. "

 * * * * *

At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review nowthis argument, and gather it together. Considering that Slavery is ofsuch an offensive character that it can find sanction only in"positive law, " and that it has no such "positive" sanction in theConstitution, --that the Constitution, according to its preamble, was ordained to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings ofliberty, "--that, in the Convention which framed it, and also elsewhereat the time, it was declared not to sanction slavery, --that, accordingto the Declaration of Independence, and the Address of the ContinentalCongress, the nation was dedicated to "liberty, " and the "rights ofhuman nature, "--that, according to the principles of the common law, theConstitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually forfreedom, --that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it actsupon slaves, _not as property_, but as PERSONS, --that, at the firstorganization of the national Government under Washington, Slavery had nonational favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath thenational flag, but was openly condemned by Nation, Church, Colleges, andLiterature of the time, --and, finally, that, according to an amendmentof the Constitution, the National Government can exercise only powersdelegated to it, among which is none to support Slavery, --consideringthese things, Sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion, that Slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that theConstitution nowhere upholds property in man. 

There is one other special provision of the Constitution, which I havereserved to this stage, not so much from its superior importance, butbecause it fitly stands by itself. This alone, if practically applied, would carry Freedom to all within its influence. It is an amendmentproposed by the First Congress, as follows:

 "No _person_ shall be deprived of life, _liberty_, or property, _without due process of law_. "

Under this great aegis the liberty of every person within the nationaljurisdiction is unequivocally placed. I say every person. Of this therecan be no question. The word "person" in the Constitution embraces everyhuman being within its sphere, whether Caucasian, Indian, or African, from the president to the slave. Show me a person within the nationaljurisdiction, and I confidently claim for him this protection, no matterwhat his condition or race or color. The natural meaning of the clauseis clear, but a single fact of its history places it in the broad lightof noon. As originally recommended by Virginia, North Carolina, andRhode Island, it was restricted to the freeman. Its language was, "Nofreeman ought to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but bythe law of the land. " In rejecting this limitation, the authors of theamendment revealed their purpose, that no person, under the NationalGovernment, of whatever character, should be deprived of liberty withoutdue process of law, --that is, without due presentment, indictment, orother judicial proceeding. But this amendment is nothing less than anexpress guaranty of Personal Liberty, and an express prohibition of itsinvasion anywhere, at least within the national jurisdiction. 

Sir, apply these principles, and Slavery will again be as whenWashington took his first oath as President. The Union Flag of theRepublic will become once more the flag of Freedom, and at all pointswithin the national jurisdiction will refuse to cover a slave. Beneathits beneficent folds, wherever it is carried, on land or sea, slaverywill disappear, like darkness under the arrows of the ascendingsun, --like the Spirit of Evil before the Angel of the Lord. 

In all national territories Slavery will be impossible. 

On the high seas, under the national flag, Slavery will be impossible. 

In the District of Columbia Slavery will instantly cease. 

Inspired by these principles, Congress can give no sanction to Slaveryby the admission of new slave States. 

Nowhere under the Constitution can the Nation, by legislation orotherwise, support Slavery, hunt slaves, or hold property in man. 

Such, sir, are my sincere convictions. According to the Constitution, as I understand it, in the light of the past and of its true principles, there is no other conclusion which is rational or tenable, whichdoes not defy authoritative rules of interpretation, does not falsifyindisputable facts of history, does not affront the public opinion inwhich it had its birth, and does not dishonor the memory of the fathers. And yet politicians of the hour undertake to place these convictionsunder formal ban. The generous sentiments which filled the earlypatriots, and impressed upon the government they founded, as upon thecoin they circulated, the image and superscription of LIBERTY, have losttheir power. The slave-masters, few in number, amounting to not morethan three hundred and fifty thousand, according to the recent census, have succeeded in dictating the policy of the National Government, andhave written SLAVERY on its front. The change, which began in the desirefor wealth, was aggravated by the desire for political predominance. Through Slavery the cotton crop increased with its enriching gains;through Slavery States became part of the slave power. And now anarrogant and unrelenting ostracism is applied, not only to all whoexpress themselves against Slavery, but to every man unwilling to be itsmenial. A novel test for office is introduced, which would have excludedall the fathers of the Republic, --even Washington, Jefferson, andFranklin!

Yes, Sir! Startling it may be, but indisputable. Could these revereddemigods of history once again descend upon earth and mingle in ouraffairs, not one of them could receive a nomination from the NationalConvention of either of the two old political parties! Out of theconvictions of their hearts and the utterances of their lips againstSlavery they would be condemned. 

This single fact reveals the extent to which the National Government hasdeparted from its true course and its great examples. For myself, I knowno better aim under the Constitution than to bring the Government backto the precise position on this question it occupied on the auspiciousmorning of its first organization by Washington, "Nunc retrorsum Vela dare, atque iterare cursus . . . . . . Relictos, "

that the sentiments of the Fathers may again prevail with our rulers, and the National Flag may nowhere shelter Slavery. 

To such as count this aspiration unreasonable let me commend a renownedand life-giving precedent of English history. As early as the days ofQueen Elizabeth, a courtier boasted that the air of England was too purefor a slave to breathe, and the Common Law was said to forbid Slavery. And yet, in the face of this vaunt, kindred to that of our fathers, andso truly honorable, slaves were introduced from the West Indies. The custom of Slavery gradually prevailed. Its positive legality wasaffirmed, in professional opinions, by two eminent lawyers, Talbot andYorke, each afterwards Lord Chancellor. It was also affirmed on thebench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke. England was already a SlaveState. The following advertisement, copied from a London newspaper, _ThePublic Advertiser_, of November 22, 1769, shows that the journals therewere disfigured as some of ours, even in the District of Columbia. 

"To be sold, a black girl, the property of J. B. , eleven years ofage, who is extremely handy, works at her needle tolerably, andspeaks English perfectly well; is of an excellent temper and willingdisposition. Inquire of her owner at the Angel Inn, behind St. Clement'sChurch, in the Strand. "

At last, in 1772, only three years after this advertisement, the singlequestion of the legality of Slavery was presented to Lord Mansfield, ona writ of _habeas corpus_. A poor negro, named Sommersett, brought toEngland as a slave, became ill, and, with an inhumanity disgraceful evento Slavery, was turned adrift upon the world. Through the charity ofan estimable man, the eminent Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, he wasrestored to health, when his unfeeling and avaricious master againclaimed him as bondman. The claim was repelled. After elaborate andprotracted discussion in Westminster Hall, marked by rarest learningand ability, Lord Mansfield, with discreditable reluctance, sullyinghis great judicial name, but in trembling obedience to the genius of theBritish Constitution, pronounced a decree which made the early boast apractical verity, and rendered Slavery forever impossible in England. More than fourteen thousand persons, at that time held as slaves, andbreathing English air, --four times as many as are now found in thisnational metropolis, --stepped forth in the happiness and dignity of freemen. 

With this guiding example I cannot despair. The time will yet come whenthe boast of our fathers will be made a practical verity also, andCourt or Congress, in the spirit of this British judgment, will proudlydeclare that nowhere under the Constitution can man hold property inman. For the Republic such a decree will be the way of peace and safety. As Slavery is banished from the national jurisdiction, it will ceaseto vex our national politics. It may linger in the States as a localinstitution; but it will no longer engender national animosities, whenit no longer demands national support. 

II. 

From this general review of the relations of the National Government toSlavery, I pass to the consideration of THE TRUE NATURE OF THE PROVISIONFOR THE RENDITION OF FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE, embracing an examination ofthis provision in the Constitution, and especially of the recent Actof Congress in pursuance thereof. As I begin this discussion, let mebespeak anew your candor. Not in prejudice, but in the light of historyand of reason, we must consider this subject. The way will then be easyand the conclusion certain. 

Much error arises from the exaggerated importance now attached to thisprovision, and from assumptions with regard to its origin and primitivecharacter. It is often asserted that it was suggested by some specialdifficulty, which had become practically and extensively felt, anteriorto the Constitution. But this is one of the myths or fables with whichthe supporters of Slavery have surrounded their false god. In thearticles of Confederation, while provision is made for the surrender offugitive criminals, nothing is said of fugitive slaves or servants;and there is no evidence in any quarter, until after the NationalConvention, of hardship or solicitude on this account. No previous voicewas heard to express desire for any provision on the subject. The storyto the contrary is a modern fiction. 

I put aside, as equally fabulous, the common saying, that this provisionwas one of the original compromises of the Constitution, and anessential condition of Union. Though sanctioned by eminent judicialopinions, it will be found that this statement is hastily made, withoutany support in the records of the Convention, the only authenticevidence of the compromises; nor will it be easy to find any authorityfor it in any contemporary document, speech, published letter, orpamphlet of any kind. It is true that there were compromises at theformation of the Constitution, which were the subject of anxious debate;but this was not one of them. 

There was a compromise between the small and large States, by whichequality was secured to all the States in the Senate. 

There was another compromise finally carried, under threats from theSouth, on the motion of a New England member, by which the Slave Statesare allowed Representatives according to the whole number of freepersons and "three fifths of all other persons, " thus securing politicalpower on account of their slaves, in consideration that direct taxesshould be apportioned in the same way. Direct taxes have been imposed atonly four brief intervals. The political power has been constant, and atthis moment sends twenty-one members to the other House. 

There was a third compromise, not to be mentioned without shame. It wasthat hateful bargain by which Congress was restrained until 1808 fromthe prohibition of the foreign Slave-trade, thus securing, down to thatperiod, toleration for crime. This was pertinaciously pressed by theSouth, even to the extent of absolute restriction on Congress. JohnRutledge said:

"If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, andGeorgia will ever agree to the Plan (the National Constitution), unlesstheir right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up soimportant an interest. " Charles Pinckney said: "South Carolina can neverreceive the Plan, if it prohibits the slave-trade. " Charles CotesworthPinckney "thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did notthink South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any shorttime. " The effrontery of the slave-masters was matched by the sordidnessof the Eastern members, who yielded again. Luther Martin, the eminentmember of the Convention, in his contemporary address to the Legislatureof Maryland, described the compromise. "I found, " he said, "The EasternStates, notwithstanding their aversion to Slavery, were very willingto indulge the Southern States at least with a temporary liberty toprosecute the slave-trade, _provided the Southern States would in theirturn gratify them by laying no restriction on navigation acts_. " Thebargain was struck, and at this price the Southern States gainedthe detestable indulgence. At a subsequent day Congress branded theslave-trade as piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, adjudgedthis compromise to be felonious and wicked. 

Such are the three chief original compromises of the Constitution andessential conditions of Union. The case of fugitives from service is notof these. During the Convention it was not in any way associated withthese. Nor is there any evidence from the records of this body, that theprovision on this subject was regarded with any peculiar interest. Asits absence from the Articles of Confederation had not been the occasionof solicitude or de-sire, anterior to the National Convention, so itdid not enter into any of the original plans of the Constitution. It wasintroduced tardily, at a late period of the Convention, and adopted withvery little and most casual discussion. A few facts show how utterlyunfounded are recent assumptions. 

The National Convention was convoked to meet at Philadelphia on thesecond Monday in May, 1787. Several members appeared at this time, but, a majority of the States not being represented, those present adjournedfrom day to day until the 25th, when the Convention was organized by thechoice of George Washington as President. On the 28th a few brief rulesand orders were adopted. On the next day, they commenced their greatwork. 

On the same day, Edmund Randolph, of slaveholding Virginia, laid beforethe Convention a series of fifteen resolutions, containing his plan forthe establishment of a New National Government. Here was no allusion tofugitives slaves. 

Also, on the same day, Charles Pinckney, of slaveholding South Carolina, laid before the Convention what was called "A Draft of a FederalGovernment, to be agreed upon between the Free and Independent Statesof America, " an elaborate paper, marked by considerable minutenessof detail. Here are provisions, borrowed from the Articles ofConfederation, securing to the citizens of each State equal privileges, in the several States, giving faith to the public records of the States, and ordaining the surrender of fugitives from justice. But this draft, though from the flaming guardian of the slave interest, contained noallusion to fugitive slaves. 

In the course of the Convention other plans were brought forward: onthe 15th of June, aseries of eleven propositions by Mr. Paterson, ofNew Jersey, "so as to render the Federal Constitution adequate to theexigencies of Government and the preservation of the Union"; on the 18thJune, eleven propositions by Mr. Hamilton, of New York, "containing hisideas of a suitable plan of Government for the United States" and on the19th June, Mr. Randolph's resolutions, originally offered on the 29thMay, "as altered, amended, and agreed to in Committee of the WholeHouse. " On the 26th July, twenty-three resolutions, already adoptedon different days in the Convention, were referred to a "Committee ofDetail, " for reduction to the form of a Constitution. On the 6th Augustthis Committee reported the finished draft of a Constitution. And yetin all these resolutions, plans, and drafts, seven in number, proceedingfrom eminent members and from able committees, no allusion is made tofugitive slaves. For three months the Convention was in session, and nota word uttered on this subject. 

At last, on the 28th August, as the Convention was drawing to a close, on the consideration of the article providing for the privileges ofcitizens in different States, we meet the first reference to thismatter, in words worthy of note. "General (Charles Cotesworth) Pinckneywas not satisfied with it. He SEEMED to wish some provision should beincluded in favor of property in slaves. " But he made no proposition. Unwilling to shock the Convention, and uncertain in his own mind, heonly seemed to wish such a provision. In this vague expression of avague desire this idea first appeared. In this modest, hesitating phraseis the germ of the audacious, unhesitating Slave Act. Here is the littlevapor, which has since swollen, as in the Arabian tale, to the power anddimensions of a giant. The next article under discussion provided forthe surrender of fugitives from justice. Mr. Butler and Mr. CharlesPinckney, both from South Carolina, now moved openly to require"fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals. " Herewas no disguise. With Hamlet, it was now said in spirit, "Seems, Madam! Nay it is. I know not seems. "

But the very boldness of the effort drew attention and opposition. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, the learned jurist and excellent man, at onceobjected: "This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it at thepublic expense. " Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "saw no more propriety inthe public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse. "Under the pressure of these objections, the offensive proposition waswithdrawn, --never more to be renewed. The article for the surrender ofcriminals was then unanimously adopted. On the next day, 29thAugust, profiting by the suggestions already made, Mr. Butler moveda proposition, --substantially like that now found in theConstitution, --for the surrender, not of "fugitive slaves, " asoriginally proposed, but simply of "persons bound to service or labor, "which, without debate or opposition of any kind, was unanimouslyadopted. '

Here, palpably, was no labor of compromise, no adjustment of conflictinginterest, --nor even any expression of solicitude. The clause finallyadopted was vague and faint as the original suggestion. In its naturalimport it is not applicable to slaves. If supposed by some tobe applicable, it is clear that it was supposed by others to beinapplicable. It is now insisted that the term "persons bound toservice, " or "held to service, " as expressed in the final revision, isthe equivalent or synonym for "slaves. " This interpretation is rebukedby an incident to which reference has been already made, but which willbear repetition. On the 13th September--a little more than a fortnightafter the clause was adopted, and when, if deemed to be of anysignificance, it could not have been forgotten--the very word "service, "came under debate, and received a fixed meaning. It was unanimouslyadopted as a substitute for "servitude" in another part of theConstitution, for the reason that it expressed "the obligations of freepersons, " while the other expressed "the condition of slaves. " Inthe face of this authentic evidence, reported by Mr. Madison, it isdifficult to see how the term "persons held to service" can be deemed toexpress anything beyond the "obligations of free persons. " Thus, in thelight of calm inquiry, does this exaggerated clause lose its importance. 

The provision, showing itself thus tardily, and so slightly regarded inthe National Convention, was neglected in much of the contemporaneousdiscussion before the people. In the Conventions of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, it was commended as securing importantrights, though on this point there was difference of opinion. In theVirginia Convention, an eminent character, Mr. George Mason, withothers, expressly declared that there was "no security of propertycoming within this section. " In the other Conventions it wasdisregarded. Massachusetts, while exhibiting peculiar sensitiveness atany responsibility for slavery, seemed to view it with unconcern. Oneof her leading statesmen, General Heath, in the debates of the StateConvention, strenuously asserted, that, in ratifying the Constitution, the people of Massachusetts "would do nothing to hold the blacks inslavery. " "_The Federalist_, " in its classification of the powers ofCongress, describes and groups a large number as "those which providefor the harmony and proper intercourse among the States, " andtherein speaks of the power over public records, standing next in theConstitution to the provision concerning fugitives from service; but itfails to recognize the latter among the means of promoting "harmony andproper intercourse;" nor does its triumvirate of authors anywhere alludeto the provision. 

The indifference thus far attending this subject still continued. Theearliest Act of Congress, passed in 1793, drew little attention. It wasnot suggested originally by any difficulty or anxiety touching fugitivesfrom service, nor is there any contemporary record, in debate orotherwise, showing that any special importance was attached to itsprovisions in this regard. The attention of Congress was directed tofugitives from justice, and, with little deliberation, it undertook, inthe same bill, to provide for both cases. In this accidental manner waslegislation on this subject first attempted. 

There is no evidence that fugitives were often seized under this Act. From a competent inquirer we learn that twenty-six years elapsed beforeit was successfully enforced in any Free State. It is certain, that, ina case at Boston, towards the close of the last century, illustratedby Josiah Quincy as counsel, the crowd about the magistrate, at theexamination, quietly and spontaneously opened a way for the fugitive, and thus the Act failed to be executed. It is also certain, that, inVermont, at the beginning of the century, a Judge of the Supreme Courtof the State, on application for the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied by documentary evidence, gloriously refused compliance, unless the master could show a Bill of Sale from the Almighty. Eventhese cases passed without public comment. 

In 1801 the subject was introduced in the House of Representatives byan effort for another Act, which, on consideration, was rejected. Ata later day, in 1817-18, though still disregarded by the country, itseemed to excite a short-lived interest in Congress. In the House ofRepresentatives, on motion of Mr. Pindall, of Virginia, a committee wasappointed to inquire into the expediency of "providing more effectuallyby law for reclaiming servants and slaves escaping from one State intoan-other, " and a bill reported by them to amend the Act of 1793, afterconsideration for several days in Committee of the Whole, was passed. In the Senate, after much attention and warm debate, it passed withamendments. But on return to the House for adoption of the amendments, it was dropped. This effort, which, in the discussions of this subject, has been thus far unnoticed, is chiefly remarkable as the earliestrecorded evidence of the unwarrantable assertion, now so common, thatthis provision was originally of vital importance to the peace andharmony of the country. 

At last, in 1850, we have another Act, passed by both Houses ofCongress, and approved by the President, familiarly known as theFugitive Slave Bill. As I read this statute, I am filled with painfulemotions. The masterly subtlety with which it is drawn might challengeadmiration, if exerted for a benevolent purpose; but in an age ofsensibility and refinement, a machine of torture, however skilfuland apt, cannot be regarded without horror. Sir, in the name of theConstitution, which it violates, of my country, which it dishonors, of Humanity, which it degrades, of Christianity, which it offends, Iarraign this enactment, and now hold it up to the judgment of the Senateand the world. Again, I shrink from no responsibility. I may seemto stand alone; but all the patriots and martyrs of history, all theFathers of the Republic, are with me. Sir, there is no attribute of Godwhich does not take part against this Act. 

But I am to regard it now chiefly as an infringement of theConstitution. Here its outrages, flagrant as manifold, assume thedeepest dye and broadest character only when we consider that by itslanguage it is not restricted to any special race or class, to theAfrican or to the person with African blood, but that any inhabitantof the United States, of whatever complexion or condition, may be itsvictim. Without discrimination of color even, and in violation of everypresumption of freedom, the Act surrenders all who may be claimed as"owing service or labor" to the same tyrannical proceeding. If there beany whose sympathies are not moved for the slave, who do not cherish therights of the humble African, struggling for divine Freedom, as warmlyas the rights of the white man, let him consider well that the rights ofall are equally assailed. "Nephew, " said Algernon Sidney in prison, onthe night before his execution, "I value not my own life a chip; butwhat concerns me is, that the law which takes away my life may hangevery one of you, whenever it is thought convenient. "

Whilst thus comprehensive in its provisions, and applicable to all, there is no safeguard of Human Freedom which the monster Act does notset at nought. 

It commits this great question--than which none is more sacred in thelaw--not to a solemn trial, but to summary proceedings. 

It commits this great question, not to one of the high tribunals of theland, but to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. 

It commits this great question to a magistrate appointed, not by thePresident with the consent of the Senate, but by the Court, --holdingoffice, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of theCourt, --and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to eachindividual case. 

It authorizes judgment on _ex parte_ evidence, by affidavit, without thesanction of cross-examination. 

It denies the writ of _Habeas Corpus_, ever known as the palladium ofthe citizen. 

Contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of the Constitution, itsends the fugitive back "at the public expense. "

Adding meanness to violation of the Constitution, it bribes theCommissioner by a double stipend to pronounce against Freedom. If hedooms a man to Slavery, the reward is ten dollars; but saving him toFreedom, his dole is five. 

The Constitution expressly secures the "free exercise of religion"; butthis Act visits with unrelenting penalties the faithful men and womenwho render to the fugitive that countenance, succor, and shelter whichin their conscience "religion" requires; and thus is practical religiondirectly assailed. Plain commandments are broken; and are we not toldthat "Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shallteach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven"?

As it is for the public weal that there should be an end of suits, so bythe consent of civilized nations these must be instituted within fixedlimitations of time; but this Act, exalting Slavery above even thispractical principle of universal justice, ordains proceedings againstFreedom without any reference to the lapse of time. 

Glancing only at these points, and not stopping for argument, vindication, or illustration, I come at once upon two chief radicalobjections to this Act, identical in principle with those triumphantlyurged by our fathers against the British Stamp Act; first, that it is ausurpation by Congress of powers not granted by the Constitution, and aninfraction of rights secured to the States; and, secondly, that ittakes away Trial by Jury in a question of Personal Liberty and a suitat Common Law. Either of these objections, if sustained, strikes at thevery root of the Act. That it is obnoxious to both is beyond doubt. 

Here, at this stage, I encounter the difficulty, that these objectionsare already foreclosed by legislation of Congress and decisions of theSupreme Court, --that as early as 1793 Congress assumed power over thissubject by an Act which failed to secure Trial by Jury, and that thevalidity of this Act under the Constitution has been affirmed by theSupreme Court. On examination, this difficulty will disappear. 

The Act of 1793 proceeded from a Congress that had already recognizedthe United States Bank, chartered by a previous Congress, which, though sanctioned by the Supreme Court, has been since in high quarterspronounced unconstitutional. If it erred as to the Bank, it may haveerred also as to fugitives from service. But the Act itself contains acapital error on this very subject, so declared by the Supreme Court, in pretending to vest a portion of the judicial power of the Nationin State officers. This error takes from the Act all authority as aninterpretation of the Constitution. I dismiss it. 

The decisions of the Supreme Court are entitled to great consideration, and will not be mentioned by me except with respect. Among the memoriesof my youth are happy days when I sat at the feet of this tribunal, while MARSHALL presided, with STORY by his side. The pressure nowproceeds from the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania (16 Peters, 539), whereis asserted the power of Congress. Without going into minutecriticism of this judgment, or considering the extent to which it isextra-judicial, and therefore of no binding force, --all which has beendone at the bar in one State, and by an able court in another, --butconceding to it a certain degree of weight as a rule to the judiciary onthis particular point, still it does not touch the grave question whichsprings from the denial of Trial by Jury. This judgment was pronouncedby Mr. Justice Story. From the interesting biography of the greatjurist, recently published by his son, we learn that the question ofTrial by Jury was not considered as before the Court; so that, in theestimation of the learned judge himself, it was still an open question. 

 * * * * *

(1). _First of the power of Congress over this subject_. 

The Constitution contains _powers_ granted to Congress, _compacts_between the States, and _prohibitions_ addressed to the Nation and tothe States. A compact or prohibition may be accompanied by a power, --butnot necessarily, for it is essentially distinct in nature. And here thesingle question arises, Whether the Constitution, by grant, general orspecial, confers upon Congress any power to legislate on the subject offugitives from service. 

 * * * * *

The framers of the Constitution were wise and careful, having a reasonfor what they did, and understanding the language they employed. Theydid not, after discussion, incorporate into their work any superfluousprovision; nor did they without design adopt the peculiar arrangementin which it appears. Adding to the record compact an express grant ofpower, they testified not only their desire for such power in Congress, but their conviction that without such express grant it would notexist. But if express grant was necessary in this case, it was equallynecessary in all the other cases. _Expressum facit cessare tacitum_. Especially, in view of its odious character, was it necessary in thecase of fugitives from service. Abstaining from any such grant, and thengrouping the bare compact with other similar compacts, separate fromevery grant of power, they testified their purpose most significantly. Not only do they decline all addition to the compact of any such power, but, to render misapprehension impossible, to make assurance doublysure, to exclude any contrary conclusion, they punctiliously arrange theclauses, on the principle of _noscitur a sociis_, so as to distinguishall the grants of power, but especially to make the new grant of power, in the case of public records, stand forth in the front by itself, severed from the naked compacts with which it was originally associated. 

Thus the proceedings of the Convention show that the founders understoodthe necessity of powers in certain cases, and, on consideration, jealously granted them. A closing example will strengthen the argument. Congress is expressly empowered "to establish an uniform rule ofnaturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States. " Without this provision these two subjectswould have fallen within the control of the States, leaving the nationpowerless to establish a uniform rule thereupon. Now, instead of theexisting compact on fugitives from service, it would have been easy, had any such desire prevailed, to add this case to the clause onnaturalization and bankruptcies, and to empower Congress To ESTABLISH AUNIFORM RULE FOR THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES FROM SERVICE THROUGHOUT THEUNITED STATES. Then, of course, whenever Congress undertook to exercisethe power, all State control of the subject would be superseded. TheNational Government would have been constistuted, like Nimrod, themighty Hunter, with power to gather the huntsmen, to halloo the pack, and to direct the chase of men, ranging at will, without regard toboundaries or jurisdictions, throughout all the States. But no personin the Convention, not one of the reckless partisans of slavery, was soaudacious as to make this proposition. Had it been distinctly made, itwould have been as distinctly denied. 

The fact that the provision on this subject was adopted unanimously, while showing the little importance attached to it in the shape itfinally assumed, testifies also that it could not have been regarded asa source of national power for Slavery. It will be remembered that amongthe members of the Convention were Gouverneur Morris, who had said thathe "NEVER would concur in upholding domestic Slavery, "--ElbridgeGerry, who thought we "ought to be careful NOT to give any sanctionto it, "--Roger Sherman, who "was OPPOSED to a tax on slaves imported, because it implied they were property, "--James Madison, who "thought itWRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be propertyin men, "--and Benjamin Franklin, who likened American slaveholders toAlgerine corsairs. In the face of these unequivocal judgments, it isabsurd to suppose that these eminent citizens consented unanimously toany provision by which the National Government, the creature of theirhands, dedicated to freedom, could become the most offensive agent ofSlavery. 

Thus much for the evidence from the history of the Convention. Butthe true principles of our political system are in harmony with thisconclusion of history; and here let me say a word of State rights. 

It was the purpose of our fathers to create a National Government, and to endow it with adequate powers. They had known the perils ofimbecility, discord, and confusion, protracted through the uncertaindays of the Confederation, and they desired a government which shouldbe a true bond of union and an efficient organ of national interests athome and abroad. But while fashioning this agency, they fully recognizedthe governments of the States. To the nation were delegated high powers, essential to the national interests, but specific in character andlimited in number. To the States and to the people were reserved thepowers, general in character and unlimited in number, not delegated tothe nation or prohibited to the States. 

The integrity of our political system depends upon harmony in theoperations of the Nation and of the States. While the nation within itswide orbit is supreme, the States move with equal supremacy in theirown. But, from the necessity of the case, the supremacy of each inits proper place excludes the other. The Nation cannot exercise rightsreserved to the States, nor can the States interfere with the powersof the nation. Any such action on either side is a usurpation. Theseprinciples were distinctly declared by Mr. Jefferson in 1798, in wordsoften adopted since, and which must find acceptance from all parties. 

 * * * * *

I have already amply shown to-day that Slavery is in no respectnational--that it is not within the sphere of national activity, --thatit has no "positive" support in the Constitution, --and that anyinterpretation inconsistent with this principle would be abhorrent tothe sentiments of its founders. Slavery is a local institution, peculiarto the States, and under the guardianship of State rights. Itis impossible, without violence to the spirit and letter of theConstitution, to claim for Congress any power to legislate either forits abolition in the States or its support anywhere. Non-Interventionis the rule prescribed to the nation. Regarding the question in its moregeneral aspects only, and putting aside, for the moment, the perfectevidence from the records of the convention, it is palpable that thereis no national fountain out of which the existing Slave Act can possiblyspring. 

But this Act is not only an unwarrantable assumption of power by thenation, it is also an infraction of rights reserved to the States. Everywhere within their borders the States are peculiar guardians ofpersonal liberty. By jury and habeas corpus to save the citizen harmlessagainst all assault is among their duties and rights. To his State thecitizen, when oppressed, may appeal; nor should he find that appealdenied. But this Act despoils him of rights, and despoils his Stateof all power to protect him. It subjects him to the wretched chance offalse oaths, forged papers, and facile commissioners, and takes fromhim every safeguard. Now, if the slaveholder has a right to be secureat home in the enjoyment of Slavery, so also has the freeman of theNorth--and every person there is presumed to be a free man--an equalright to be secure at home in the enjoyment of freedom. The sameprinciple of State rights by which Slavery is protected in the slaveStates throws an impenetrable shield over Freedom in the free States. And here, let me say, is the only security for Slavery in the slaveStates, as for Freedom in the free States. In the present fataloverthrow of State rights you teach a lesson which may return to plaguethe teacher. Compelling the National Government to stretch its Briareanarms into the free States for the sake of Slavery, you show openly howit may stretch these same hundred giant arms into the slave States forthe sake of Freedom. This lesson was not taught by our fathers. 

Here I end this branch of the question. The true principles of ourpolitical system, the history of the National Convention, the naturalinterpretation of the Constitution, all teach that this Act is ausurpation by Congress of powers that do not belong to it, and aninfraction of rights secured to the States. It is a sword, whose handleis at the National Capital, and whose point is everywhere in the States. A weapon so terrible to personal liberty the nation has no power tograsp. 

(2). And now of the denial of Trial by Jury. 

Admitting, for the moment, that Congress is intrusted with power overthis subject, which truth disowns, still the Act is again radicallyunconstitutional from its denial of Trial by Jury in a question ofpersonal liberty and a suit of common law. Since on the one side thereis a claim of property, and on the other of liberty, both propertyand liberty are involved in the issue. To this claim on either side isattached Trial by Jury. 

To me, Sir, regarding this matter in the light of the Common Law andin the blaze of free institutions, it has always seemed impossible toarrive at any other conclusion. If the language of the Constitution wereopen to doubt, which it is not, still all the presumptions of law, all the leanings to Freedom, all the suggestions of justice, pleadangel-tongued for this right. Nobody doubts that Congress, if itlegislates on this matter, may allow a Trial by Jury. But if it may, sooverwhelming is the claim of justice, it MUST. Beyond this, however, thequestion is determined by the precise letter of the Constitution. 

Several expressions in the provision for the surrender of fugitives fromservice show the essential character of the proceedings. In the firstplace, the person must be, not merely charged, as in the case offugitives from justice, but actually held to service in the State whichhe escaped. In the second place, he must "be delivered up on claimof the party to whom such service or labor may be due. " These twofacts--that he was held to service, and that his service was due tohis claimant--are directly placed in issue, and must be proved. Twonecessary incidents of the delivery may also be observed. First, itis made in the State where the fugitive is found; and, secondly, it restores to the claimant complete control over the person of thefugitive. From these circumstances it is evident that the proceedingscannot be regarded, in any just sense, as preliminary, or ancillaryto some future formal trial, but as complete in themselves, final andconclusive. 

These proceedings determine on the one side the question of property, and on the other the sacred question of personal liberty in its mosttranscendent form, --Liberty not merely for a day or a year, but forlife, and the Liberty of generations that shall come after, so long asSlavery endures. To these questions the Constitution, by two specificprovisions, attaches Trial by Jury. One is the familiar clause, alreadyadduced: "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or propertywithout due process of law, "--that is, without due proceeding at law, with Trial by Jury. Not stopping to dwell on this, I press at once tothe other provision, which is still more express: "In suits at commonlaw, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, theright of Trial by Jury shall be preserved. " This clause, which does notappear in the Constitution as first adopted, was suggested by the veryspirit of freedom. At the close of the National Convention, ElbridgeGerry refused to sign the Constitution because, among other things, it established "a tribunal without juries, a star chamber as to civilcases. "

Many united in his opposition, and on the recommendation of the FirstCongress this additional safeguard was adopted as an amendment. 

Opposing this Act as doubly unconstitutional from the want of powerin Congress and from the denial of trial by jury, I find myself againencouraged by the example of our Revolutionary Fathers, in a case whichis a landmark of history. The parallel is important and complete. In1765, the British Parliament, by a notorious statute, attempted to drawmoney from the colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination ofcertain questions of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not tothe Courts of Common Law, but to Courts of Admiralty without a jury. TheStamp Act, now execrated by all lovers of liberty, had this extent andno more. Its passage was the signal for a general flame of oppositionand indignation throughout the colonies. It was denounced as contraryto the British Constitution, on two principal grounds--first, asa usurpation by Parliament of powers not belonging to it, and aninfraction of rights secured to the colonies; and, secondly, as a denialof Trial by Jury in certain cases of property. 

The public feeling was variously expressed. At Boston, on the day theact was to take effect, the shops were closed, the bells of the churchestolled, and the flags of the ships hung at half-mast. At Portsmouth, inNew Hampshire, the bells were tolled, and the friends of liberty weresummoned to hold themselves in readiness for her funeral. At New York, the obnoxious Act, headed "Folly of England and Ruin of America, "was contemptuously hawked about the streets. Bodies of patriots wereorganized everywhere under the name of "Sons of Liberty. " The merchants, inspired then by liberty, resolved to import no more goods from Englanduntil the repeal of the Act. The orators also spoke. James Otis withfiery tongue appealed to Magna Charta. 

 * * * * *

Sir, regarding the Stamp Act candidly and cautiously, free fromanimosities of the time, it is impossible not to see that, thoughgravely unconstitutional, it was at most an infringement of civilliberty only, not of personal liberty. There was an unjust tax of a fewpence, with the chance of amercement by a single judge without a jury;but by no provision of this act was the personal liberty of any manassailed. No freeman could be seized under it as a slave. Such an act, though justly obnoxious to every lover of constitutional Liberty, cannotbe viewed with the feelings of repugnance enkindled by a statute whichassails the personal liberty of every man, and under which any freemanmay be seized as a slave. Sir, in placing the Stamp Act by the side ofthe Slave Act, I do injustice to that emanation of British tyranny. Bothinfringe important rights: one, of property; the other, the vital rightof all, which is to other rights as soul to body, --the right of a manto himself. Both are condemned; but their relative condemnation must bemeasured by their relative characters. As Freedom is more than property, as Man is above the dollar that he owns, as heaven, to which we allaspire, is higher than earth, where every accumulation of wealth mustever remain, so are the rights assailed by an American Congress higherthan those once assailed by the British Parliament. And just in thisdegree must history condemn the Slave Act more than the Stamp Act. 

Sir, I might here stop. It is enough, in this place, and on thisoccasion, to show the unconstitutionality of this enactment. Your dutycommences at once. All legislation hostile to the fundamental law ofthe land should be repealed without delay. But the argument is not yetexhausted. Even if this Act could claim any validity or apology underthe Constitution, which it cannot, it lacks that essential support inthe Public Conscience of the States, where it is to be enforced, whichis the life of all law, and with-out which any law must become a deadletter. 

 * * * * *

With every attempt to administer the Slave Act, it constantly becomesmore revolting, particularly in its influence on the agents it enlists. Pitch cannot be touched without defilement, and all who lend themselvesto this work seem at once and unconsciously to lose the better part ofman. The spirit of the law passes into them, as the devils entered theswine. Upstart commissioners, mere mushrooms of courts, vie and reviewith each other. Now by indecent speed, now by harshness of manner, nowby denial of evidence, now by crippling the defense, and now by open, glaring wrong they make the odious Act yet more odious. Clemency, grace, and justice die in its presence. All this is observed by the world. Nota case occurs which does not harrow the souls of good men, and bringtears of sympathy to the eyes, and those nobler tears which "patriotsshed o'er dying laws. "

Sir, I shall speak frankly. If there be an exception to this feeling, it will be found chiefly with a peculiar class. It is a sorry fact, thatthe "mercantile interest, " in unpardonable selfishness, twice in Englishhistory, frowned upon endeavors to suppress the atrocity of AlgerineSlavery, that it sought to baffle Wilberforce's great effort for theabolition of the African slave-trade, and that, by a sordid compromise, at the formation of our Constitution, it exempted the same detested, Heaven-defying traffic from American judgment. And now representativesof this "interest, " forgetful that Commerce is born of Freedom, join inhunting the Slave. But the great heart of the people recoils from thisenactment. It palpitates for the fugitive, and rejoices in his escape. Sir, I am telling you facts. The literature of the age is all on hisside. Songs, more potent than laws, are for him. Poets, with voices ofmelody, sing for Freedom. Who could tune for Slavery? They who makethe permanent opinion of the country, who mould our youth, whose words, dropped into the soul, are the germs of character, supplicate for theSlave. And now, Sir, behold a new and heavenly ally. A woman, inspiredby Christian genius, enters the lists, like another Joan of Arc, andwith marvellous power sweeps the popular heart. Now melting to tears, and now inspiring to rage, her work everywhere touches the conscience, and makes the Slave-Hunter more hateful. In a brief period, nearlyone hundred thousand copies of Uncle Tom's Cabin have been alreadycirculated. But this extraordinary and sudden success, surpassing allother instances in the records of literature, cannot be regarded as butthe triumph of genius. Better far, it is the testimony of the people, byan unprecedented act, against the Fugitive Slave Bill. 

These things I dwell upon as incentives and tokens of an existing publicsentiment, rendering this Act practically inoperative, except as atremendous engine of horror. Sir, the sentiment is just. Even in thelands of Slavery, the slave-trader is loathed as an ignoble character, from whom the countenance is turned away; and can the Slave-Hunter bemore regarded, while pursuing his prey in a land of Freedom? In earlyEurope, in barbarous days, while Slavery prevailed, a Hunting Masterwas held in aversion. Nor was this all. The fugitive was welcomed in thecities, and protected against pursuit. Sometimes vengeance awaitedthe Hunter. Down to this day, at Revel, now a Russian city, a swordis proudly preserved with which a hunting Baron was beheaded, who, inviolation of the municipal rights of the place, seized a fugitive slave. Hostile to this Act as our public sentiment may be, it exhibits nosimilar trophy. The State laws of Massachusetts have been violated inthe seizure of a fugitive slave; but no sword, like that of Revel, nowhangs at Boston. 

And now, Sir, let us review the field over which we have passed. Wehave seen that any compromise, finally closing the discussion of Slaveryunder the Constitution, is tyrannical, absurd, and impotent; that, asSlavery can exist only by virtue of positive law, and as it has nosuch positive support in the Constitution, it cannot exist within thenational jurisdiction; that the Constitution nowhere recognizes propertyin man, and that, according to its true interpretation, Freedom and notSlavery is national, while Slavery and not Freedom is sectional;thatin this spirit the National Government was first organized underWashington, himself an Abolitionist, surrounded by Abolitionists, whilethe whole country, by its Church, its Colleges, its Literature, and allits best voices, was united against Slavery, and the national flag atthat time nowhere within the National Territory covered a single slave;still further, that the National Government is a government of delegatedpowers, and, as among these there is no power to support Slavery, thisinstitution cannot be national, nor can Congress in any way legislatein its behalf; and, finally, that the establishment of this principle isthe true way of peace and safety for the Republic. Considering next theprovision for the surrender of fugitives from service, we have seen thatit was not one of the original compromises of the Constitution; thatit was introduced tardily and with hesitation, and adopted with littlediscussion, while then and for a long period thereafter it was regardedwith comparative indifference; that the recent Slave Act, though manytimes unconstitutional, is especially so on two grounds, first, as ausurpation by Congress of powers not granted by the Constitution, and aninfraction of rights secured to the States, and, secondly, as the denialof Trial by Jury, in a question of personal liberty and a suit at CommonLaw; that its glaring unconstitutionality finds a prototype in theBritish Stamp Act, which our fathers refused to obey as unconstitutionalon two parallel grounds, --first, because it was a usurpation byParliament of powers not belonging to it under the British Constitution, and an infraction of rights belonging to the Colonies, and, secondly, because it was the denial of Trial by Jury in certain cases of property;that, as Liberty is far above property, so is the outrage perpetratedby the American Congress far above that perpetrated by the BritishParliament; and, finally, that the Slave Act has not that support, inthe public sentiment of the States where it is to be executed, which isthe life of all law, and which prudence and the precept of Washingtonrequire. 

 * * * * *

Mr. President, I have occupied much time; but the great subject stillstretches before us. One other point yet remains, which I must not leaveuntouched, and which justly belongs to the close. The Slave Act violatesthe Constitution, and shocks the Public Conscience. With modesty, andyet with firmness, let me add, Sir, it offends against the Divine Law. No such enactment is entitled to support. As the throne of God is aboveevery earthly throne, so are his laws and statutes above all the lawsand statutes of man. To question these is to question God himself. Butto assume that human laws are beyond question is to claim for theirfallible authors infallibility. To assume that they are always inconformity with the laws of God is presumptuously and impiously to exaltman even to equality with God. Clearly, human laws are not alwaysin such conformity; nor can they ever be beyond question from eachindividual. Where the conflict is open, as if Congress should commandthe perpetration of murder, the office of conscience as final arbiter isundisputed. But in every conflict the same queenly office is hers. Byno earthly power can she be dethroned. Each person, after anxiousexamination, without haste, without passion, solemnly for himself mustdecide this great controversy. Any other rule attributes infallibilityto human laws, places them beyond question, and degrades all men to anunthinking, passive obedience. 

 * * * * *

The mandates of an earthly power are to be discussed; those of Heavenmust at once be performed; nor should we suffer ourselves to be drawnby any compact into opposition to God. Such is the rule of morals. Such, also, by the lips of judges and sages, is the proud declarationof English law, whence our own is derived. In this conviction, patriotshave braved unjust commands, and martyrs have died. 

And now, sir, the rule is commended to us. The good citizen, who seesbefore him the shivering fugitive, guilty of no crime, pursued, hunteddown like a beast, while praying for Christian help and deliverance, andthen reads the requirements of this Act, is filled with horror. Hereis a despotic mandate "to aid and assist in the prompt and efficientexecution of this law. " Again let me speak frankly. Not rashly would Iset myself against any requirement of law. This grave responsibilityI would not lightly assume. But here the path of duty is clear. By theSupreme Law, which commands me to do no injustice, by the comprehensiveChristian Law of Brotherhood, by the Constitution, which I have sworn tosupport, I AM BOUND TO DISOBEY THIS ACT. Never, in any capacity, canI render voluntary aid in its execution. Pains and penalties I willendure, but this great wrong, I will not do. "Where I cannot obeyactively, there I am willing to lie down and to suffer what they shalldo unto me"; such was the exclamation of him to whom we are indebted forthe Pilgrim's Progress while in prison for disobedience to an earthlystatute. Better suffer injustice than do it. Better victim thaninstrument of wrong. Better even the poor slave returned to bondage thanthe wretched Commissioner. 

There is, sir, an incident of history which suggests a parallel, andaffords a lesson of fidelity. Under the triumphant exertions of thatApostolic Jesuit, St. Francis Xavier, large numbers of Japanese, amounting to as many as two hundred thousand, --among them princes, generals, and the flower of the nobility, --were converted toChristianity. Afterwards, amidst the frenzy of civil war, religiouspersecution arose, and the penalty of death was denounced against allwho refused to trample upon the effigy of the Redeemer. This was thePagan law of a Pagan land. But the delighted historian records, thatfrom the multitude of converts scarcely one was guilty of this apostasy. The law of man was set at naught. Imprisonment, torture, death, werepreferred. Thus did this people refuse to trample on the painted image. Sir, multitudes among us will not be less steadfast in refusing totrample on the living image of their Redeemer. 

Finally, Sir, for the sake of peace and tranquility, cease to shock thePublic Conscience; for the sake of the Constitution, cease to exercisea power nowhere granted, and which violates inviolable rights expresslysecured. Leave this question where it was left by our fathers, at theformation of our National Government, --in the absolute control ofthe States, the appointed guardians of Personal Liberty. Repeal thisenactment. Let its terrors no longer rage through the land. Mindfulof the lowly whom it pursues, mindful of the good men perplexed by itsrequirements, in the name of Charity, in the name of the Constitution, repeal this enactment, totally and without delay. There is the exampleof Washington, follow it. There also are words of Oriental piety, most touching and full of warning, which speak to all mankind, and nowespecially to us: "Beware of the groans of wounded souls, since theinward sore will at length break out. Oppress not to the utmost a singleheart; for a solitary sigh has power to overturn a whole world. "