Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

exercise it further and tried to exercise it further.subject. It was perfectly understood by our

It is singular that because northern people saw good reason why it should not be extended over other Territories then free, in which there was no claim for slavery, now an argument should be drawn for abolishing the agreement as to those Territories to which it applied. In this message of the President, the very fact that the North would not adopt the Missouri compromise for another Territory than that to which it was applied, is claimed to have rendered it inoperative for the country in regard to which it was passed. Impotent conclusion!

fathers, who had tried it, that where the institution was not abolished by the States themselves, it would, in its tendencies, produce a condition of society which did not comport with the great purposes, objects, and views, and what was ne cessarily implied in popular government. Its necessary effect, it was seen, would be to elevate a limited number, and depress the mass of the white population. The experiment in the cause of humanity which had been entered upon in this Government was for the white race-not merely the Anglo-Saxon, but the Caucasian race -the whole white race. It was that they should conduct their labor with high intelligence, that they should be improved and elevated, and be come a people better fed, better clothed, better housed, better governed, of higher intelligence, than any other people under heaven-“a peculiar people zealous of good works." A great manifestation of "the dignity of labor."

This brings me to a recent period; and now I wish to show some reasons why the prohibition was enacted by the representatives of all the people of the United States-of the whole country, North and South. These measures for the exclusion of slavery were adopted without a division of opinion. I acknowledge that there was a controversy as to the admission of Missouri; but that controversy did not relate to this question of Their idea was, further, that this institution power, for the very act which admitted Missouri of slavery would not comport with that purpose, exercised this power of inhibition as to the Ter- but would produce a different condition of society. ritories. Now, in speaking of their views, and of whether Mr. BRODHEAD. Before the learned Sen-those views have been realized, in fact and in ator leaves this branch of his argument-the practice, since their days, I shall use the authority question of power, which he has discussed with of no one who is not from the slave States. I so much ability-I should like to ask him whether shall use no terms but those which are derived Congress has the power to establish slavery? from the people living in the midst of the instiMr. COLLAMER. When I come to that tution. After this experiment was begun, seven topic I will discuss it; whenever any question out of the thirteen States abolished slavery; the arises in the Senate that requires it, and I think others retained it, and we must, of course, go to I can add any new light to it, I will try to do so. them to see what has been the political and social I supposed, however, that it was now in the effect of cherishing and retaining it. I am saying South very generally conceded that this Govern- nothing of its virtue and morality; or whether it ment, in the exercise of sovereignty over the tends to improve and elevate the moral condition Territories, has almost any power except that of of society, or whether it makes the slave better making liberty. or poorer than he was at home in Africa. That is not the topic. I wish to call attention to it effect on the free white population of the country.

I wish now to show some reasons why this people, who began this experiment, all of them then holding slaves, in the very adoption of the Constitution, in the first exercise of power under it, prohibited slavery. My position is that they did it because, in the first place, they believed that the institution was one which ought to end; and, in the next place, because they believed that in those places where it did not end, the effect of it was such as to weaken the country at large, and was inconsistent with the great principles of civil liberty for which our fathers contended, and which constituted the great idea of our Government. That idea was this: that inasmuch as in a popular Government the people must have the right of suffrage, it follows as a matter of course, in order to be safe in that right, that the people must be made intelligent. To the exercise of the elective franchise, education, intelligence, and personal independence are inseparable correlatives; and if any system of government, or any character of social institutions be adopted which will not produce this result, or which will be in its tendencies unfriendly to it, that system is incompatible with the great experiment.

I ought here to remark that I have nothing to say, and on an occasion like this, in relation to the morality of slavery, its ethics, its matter of justice between the master and slave, its Bacredness, its divine authority, its sanctions in Christianity. These are all topics suitable to other occasions. I have nothing to say about them here. I have no reproaches to cast on the master. I have no desire to do any such thing. I am treating the subject entirely as a political

I am willing to concede that where an institution in the character of an aristocracy exists, and where labor and all menial services are performed by others for a particular set of men, it leaves to those men wealth and opportunity, if you please, for a high cultivation-for a high order of intel lectual existence. Nor should we at all wonder that men who have thus felt its beneficial influences to themselves personally should have a desire to cherish and sustain it. But, sir, our principle is, "the greatest good to the greatest number." What on the whole is its effect on the mass-the majority of the free white population? And further, what effect does it produce as to making the country which entertains it prosperous, successful, strong, able to contribute its full proportion, with the rest of the community, in sustaining the national independence and national prosperity?

Sir, I will read some views upon that subject. prefer to read from the expressions of those familiar with the question; and first I will quote the views which General Washington entertained. He says in a letter to Robert Morris, which is quoted by Sparks:

"I can only say, there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (slavery;) but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is by legis lative authority; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting."

Again, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, of Scotland, who was proposing to make investments in

lands in this country, speaking of this institution, he says:

"There are in Pennsylvania laws for the gradual aboli

ion of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland baye at present, but which nothing is more certain than they must have, and at a period not remote."

We all know the views of Mr. Jefferson. In forming the Declaration of Independence he was desirous to put into it a clause that one of the great complaints against the British Government was that it had compelled our fathers to receive this institution at all; and he afterwards expressed his views about it. I do not desire to quote them much at large. In a letter to Mr. John Holmes, of April 20, 1820, Mr. Jefferson said:

*

[ocr errors]

"The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other." * "With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed. Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! THE ALMIGHTY HAS NO ATTRIBUTE WHICH CAN TAKE SIDE WITH US IN SUCH A CONTEST."

I hold in my hand a book containing many of the speeches made in the House of Delegates of Virginia, on a discussion in relation to some process of emancipation in 1832. I desire to read some extracts from it. Whenever I open this book, I me-and from whose speech I am about to read— am reminded of the gentleman who handed it to Governor McDowell. Governor McDowell, on that high, philanthropic, Christian gentleman, that occasion, in a very patriotic, learned, and able speech, said:

"We know that the picture is the counterfeit presentment' of the true one. We know that inefficiency and languor characterize our movements; that enterprise is scarcely known to us, but from observation of its influence position, and soil, and climate, are countervailed by the on other communities. We know that the blessings of our upon involuntary labor. Our interests and senses proclaim apathy of our public counsels, and by our exclusive reliance the progress of general decline; conscience and experience attest that slavery is its principal cause. Is it not so? When bright and the beautiful that still show forth as intrinsic we look at Virginia, as a whole, without pausing upon the qualities of her character, but look at her in reference to anything but prosperous? Do we not in this respect conher every day practical habit and appearance, is she not template her justly, when we regard her as meager, haggard, and enfeebled; with decrepitude stealing upon her limbs; away under the improvidence and the inactivity which as given over to leanness and impotency; and as wasting eternally accompany the fatal institution that she cherishes; and cherishes, too, as a mother, who will hazard her own

Mr. Madison, in discussing the Constitution, insisted that the General Government ought to have the power, not the States themselves, immediately to prohibit the importation of slaves alto-life rather than part even with a monstrous offspring that gether. They had it in the Territories, and used it. His views are, speaking in the Convention: "Every addition the States receive to their number of slaves. tends to weaken and render them less capable of self-defense. In case of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting attack, instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the General Government to protect every part of their confines against dangers, as well internal as external. Everything, therefore, which tends to increase danger, though it be a local affair, yet, if it involves national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged with the general administration of this Govern

ment."

"I HOLD IT ESSENTIAL IN EVERY POINT OF VIEW, THAT THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE POWER TO PREVENT THE INCREASE OF SLAVERY."-Madison Papers, vol. 3, p. 1391.

"The augmentation of slaves weakens the States, and such a trade is diabolical in itself and disgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of these States, I would not admit the southern States into the Union, unless they agree to a discontinuance of this disgraceful trade."-In Constitu tional Convention, 1786.

Such were the views of Mr. Madison. George Mason, of Virginia, said:

afflicts her? Sir, it is true of Virginia, not merely that she has not advanced, but that in many respects she has greatly declined; and what have we got as a compensation for this decline as a compensation for this disparity between what Virginia is and what she might have been? Nothing but the right of property in the very beings who have brought this disparity upon us. This is our pay; this is what we have gotten to remunerate us for our delinquent prosperity; to repay us for our desolated fields, our torpid enterprise; and in this dark day of our humbled importance, to sustain our hopes, and to soothe our pride as a people"

The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] the other day read an extract from the speech of Mr. Marshall, which I will not repeat; but 1 will read an extract from the speech of Mr. C. J. Faulkner on that occasion:

"Slavery, it is admitted, is an evil-it is an institution which presses heavily against the best interests of the State. It banishes free white labor-it exterminates the mechanic, the artisan, the manufacturer. It deprives them of occupation. It deprives them of bread. It converts the energy of a community into indolence-its power into imbecility-its efficiency into weakness. Sir, being thus injurious, have we not a right to demand its extermin Mr.ation? Shall society suffer, that the slaveholder may continue to gather his crop of human flesh? What is his mere pecuniary claim, compared with the great interests of the common weal? Must the country languish, drop, die, that the slaveholder may flourish? Shall all interests be subservient to one? all rights subordinate to those of the slaveholder? Has not the mechanic-have not the middle classes slavery?" their rights-rights incompatible with the existence of

"Slavery discourages arts and manufacturés. The slaves. produce the most pernicious effects on manners. EVERY MASTER OF SLAVES IS BORN A PETTY TYRANT. THEY BRING THE JUDGMENT OF HEAVEN UPON A COUNTRY. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

Mr. William Pinckney, in 1789, in a letter to the Maryland Legislature, declared:

"Never will your country be productive, never will its agriculture, its commerce, or its manufactures flourish, so long as they depend upon reluctant bondmen for their progress."

These were views entertained at an early day -at the period of the adoption of the Constitution-at the period of the prohibition of slavery beyond the Ohio. In all the exercise of this power, the men who made the Constitution enterlained these views in relation to the subject; and now how much of their apprehension has been realized? What effect has slavery in fact produced? These gentlemen told us what they anticipated it would produce. What has it produced?

Mr. T. J. Randolph, on the same occasion, said:

"Slavery has the effect of lessening the free population of a country. The wealthy are not dependent upon the poor for those aids and those services, compensation for which enables the poor man to give bread to his family. The ordinary mechanic arts are all practiced by slaves.

"In the servitude of Europe in the middle ages, in years they had to surrender their liberty to some wealthy man to of famine, the poor had to barter their liberty for bread;

save their families from the horrors of famine. The slaves

were sustained in sickness and in famine upon the wealth of his master, who preserved him as he would any other species of property. All the sources of the poor man's support were absorbed by him. In this country he cannot become a slave, but he flies to some other country more congenial to his condition, and where he who supports himself by honest labor is not degraded in his caste. Those

who remain, relying upon the support of casual employ ment, often become more degraded in their condition than the slaves themselves."

Mr. William Geary, of South Carolina, candidly treating upon the subject, says:

"Any man who is an observer of things, could hardly pass through our country without being struck with the fact, that all the capital, enterprise, and intelligence, is employed in directing slave labor; and the consequence is,

that a large portion of our poor white people are wholly neglected, and are suffered to while away an existence in a state but one step in advance of the Indian of the forest. It is an evil of vast magnitude, and nothing but a change in public sentiment will effect its cure."

Governor Hammond, of South Carolina, said of these non-slaveholding whites:

"They obtain a precarious subsistence by occasional jobs, by hunting, by fishing, by plundering fields or folds, and too often by what is in its effects far worse-trading with slaves, and inducing them to plunder for their benefit."

Mr. Farren, another southern writer, says:

In the more southern portion of this region, the nonstaveholders possess generally but very small means; and the land which they possess is almost universally poor, and so sterile that a seanty subsistence is all that can be derived from its cultivation; and the more fertile soil being in the possession of the slaveholder, must forever remain out of the possession of those who have none."

Thus, sir, from the people of Virginia and South Carolina, who have chosen to retain and cherish this institution, we have a picture the leading features of which it is impossible to disguise. It is evident that the slaveholders, whom we know by the official returns are only about three hundred and fifty thousand out of a population of six millions of free people at the last census, are elevated, waited upon, and all their wants supplied by the slaves. But, as respects the rest of the community, five sixths of them, the free white laboring population, they are depressed, poor, impoverished, degraded in caste, because labor is disgraceful; for where it is performed by slaves, labor and servitude become identical. It was for this cause (and it was done by the people who knew those things) that the exclusion of slavery from the Territories has taken place as I have described. It has been done by themselves, and for very good reasons, as they could show.

which is contrary to an agreement upon their part, either contained in the Constitution or in any other way which renders the entering upon such a course, and a breaking up of such agreement, to say the least, a breach of common propriety. Now, what are those aggressions which we think the South have put upon foot? The first is in relation to the admission of Texas.

Mr. Calhoun was a man who had but little disguises. He participated in the formation of the Missouri compromise line, and he, with the South, took the advantage it secured. He never attempted to make any breach of it; but when the progress of population, and the increase of the numbers, wealth, and influence of the free part of the United States came to be, as was thought by him and some others, somewhat comparatively large, it was desirous to the South, as be viewed it, to secure, in some way or other, at least a balance of power in the Senate of the United States. What was attempted? Did he attempt to break up this compromise line? Not at all. He looked abroad and saw the inviting regions of Texas, and a treaty was formed for the annexation of Texas. There was no disguise about its objects and purposes. Look at the letter of Mr. Calhoun, as Secretary of State, to Mr. King, then our Minister in France. See the whole purpose it declares. It was to sustain, perpetuate, and secure the institution of slavery; in short, to obtain more territory out of which to make new slave States for the purpose of balancing, at least in the Senate of the United States, new States settled by people from the North. That was the object, not disguised, but publicly declared and officially announced. What means were taken to effect that object? The treaty was rejected by the Senate. Two thirds could not be obtained for it, and the treaty failed.

What was the next step taken? The people of the South went into the Democratic Convention at Baltimore immediately after the rejection of this treaty, and there they insisted upon the admission of Texas. Many declared they preferred that to the Union. They said at once to This brings me to a comparatively recent period, the Democracy, "You cannot obtain power, to which I have several times alluded, and some you cannot elect a President without us, and you recent action-action taken, as I say, by the shall not elect one with us, but upon the condiSouth for local and sectional objects, and for tion of that annexation. The only man who had political purposes, to make use of the institution ever been talked of up to that period as their of slavery as a source of political power within candidate was Mr. Van Buren, and he had pubthe Territories and beyond the States. I wouldlished a letter in the spring opposing the annexnot here intimate that I think any man who was ation of Texas. There was no other way left personally engaged in the making of the Missouri for the Democratic party but to agree to make compromise, and getting enough votes from the the annexation of Texas a part of the platform. North by virtue of it to admit the State of Mis-Then, when they came to nominate a man to carry souri, so as to enable the South to succeed at the time, ever attempted to break it up. That is not the case; but it is to be recollected that a great leading feature in the message we have before us is, that there has been, on the part of the people of the North, a systematic course of aggression upon southern rights. We view the facts as entirely otherwise; and we view this attempt to present a picture of that kind as nothing more than an attempt to escape from and disguise what has been the true character of the aggression. We consider that a course of aggressions has been put on foot, and prosecuted, to some considerable extent, successfully by the South. When I use the word "aggression," I wish to be understood. It is not merely doing that which people have a legal and constitutional right to do; but what I understand by it is, doing that

that platform into effect, it was insisted that a man must be nominated who was not already committed against it, and thereupon Mr. Polk was nominated and elected.

A word now as to the manner of that annexation. A question had arisen in the country at times whether there was any power in this Government to annex foreign territory at all. We all know that Mr. Jefferson expressed great doubt on that subject in relation to Louisiana at an early period. This question ultimately came before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the American Insurance Company vs. Canter, the Florida case which has been often alluded to here. It was a revenue case. there insisted that Congress had no power to legislate in Florida at all, because it did not be"long to her jurisdiction, but had been annexed by

It was

We learned some other lessons from the his

treaty; and it was argued that there was no such clusive that it is nothing more than a power to power of annexation conferred by the Constitu- admit States which are within our jurisdiction. tion. It was then decided, among a variety of To say that a power can be exercised to legislate topics, that the power to make war, which existed for a country not within our jurisdiction, in order in the General Government, was of course ato bring it within our jurisdiction, is an absurdity power to conquer; and a power of conquest in- -a paradox. cluded the power to hold territory if the treaty of peace made by the treaty-making power pro-tory of that transaction. It came then to be disvided for it. Therefore, the court said, it is true tinctly understood that the Democratic party as an incident of sovereignty that the treaty- could succeed only by the general united exermaking power includes the power by treaty to tions of the South. The South claimed and annex another country, or territory of that coun- insisted that it was important to them to acquire try to this. When the treaty-making power has or exercise power to extend their institution of been thus exercised, the legislative authority of slavery into the Territories of the United States, the country spreads over it. It is brought within or to acquire other Territories for its extension, our jurisdiction by treaty, and being within the in order that they might make new slave States, jurisdiction of the United States, the power of using this institution as an instrument, a source legislating for it necessarily follows: of political power in the Senate. This was unThere is no power in this Government whichderstood to be a sine qua non with them; and he can be exercised indifferently by any one of two who would be President could only be so by or three of the departments of the Government. agreeing to contribute to this purpose. For instance, the President's power of appoint-election of Mr. Polk, and the terms upon which ment, whether he exercises or neglects it, can it was accomplished, with the attendant circumnever be exercised by Congress. The power of stances, fully disclosed and declared this. Politthe Supreme Court to decide causes, whether ical history since that time shows what course they decide them or not, can never be assumed has been taken. by Congress. To have the same power left to be indifferently exercised by any one of two or three different departments, would necessarily produce an endless confusion in the Government. No such thing exists in our Government. Whatever power exists in one department, exists in that department alone, exclusively.

The

a candidate on that basis, and he did not take very well with the South. They were not very well satisfied. Some other bid must be gotten up. What was it? Under the administration of this Mr. President Pierce, it was said, "Mr. Clay and Mr. Calhoun, and others who were concerned in the making of the Missouri compromise, are dead and gone, and those who are not in fact dead have departed from political life. Now, can we not offer to the southern people the repeal of the Missouri compromise line, thus opening up all the free Territories of the United States to their institution of slavery?" Mr. Pierce, in effect, did make that bid by bringing to bear the whole weight of his influence to procure the repeal of the Missouri compromise line.

This leads me to the next measure which we regard as an aggression-the repeal of the Missouri compromise. How did that come up? It was connected with the same thing; designed for the same purpose. What was it? The common expression of politicians is that it was a bid for the Presidency. When that transaction took The annexation of Texas, like the annexation place there was on the tapis the old standing bid of any other country, was attempted to be effected of the venerable Senator from Michigan-the bid by the treaty-making power; but it failed. The of squatter sovereignty. It was thought that attempt was a concession that the subject-matter would aid the South in effecting their purpose; was a proper one for the exercise of the treaty-but the difficulty was, they had once tried him as making power, and therefore not a proper subjectmatter for the exercise of any other power in any other department of the Government. If the power which was attempted to be exercised-that of annexing the Territory of Texas-existed in that portion of our Government authorized to make treaties, it existed in no other department of this Government. But how was the object accomplished? After the proceeding at Baltimore to which I have alluded, and after the election of Mr. Polk, how was Texas annexed? By a joint resolution receiving the vote of only a majority of the House of Representatives, and a majority of the Senate. In despite of the treaty-making power, it was done by an act of legislation. We view that as a most gross, palpable, direct violation of the Constitution-an utter disregard of its pro- There were many who still stuck a little in visions. The act has been done, however, and conscience in relation to the contract and agreeit has been confirmed and ratified by this nation.ment about that line. They did not like to break We have dominion over Texas. The act, being thus ratified, I for one submit to it, and I will exercise the same liberality in relation to that State as in reference to any other part of the country. I may not have liked the form of the bans; they may have been unlawful; but, the matrimony being consummated, we must make the best of it. Texas now belongs to our family, at all events: but the manner in which this has been done-the means taken to effect it-all the instrumentalities which were used, were such as to make us consider that it may be properly termed an aggression. I know it has been said that Congress admitted Texas under the power conferred by the Constitution to admit new States. The language of that clause of the Constitution, however, and the circumstances attending it, are con

it. There was, among others, Mr. Buchanan. He was then out of the country; but he learned, of course, that this bid, which had been made, was actually passed. The President of the United States, with the aid of Senators here-I do not wish to go into particulars - had effected that. It was announced, in substance, in his official organ, in order to effect it, that as to those members of Congress who should feel it their duty to vote for that measure, and who thereby should lose position at home, he would see that they were provided for and taken care of. That was the substance of the statement. I do not like to call things by harsh and rude names; but I am really very much reminded of what the boy, when his father whipped him for calling him a "liar, told him when he got through. Said he:

"Father, the next time you lie, what shall I affirm, and carry forward this experiment which ay?" [Laughter.] What shall I call this? It had characterized the Government by the united was nothing, in my estimation, but taking the voice of a common people for half a century. Is power of appointment put into the hands of the it at all wonderful that such a degree of success President for the public service, and using it for his should have attended it? How old is it? We own political purposes personally, and with this have been told here within twenty-four hours, very means to reward the men who misrepresent that the Republican party had not an existence their constituents. I do not say it was bribery. at the last session of Congress. It was organized The repeal was effected, and the bid was made. last June, and organized upon this single prinI do not wonder that it somewhat startled other ciple; and in less than five months what do you candidates for the Presidency, unless some who see by the vote? You see it carrying eleven participated in the act and who might claim the States of this Union, to say the least of them, as virtue of it. But how did Mr. Buchanan act? high in point of intellect, wealth, prosperity, and Inasmuch as these southern people have been population, as any. This has been accomplished offered here all the territory of the United States by (if you please to call it so) a newly-created to be opened to them, he perhaps thought, I party, not having any particular advantage from must offer them something. What shall I do? the prestige of its candidate. He was a man I will offer them all the kingdoms of the earth. without political experience, young, having no I will offer them all the territory out of the United influential family connections to push him forStates. I will make my bid, and to begin with || ward, or who would do it. They rested simply take Cuba-buy it, if you can, peaceably; but upon this principle. If so much has been done take it forcibly if you must! I bid all the king-in five months, how long will it take to obtain a doms of the earth, and all the rest of mankind, majority of the whole? This success is to be outside of the United States! We see what has accounted for not by attributing to us any narrow, been the result of this first opening of free Terri- sectional desire to interfere with the condition of tories. The South, with the Democracy, had the domestic institutions of the southern States. got that passed. They had it already secured. They have their own institutions, shaped by Whatever advantage they could get out of it they themselves, conducted by themselves; they can had already secured. Of course, President Pierce, be repealed by themselves, or cherished and and those who made that bid, did not profit much regulated as they please. The Republican party by it. The South could not get any more out of is based upon a principle, as I have said, old as them. Their deed was done; and who was nom- our Government, old as the rights of man. This inated? Mr. Buchanan. organization is nothing but an attempt to reassert and carry forward the experiment which our fathers set on foot, and prosecuted by a united effort and united voice for half a century. In short, it is an endeavor to head off and prevent, if you please, the extension of slavery into free Territories, as an element of power for the slaveholding States.

But, sir, I return to the repeal of the Missouri compromise, its purpose and history. I simply say now, (for I do not wish to go over it with more particularity,) that we view that act as a breach of plighted faith-not that they had not the constitutional power to repeal it, but because they exercised that power. I am aware that the President cannot see any difference between it and any other statute; he cannot see why Congress had not a perfect right to repeal it because they had the power. I do not much wonder at that. I have heard of men in the community who never had any moral standard of right or wrong, except what the law defined. They knew that what the law permitted they could do; and that they could not do what the law forbade. The President seems to apply that reasoning to this case; but the obvious reason why there was a moral impropriety in the repeal of the Missouri compromise, is that there was a consideration for it, which consideration the South had and kept and enjoyed, and could not return. Having had it, there was an impropriety and an immorality to use such a power without right.

This was the second of the series of what we regard as acts of aggression. It was these measures, undertaken by the South, prosecuted by them, and effected for the obvious purposes already stated, procured by such means, and advanced for such purposes, that created the occasion for the Republican party. It was an attempt upon their side to reverse the whole order of proceeding which had commenced with our Government, and had been continued from that time forward until the annexation of Texas. The practice of our fathers was, that the free Territories of the United States, in which slavery was not already existing, should be and remain forever sequestered for a free white intelligent population. When the Republican party was formed, it was formed simply to restore, to re

I have endeavored to give my view of the origin and progress of this topic of difficulty. I shall not go at this time into particulars in relation to the manner in which the second act of aggression that I have mentioned, was accomplished. Time will not permit me to do so; but perhaps I ought, in justice, before I sit down, to pay attention to some of those little topics which I consider have been made rather by-play-attempts, as I think, to divert public attention from the true issue-to lead it off with political riddles and political catchwords for effect. The first is the topic of popular sovereignty. What is true popular sovereignty? I take it to be the exercise of power by the people, or the representatives of that people who own the country over which the soyereignty is exercised. It is popular sovereignty for the people of Virginia to make their laws to regulate their institutions within their own State, through their representatives. Now, to whom do the Territories of the United States belong? Here I do not wish to be entangled with the catch upon the word "territory," as used in the Constitution. I am sensible that "territory" has a general and a political meaning. "The territory of the United States" really means all that country belonging to and within the jurisdiction of the United States Government that does not fall within the jurisdiction of a particular State. All that is out of the jurisdiction of particular States is within the jurisdiction of the General Govern ment, if it belongs to the country. It belongs to the whole country. It is not true that any State as a State, has anything to do with it, nor that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »