Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

any citizen of the United States has any rights there, more or less, because he belongs to one or another State. The people of the United States own the territory, and its whole jurisdiction is in Congress. It is so by the very terms of the cession. It is so by the very nature of things. If they had not jurisdiction of it, there would be no jurisdiction over it.

Some gentlemen tell us that in the clause of the Constitution giving Congress power to make all needful rules and regulations concerning territory or other property belonging to the United States, the word "territory" means land, and therefore, they say, it means nothing else. That argument will not do. It is true, the United States own the land, and this provision of the Constitution covers the use and disposal of the lands; but it is not true that therefore it covers nothing else. The Territories which the United States own, they have the jurisdiction of, and eminent domain over. They have always exercised this power. Another signification is that "Territory" means an organized municipal corporation, created by an act of Congress, just as a State creates a municipal corporation for a city, town, or borough. You talk of the Territory of Minnesota, the Territory of Kansas-what is it? It is but part and parcel of the United States territory, and the creation which it has, as a distinct identity and individuality different from the rest, is altogether the creature of an act of Congress, entirely subject to their control, to be changed, modified, or repealed, whenever they please. The manner in which the sovereignty of the United States is to be exercised over the Territories of the United States was altogether a matter of their own discretion. They might never create any territorial government for any part of it, but might make laws for it themselves. When they did create these corporations, the notion that there was any inherent right in the woods, (for most of it was mere forest inhabited by savages,) or anybody who might go there, is perfectly ideal.

The exercise of true popular sovereignty over a Territory is the exercise of sovereign power by Congress for the people of the United States who own the Territory. That is the popular Sovereignty which they not only had, but exercised for fifty years. During that period the idea did not gain a foothold that sovereignty should be granted to the people who might go to a Territory, how many, or how few, or at what time. If they have any rights, why do you not let them elect or appoint their own Governor and judges? Why do you not let them direct all their institutions? If there is a right there, by what authority did Congress create a government, such as I have already described, for Louisiana, without the intervention of any act of its people at all? And yet it was an inhabited country; there was a very large body of inhabitants there; but Congress created for it a government in which that people had not the least possible participation. Such is popular sovereignty in its true sense, and proper application, according to the meaning which has been given to it by the cotemporaneous construction of the men who had it, and the people who exercised it, for half a century. It is further to be observed that this matter of slavery is a matter of great national interest and concern, entirely improper to be made a topic of disturbance and controversy in the several Territories which may be formed, and decided in different ways by mere local legislation. This was

ever so viewed until 1854; and the experiment now on foot in Kansas is a sad commentary on this new doctrine and new experiment of the new definition of popular sovereignty.

There is another topic of remark on this subject. It is said that if you prohibit slavery in the Territories of the United States, the inhabitants of the slaveholding States cannot go there, will not go there, and that they have the same || right to go there that anybody else has. It is said they ought to have the right to carry their property there. Every man, it is said, has the right (for there is entire freedom of commerce in the United States) to carry his property from one State to another. Put that proposition to the people of the United States, and every man of them would tell you, "Yes, it is true; and no law can be made to prevent it." Under what clause of the Constitution is that right claimed? It is that which provides that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." What rights are those? A citizen of one State when in another State has the same right to the use and exercise of his power there that the people living there have. What right the people living there have, is regulated by the sovereignty of the country. Just so it is in relation to the Territories. You say you have a right to go there. We grant it. Then, you say, you have a right to take your property there. That depends upon the action of the sovereignty of the country. They have a a right to make their own municipal laws. They have a right to make laws in relation to its police. Now, if any State, or if the sovereignty of Congress over the Territories, makes laws which for bid the carrying any particular kind of property there, it cannot be taken there. I will not repeat an argument on that point; it has been argued so many times that such a task is unnecessary. 1 will only say, that in this respect I agree with the argument of the Senator from Michigan, [Mr. CASS]-I believe he has never varied his opinion on this subject-and the Senator from Illinois, [Mr. DOUGLAS,] who was so large a participator in the repeal of the Missouri compromise.

It has been said that the people of the slave States will not go into free territory if they cannot carry slaves with them, and therefore that a prohibition deprives them of the privilege of settling it. That is not so, because they have all the rights of others. But, further, I deny altogether, and deny it from history, that they will not go there. I say they will go there. It will be remembered, from the quotations I have made from the debates of the Virginia House of Delegates, that those gentlemen say their free white population, who are degraded by labor in a slaveholding country, are fleeing to other communities more congenial to their taste, and where they will not lose position by caste. That is not all. I have more authority than that. I had the curiosity, in relation to our good old “mother of States," Virginia-the finest specimen, probably, or as good as any of the slaveholding part of the United States-to see what has been the effect in point of fact. I have taken from the census tables some minutes which I wish to present upon this point. I find that at the taking of the census of 1850 there were residing in the several States of the Union certain numbers of people who came from Virginia, and were natives of Virginia; and I wish to ascertain how many of those people

who have gone out from Virginia and settled in other States, have settled in the free States, and how many in the slave States. That will test the fact.

fo it. I do not know whether the fact be so, but I should not be at all surprised at it. The people of the free States never having seen and realized the true effect of the condition of slavery, knowing practically nothing about it, it would not be strange if, in their progress of em, igration, they should, with others, go to newlyopened slaveholding States; but when they went there they might find a condition of things entirely different from what they had anticipated. You may not find those people entirely approving the institution. The people of the slaveholding States, however, know all about it; they understand it in all its bearings; they appreciate all its blessings; and yet a great majority of their emi grants settle in those States where they know the Institution is never to go. Nor do I mean to intimate that the people of the free States do not furnish their full proportion of those who are governed by cupidity; and when they can promote a particular advantage by holding slaves where it is lawful, I have no doubt they, like other persons, will hold them. I am not at all certain that, if there were no law against slavery, slaves would not be found to a considerable ex, tent in the free States. That is the very reason why I desire that a law should be kept up against it. I desire it because it is an institution which does intrude itself upon a people; because it elevates the few; because it creates an aristocr racy; because it depresses the great masses of the people.

I grant that it is not right to include the State of Kentucky, because the Virginians there can hardly be called emigrants. Kentucky was made from Virginia. It was a part of Virginia, and, therefore, what went out from one into the other should not be counted. That would be treating as born in Virginia and residing in Kentucky, those who, in fact, had never emigrated. That would be an improper statement of the case. Leaving out Kentucky, as being originally a part of Virginia, I have made a table of the rest of the United States, and I find that Virginia has residing in the different States of this Union, three hundred and thirty-two thousand eight hundred and eighty-two of her own children. She has, perhaps, the largest number of her children of any State in the Union residing out of her limits. She has furnished more emigrants than any other one State, as native-born citizens. Now, let us see how many of these have gone from her into the new slave States, then Territories, and now States; and how many have gone into those Territories and States where the institution of slavery was forbidden. If it be true that people from the slave States cannot and will not go to the free States because slavery is not allowed there, we shall find a large majority of her children who have emigrated to slave States and Territories. A mere majority either way would not A still more conclusive answer to the question prove much. If it were so, it would prove they of the honorable Senator is this: the free States were as much inclined to go one way as another; have more than double the number of population but if there were a large majority it would show to the free people in the slave States. Hence that almost all would go to slave States only. they furnish much the greatest number of emigrants to all parts.

written by Mr. R. W. Hughes, a politician in Virginia, editor of the Richmond Examiner. After charging the New York Tribune with falsehood, this writer, in his editorial, goes on to give what he considers the true view of the case, and like all the children of Virginia, he claims a great deal for her. He says:

Now, how is the fact? Of these three hundred and thirty-two thousand eight hundred and In this connection I will read an extract from eighty-two, one hundred and fifty-two thousand a Virginia paper in relation to the political effect two hundred and twenty-eight of Virginia's chil-produced by the institution. It is an article dren who have gone abroad, have settled in the slaveholding Territories and States; in Arkansas, Alabama, the District of Columbia, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. To those States which are free of slavery and were early sequestered and declared free, where that point was fully settled, || there have gone from Virginia, and are now residing, according to the census, in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin, one hundred and eighty thousand six tempt for her northern revilers is the result of her conhundred and fifty-four. Thirty thousand more sciousness of her influence in the political world. She of the children of Virginia have settled in the free makes and unmakes Presidents. She dictates her terms States, than in the slave States, leaving out Ken-to the northern Democracy, and they obey her. She selects tucky.

"Virginia in this Confederacy is the impersonation of the well-born, well-educated, well-bred aristocrat. She feels that she is the sword and buckler at the South; that it is her influence which has so frequently defeated and driven back in dismay the Abolition party. Brave, calm, and determined; wise in time of excitement; always true to the slave power; never rash or indiscreet, the waves of

northern fanaticism break harmless at her feet. Her con

from among the faithful of the North a man upon whom she can rely, and she makes him President. She takes the initiative in punishing traitors like Van Buren, and her sisters of the South unite with her, and the traitors are cast out. In and out of Congress in the science of politics she holds the North to her purpose."

Mr. ADAMS. I desire to ask my friend a question. By the census of 1850, it appears that there were, at that time, residing in the slaveholding States, over seven hundred thousand persons born in the non-slaveholding States; while We hear much, Mr. President, in some quarthere were residing in the non-slaveholding States ters, in relation to the equality of the States; and only about two hundred thousand persons born southern gentlemen tell us that they will remain in the slaveholding States. I have not the figures in the Union only so long as they can remain in before me, but I recollect them pretty nearly. In it on terms of equality. Like "popular sover1850, nearly half a million more persons were eignty," this phrase, equality of States," is a residing in the slaveholding States who were born taking catch-word. It is desirable that we should in the non-slaveholding States, than there were understand the true meaning and application of of persons born in the latter residing in the the term. What is meant by this claim of the former. How does the Senator account for that?equality of the States? What are we to underMA COLLAMER. I can very readily account stand by it? If gentlemen mean that every State

66

suppose we take the whole Territory of the United States; set it off into States; shape the destiny of each by providing for slavery going into one Territory and not into another, and we all know that Territories will form themselves into States as their character is formed when Territories; it has been always so, and always will be so. If slavery is admitted into a Territory it will become a slave State; if slavery is prohibited and kept out, it will become a free State. "Train up a child in the way he should

has a right to regulate its own internal affairs in its own way, undoubtedly there is an equality of the States in that respect. But is there actual equality among the States? While I am standing here, the State of South Carolina, with a free population forty thousand less than my little State of Vermont, has six Representatives in the other House; Vermont but three. Is that the equality of the States of which gentlemen speak? I grant it is such equality of the States as they are respectively entitled to under the Constitution, and we will abide by it; but it is very fargo, and when he is old he will not depart from from an actual equality.

It This is as true of States as of individuals. History shows it to be so. Suppose we should divide off our Territories so as to have an equal number of slave and free States, and say this is the condition of things to be preserved. Then Delaware, Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, and Maryland, never could abolish slavery. Their doing so must be prohibited, for it would destroy this equilibrium. The principle is one incapable of execution, inconsistent with our whole institutions, and with the theory of our Government.

Under the old Articles of Confederation every State, great or small, had an equal vote. When they came to form the Constitution of the United States, that was the great point of trouble. I know it has been the fashion to represent that the difficulty at which they stuck, the trouble | under which they labored when the Convention came very near breaking up, arose out of something connected with slavery. In fact, that had nothing to do with it. The trouble was this: the smaller States insisted on retaining in the new Again, is there any propriety in our according formation of the Government their equality in in any one of the departments of the Government, voting as they had had it before. They said, the same power to six millions of free people as "We come together as equals; sovereignties in to thirteen millions? Is it to be expected that the view of the world are always equal; we the thirteen millions should submit, and be asked ought to remain equal." The larger States, to submit to go down, like the fable of gathering headed by Virginia and Massachusetts, insisted the trees of the forest together to select a king, that it should not be so; that the destinies of the and their saying to the bramble, "Come, thou, country, and its public affairs, should not be and rule over us?"-not that I mean anything equally controlled by a small State like Delaware || offensive; but the fact is, their numbers do not and a large State like Virginia. There was the entitle them to any such claim. point upon which the Convention almost broke I wish I were able to argue a little more at up. It was settled, as we all know, by a com- large as to the exercise of the power of soverpromise, giving to the people of the several States eignty. Until within a very recent period, the their relative weight by representation in one principle on which our Government has always House, and to the States as corporations their gone in relation to the Territories is this: Where equal weight in the other House. That was the slavery existed when we obtained territory, compromise, and when it was made, two out of where it was already established, we have not the three delegates of the State of New York- || forbidden it, but have taken measures to prevent now a very great State, the Empire State, which ||its increase; but in relation to all that territory then called herself one of the small States, and where it did not exist to any appreciable extent, was very much afraid of being overslaughed by we have forbidden it. I say that is the practical the larger ongs-Mr. Yates and Mr. Lansing construction of the intention of the Constitution. went out, and never returned. I think Mr. Lu-|| I should desire to be able to argue a little more at ther Martin, of Maryland, also retired, and did large, to show that this must necessarily be our not come back. policy. Such is the view of the Supreme Court in the Florida or Canter case, to which I have adverted. In that case the court decided that the legislative power of the United States Government, when a treaty had once annexed a country, extended over it; and that, in legislating for the territory, Congress exercised both the powers of the General Government and of a State

That was an attempt to assert the equality of the States. It failed. Now what is meant by it? What is really intended to be claimed? I do not wish to disguise the truth; I understand it to mean this: that there shall be in this body as many Senators from the slave States as from the free States. The President says this election has settled the equality of the different States and sec-government within its jurisdiction. tions. Now, the moment we make sections of this country, independent of the sections made by the States, and demand that each of those sections shall be entitled to their different rights, there is no end to our subdivisions. The northern and eastern States, a manufacturing, fishing, commercial people, make one section. On this principle, they have a right to demand that they shall have an equal representation with every other section in this body. The slaveholding section claim an equality with all the rest. The northwestern States may, on the same principle, claim that they shall have as much representation here as all the rest of the United States.

Again, if we once establish a principle of this kind, we must of course forbid anything and everything that is inconsistent with it. Now,

A question is made as to the right to carry property from one jurisdiction into another. Why, sir, every State of this Union where the question has arisen-in Missouri and Louisiana, (I have before me the citations)-has decided repeatedly that slavery was not a natural right; that no such thing existed by the law of nature, and that it never could exist and never could be asserted unless there was some law of the place where it was attempted to be asserted, to justify it; that it was entirely the creature of local legislation. Now, how can you carry your slaves into a Territory any more than into a State, when there is no local legislation which makes them property or protects them as such. The Supreme Court decided this very fully in the case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania. Not only the Supreme Court,

but the State courts in the slaveholding States, have over and over again decided the same thing. But, passing from that, I wish to come to another topic which is frequently spoken of, and that is the subject of the dissolution of the Union. From time to time, as various crises have arisen in our political history, every now and then, we have had it put forth, sometimes privately, sometimes publicly, from the South, in their papers, in organizing conventions, in acts of their Legislatures, in protests submitted here by their members of Congress, and in individual declarations, that if such and such things happen, they will go out of the Union. When we regard the time at which these things are stated, the occasion when this language is used, and the manner in which it is uttered, we cannot possibly mistake its character and purpose. It is really nothing more than this: "We propose to induce you to action by this means; we ask you to be influenced by this consideration." That is a menace. It is threatening. It is an attempt, more or less, to say: "We propose and intend to do something which we think will be an injury to you, and which we think you regard as being a very great injury." This goes upon the ground that the North have not only the particular duty of taking care of this Union, and preventing its dissolution, but that it is their duty further to take care and hold their southern brethren, and prevent them from dissolving it. I do not recognize any such duty.

We were told the other day by the honorable Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON] that if really the majority of the people, that is, the northern States, should actually adopt the principle of excluding and keeping excluded slavery from the free Territories, and should carry it out in praetice, the time would have come when there should be a separation immediately and forever. Suppose that time should come, as is not unlikely. It has frequently occurred to me what would be their declaration of independence? I presume, of course, they would not take a step of that kind without publishing a manifesto to the world. They would declare how it happened, and they would not disguise the facts. I have no doubt if they undertook it they would declare the case truly, and therefore they would make that declaration truthfully.

I take it, too, that they would adopt the old approved form. I do not mean that I think their declaration of independence would contain the assertion that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do not presume it would contain that declaration, because I understand that has been pronounced to be nothing but a set of high-sounding and glittering generalties; and at another time has been pronounced a self-evident falsehood instead of truth. I do not mean to say that I suppose that would be asserted, but I presume the general form would be preserved, and it would begin somewhat after this fashion: "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, a decent respect to the opinion of mankind requires that they should set forth the causes which impel them to the separation." It would then proceed to set forth the causes; and truthfully stated, what would they be? Such a declaration properly worded would be something like this:

Now I ask gentlemen to reflect for a moment en what is the true English of any menace of that kind. What does it mean? It means this: "I say to you, sir, I have tried to persuade you to do a certain thing; I have tried to convince you that it is best to do it; I have argued with you; and now I say to you that, if you will not do it, I will do to you such and such an injury;" that is to say, "I regard you as one of those men who will grant from your fears and intimidation that which you will not grant from your convic- "Our fathers, at the time of their Declaration of tions." That is its language reduced to plain Independence, and previously and subsequently, English. How can gentlemen suppose a man of adopted the notion that mankind were competent any degree of spirit would act under those cir- to a popular system of government, and to make cumstances? How does a man, when another such a system of government successful every threatens him with personal violence, or any white man should be free and equal. They long other matter of menace, receive it? Does he not entertained the idea that, in order to carry out say, "Sir, I consider that as treating me as a that experiment successfully, the Territories of coward; I consider that as saying to me that I the United States should be entirely and exclushall do from my fears what I would not do from sively devoted to the use of the free white labormy judgment, and I cannot do anything in regarding population. Slave labor has been excluded to it until that is entirely retracted." Must we suppose that a people would receive such a threat differently from an honorable gentleman? It is a menace which should not be used.

from the Territories. They have persisted in this course for more than half a century. African slavery has been abolished in a majority of the old States; but we have retained it-we have I cannot say that these things have never had realized its blessings-we understand its advantany influence on the northern people. I am ages. It elevates a considerable number of us to Bomewhat afraid that they have had at times, and a high social, political, and intellectual condition. in particular sections. I do not know but that I It has, to be sure, a rather depressing effect on have seen and known men who seemed to be so the masses, and especially the laboring masses of lost to all proper sense as actually to claim it as the white population; so much so that we, looka virtue that they had saved the Union. Whating at free society as we see it in the mass of do you mean by that?" Why, the South threatened to dissolve it, and I really believed they were in earnest, and I was scared, and I did this "And whereas we consider this relation of masthing, and I saved the Union!" Men actually ter and slave as the best condition of societyclaim it as a virtue that they have granted from most promotive, on the whole, of the advantage of their fears what their judgment did not approve.all-we have recently attempted, within a few I think that time has about gone by; and if the period has not arrived it very soon will, when these matters will at least be seen in their true light.

our white population, regard it as a failure, and we conclude it also a failure in the North.

years, to extend this institution, for the purpose of giving us equal weight with the most populous part of the United States, and have made efforts to introduce it into the Territories where it did

means for those purposes, and having failed to succeed, we declare that we hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war and in

tude of our intentions, and to a candid world to judge of the righteousness of our cause; and we pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

I suppose their declaration of independence, truthfully drawn, would be thus formed, substantially. The issue which would be made upon it, if any issue should arise-I mean an issue of violence and blood-would be this: could the candid world, thus addressed by such a manifesto, or any truthful one, be expected to be found in sympathy with it? On this point, let me read an extract from a speech of Mr. Clay, delivered during the pendency of the compromise measures of 1850:

"But if unhappily we should be involved in war-in a civil war between the two parts of this Confederacy, in which the efforts upon the one side should be to restrain the introduction of slavery into new Territories, and upon

he other side to force its introduction there, WHAT A

SPECTACLE SHOULD WE PRESENT TO THE ASTONISHMENT OF MANKIND, IN AN EFFORT, NOT TO PROPAGATE RIGHTS, BUT-I must say, though I trust it will be understood to be said with no design to excite feeling-A WAR TO PROPAGATE WRONGS IN THE TERRITORIES THUS ACQUIRED FROM MEXICO. It would be a war in which we should have no sympathies-no good wishes; in which all mankind would be against us; in which our own history itself would be against us; for from the commencement of the Revolution down to the present time we have constantly reproached our British And allow me to say, that, in my opinion, it is one of the ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country, best defenses which can be made to preserve the institution of slavery in this country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, of our own American colonial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British commercial ancestors."

not before exist, as an element of political power, and have tried to do this in various ways. We have not been wanting in attention to our northern brethren on this subject. We have endeav-peace friends; and we appeal to God for the rectiored to annex foreign territory for the purpose of securing additional slave States. We have succeeded to a certain extent, with the assistance of a part of our northern brethren. We have endeavored to convince them that this is a most desirable condition of society, which should be adopted at least in the Territories, and so finally guide the destinies of the country; but they obstinately persist in refusing it. We have endeavored to persuade and convince them that it was the best condition, and that they ought to adopt it; but we have not succeeded in our efforts. We have not rested with this. We have repealed agreements made by ourselves to keep a country exclusively for freedom. We have accomplished this repeal with the aid of some of them for the purpose of extending these blessings; yet the mass of them find fault with it. We opened Kansas Territory for settlement under a pretended agreement, that we would leave the people there free, even while a Territory, to settle the question; and then the men of the North actively undertook to repeat in that Territory the same efforts by which they had distributed their population over all the free States, and they actually formed societies, as they had always done before, to aid settlers. They exerted all their power to settle that Territory, to establish their schools and academies, churches and colleges; and, in short, took all those steps calculated to exclude the institution which we cherish. They attempted to do these things by the same peaceable means by which they had settled other Territories. We became exasperated; and when some people from slave States undertook, by invasion, to elect representatives for this Territory, we did not interfere to stop it. When those representatives met, and passed laws to suit themselves, well calculated to drive out these people, they would not go out. Proceedings, under color of these laws, were taken to burn their towns and destroy their printing-presses. Laws were made to stop discussion and violence there, and in the Senate was justified. We called them by opprobrious epithets, though their exertions had all been directed, for seventy years, to nothing more nor less than the extension of free popular government, and the elevation of the free laboring white community. That has been their effort from the beginning, in which they still persist, and we could not stop it. Though all they have done has been for the advancement of the free white race of the world, we have said, or at least our President has said, this is all pretense; what they say is a false pretense; their real meaning is to disturb the relation between master and slave in the slave States of the Union. We have called them Abolitionists; we have called them Black Republicans, as if their efforts were all directed to emancipation and not to the advance-be seasonably stopped. I cannot but trust and ment of the free white population; and although their desire is to have nothing in the world to do with a black population of any kind, they wish to be and are exerting themselves to be kept entirely clear of the whole of them. We have charged them with being Black Republicans with black intentions. Now having used all those

Mr. President, I have spoken not one word on the morality of slavery, or the relation between master and slave: I desire not to make any remarks upon it. I have treated this subject simply as a political question. I have treated it fairlyI think faithfully, truly, as it ought to be treated. I have given my views, seriously entertained and faithfully expressed.

Now, sir, what is their issue? Can it be expected that, after all the momentum which the progress of liberty has received in our country, increased and accumulated by the additions from the world abroad, a new system of institutions is to be adopted? Can it be expected that the free part of the United States are really to give the lie to all the actions of their fathers? Will they not continue to assert their principles? I think it is rather an unfortunate issue which is attempted to be made by the South. It cannot succeed; and I am inclined to believe, too, that they are gradually coming to that opinion themselves. I can already perceive some evidences and symptoms of a feeling, on the part of the Democracy, that the attempt to extend slavery into the free Territories of the United States will be a failure, and it had better

believe that means will be taken to stop it. If it is done, that will be the end of the Republican party. If it is not stopped, the Republican party must go on. What will be the result at the end of three years can be pretty easily calculated by what has been the result of four months' work.

Printed at the Office of the Congressional Globe.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »