Изображения страниц

clude it, you will justly take upon yourself all the charges of inconsistency; but confine it to the original slaveholding States, where you found it at the formation of your government, and you stand acquitted of all imputation.

This is a subject upon which I have great feeling for the honor of my country. In a former debate upon the Illinois constitution, I mentioned that our enemies had drawn a picture of our country, as holding in one hand the Declaration of Independence, and with the other brandishing a whip over our affrighted slaves. I then made it my boast that we could cast back upon England the accusation-that she had committed the original sin of bringing slaves into our country. I have since received, through the post-office, a letter post marked in South Carolina, and signed "A native of England," desiring that, when I had occasion to repeat my boast against England, I would also state that she had atoned for her original sin, by establishing in her slave-colonies a system of humane laws, meliorating their condition, and providing for their safety, while America had committed the secondary sin of disregarding their condition, and had even provided laws, by which it was not murder to kill a slave. Sir, I felt the severity of the reproof; I felt for my country. I have inquired on the subject, and I find such were formerly the laws in some of the slaveholding States; and that even now, in the State of South Carolina, by law, the penalty of death is provided for stealing a slave, while the murder of a slave is punished with a trivial fine. Such is the contrast and the relative value which is placed, in the opinion of a slaveholding State, between the property of the master and the life of a slave.

tlemen, by their superor liberality in contribu-
tions to moral institutions, justly stand in the
first rank, and hold the first place in the brightest
page in the history of our country. But, turn
over this page, and what do you behold? You
behold them contributing to teach the doctrines
of Christianity in every quarter of the globe.
You behold them legislating to secure the ig
norance and stupidity of their own slaves! You
behold them, prescribing, by law, penalties
against the man that dares teach a negro to read.
Such is the statute law of the State of Virginia.
[Mr. Bassett and Mr. Tyler said that there was
no such law in Virginia.]

No, said Mr. T., I have mis-spoken myself; I ought to have said, such is the statute law of the State of Georgia. Yes, while we hear of a liberality which civilizes the savages of all countries, and carries the gospel alike to the Hottentot and the Hindoo, it has been reserved for the republican State of Georgia, not content with the care of its overseers, to legislate to secure the oppression and the ignorance of their slaves. The man who there teaches a negro to read, is liable to a criminal prosecution. The dark, benighted beings of all creation profit by our liberality-save those of our own plantations. Where is the missionary who possesses sufficient hardihood to venture a residence to teach the slaves of a plantation? Here is the stain! Here is the stigma! which fastens upon the character of our country; and which, in the appropriate language of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Cobb.) all the waters of the ocean cannot wash out; which seas of blood can only take away.

Sir, there is yet another, and an important point of view, in which this subject ought to be considered. We have been told by those who advocate the extension of Slavery into the Missouri, that any attempt to control this subject by legislation, is a violation of that faith and mutual confidence upon which our Union was formed, and our Constitution adopted. This ar

Sir, gentlemen have undertaken to criminate, and to draw odious contrasts between different sections of our country-I shall not combat such arguments; I have made no pretense to exclusive morality on this subject, either for myself or my constituents; nor have I cast any imputations on others. On the contrary, I hold that man-gument might be considered plausible, if the kind under like circumstances are alike, the world over. The vicious and unprincipled are confined to no district of country and it is for this portion of the community we are bound to legislate. When honorable gentlemen inform us we overrate the cruelty and the dangers of Slavery, and tell us that their slaves are happy, and contented, and would even contribute to their safety, they tell us but very little; they do not tell us, that, while their slaves are happy, the slaves of some depraved and cruel wretch in their neighborhood may not be stimulated to revenge, and thus involve the country in ruin. If we had to legislate only for such gentlemen as are now embraced within my view, a law against robbing the mail would be a disgrace upon the nation; and, as useless, I would fear it from the pages of your statute book; yet sad experience has taught us the necessity of such laws-and honor, justice, and policy teach us the wisdom of legislating to limit the extension of Slavery.

In the zeal to draw sectional contrasts, we have been told by one gentleman, that gentlemen from one district of country talk of their morality, while those of another practice it. And the superior liberality has been asserted of Southern gentlemen over those of the North, in all contributions to moral institutions, for bible and missionary societies. Sir, I understand too well the pursuit of my purpose, to be decoyed and drawn off into the discussion of a collateral subject. I have no inclination to controvert these assertions of comparative liberality. Although I have no idea they are founded in fact, yet, because it better suits the object of my present argument, I will, on this occasion, admit them to the fullest extent. And what is the result? Southern gen

restriction was attempted to be enforced against any of the slaveholding States, which had been a party in the adoption of the Constitution. But it can have no reference or application to a new district of country recently acquired, and never contemplated in the formation of government, and not embraced in the mutual concessions and declared faith upon which the Constitution was adopted. The Constitution provides, that the Representatives of the several States to this House shall be according to their number, including three-fifths of the slaves in the respective States. This is an important benefit yielded to the slaveholding States, as one of the mutual sacrifices for the Union. On this subject, I consider the faith of the Union pledged, and I never would attempt coercive manumission in a slaveholding State.

But none of the causes which induced the sacrifice of this principle, and which now produce such an unequal representation on this floor, of the free population of the country, exist as between us and the newly-acquired Territory across the Mississippi. That portion of country has no claims to such an unequal representation, unjust in its results upon the other States. Are the numerous slaves in extensive countries, which we may acquire by purchase, and admit as States into the Union, at once to be represented on this floor, under a clause of the Constitution, granted as a compromise and a benefit to the southern States which had borne part in the Revolution? Such an extension of that clause in the Constitu tion would be unjust in its operations, unequal in its results, and a violation of its original intention. Abstract from the moral effects of Slavery, its political consequence in the representation under

this clause of the Constitution, demonstrate the importance of the proposed amendment.

Sir, I shall bow in silence to the will of the majority, on whichever side it shall be expressed: yet I confidently hope that majority will be found on the side of an amendment, so replete with moral consequences, so pregnant with important political results.

their own State Constitution, and over which Congress had no superintending control, other than that expressly given in the fourth section of the same article, which read, "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government." This end accomplished, the guardianship of the United States over the Constitutions of the several States was fulfilled; and all restrictions, limitations and Mr. SCOTT, of Missouri, said, he trusted conditions beyond this, was so much power un that his conduct, during the whole of the time warrantably assumed. In illustration of this in which he had the honor of a seat in the House, position, he would read an extract from one of had convinced gentlemen of his disposition not the essays written by the late President Madison, to obtrude his sentiments on any other subjects contemporaneously with the Constitution of the than those on which the interest of his consti- United States, and from a very celebrated work: tuents, and of the Territory he represented, were "In a confederacy founded on republican prinimmediately concerned. But when a question ciples, and composed of republican members, such as the amendments proposed by the gentle- the superintending government ought clearly to men from New York (Messrs. Tallmadge and possess authority to defend the system against Taylor), was presented for consideration, in- aristocratic or monarchical innovations. The volving constitutional principles to a vast more intimate the nature of such an Union may amount, pregnant with the future fate of the be, the greater interest have the members in the Territory, portending destruction to the liberties political institutions of each other, and the greater of that people, directly bearing on their rights of right to insist that the forms of government unproperty, their state rights, their all, he should der which the compact was entered into, should consider it as a dereliction of his duty, as retreat- be substantially maintained. But this authority ing from his post, nay, double criminality, did extends no further than to a guarantee of a rehe not raise his voice against their adoption. publican form of government, which supposes a After the many able and luminous views that pre-existing government of the form which is to had been taken of this subject, by the speaker of be guaranteed. As long, therefore, as the exthe House, and other honorable gentlemen, he isting republican forms are continued by the had not the vanity to suppose that any additional States, they are guaranteed by the Federal Conviews which he could offer or any new dress institution. Whenever the States may choose to which he could clothe those already advanced, would have the happy tendency of inducing any gentleman to change his vote. But, if he stood single on the question, and there was no man to help him, yet, while the laws of the land and the rules of the House guaranteed to him the privilege of speech, he would redeem his conscience from the imputation of having silently witnessed a violation of the Constitution of his country, and an infringement on the liberties of the people who had intrusted to his feeble abilities the advocation of their rights. He desired, at this early stage of his remarks, in the name of the citizens of Missouri Territory, whose rights on-other subjects had been too long neglected and shamefully disregarded, to enter his solemn protest against the introduction, under the insidious form of amendment, of any principle in this bill, the obvious tendency of which would be to sow the seeds of discord in, and perhaps eventually endanger the Union.

Mr. S. entertained the opinion, that, under the Constitution, Congress had not the power to impose this, or any other restriction, or to require of the people of Missouri their assent to this condition, as a pre-requisite to their admission into the Union. He contended this from the language of the Constitution itself, from the practice in the admission of new States under that instrument, and from the express terms of the treaty of cession. The short view he intended to take of those points would, he trusted, be satisfactory to all those who were not so anxious to usurp power as to sacrifice to its attainment the principles of our government, or who were not desirous of prostrating the rights and independence of a State to chimerical views of policy or expediency. The authority to admit new States into the Union was granted in the third section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that new States my be admitted by the Congress into the Union." The only power given to the Congress by this section appeared to him to be, that of passing a law for the admission of the new State, leaving it in possession of all the rights, privileges, and inmunities, enjoyed by the other States; the most valuable and prominent of which was that of forming and modifying

[ocr errors]

substitute other republican forms, they have a right to do so, and to claim the Federal guarantee for the latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti republican Constitutions; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance."

Mr. S. thought that those two clauses, when supported by such high authority, had they been the only ones in the Constitution which related to the powers of the general government over the States, and particularly at their formation and adoption into the Union, could not but be deemed satisfactory to a reasonable extent: but there were other provisions in the Constitution, to which he would refer, that beyond all doubt, to his mind, settled the question. One of those was the tenth article in the amendments, which said that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people." He believed that, by common law, and common usage, all grants giving certain defined and specific privileges, or powers, were to be so construed as that no others should be intended to be given but such as were particularly enumerated in the instruments themselves, or indispensably necessary to carry into effect those designated. In no part of the Constitution was the power proposed to be exercised, of imposing conditions on a new State, given, either in so many words, or by any justifiable or fair inference; nor in any portion of the Constitution was the right prohibited to the respective States, to regulate their own internal police, of admitting such citizens as they pleased, or of introducing any description of property, that they should consider as essential or necessary to their prosperity; and the framers of that instrument seem to have been zealous lest, by implication or by inference, powers might be assumed by the general govern inent over the states and people, other than those expressly given: hence they reserve in so many terms to the states, and the people, all powers not delegated to the federal government. The ninth article of the amendments to the Constitution still further illustrated the position he had taken; it read, that "the enumeration in the Co astitution

[ocr errors]

of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Mr. S. believed it to be a just rule of interpretation, that the enumeration of powers delegated to Congress weakened their authority in all cases not enumerated; and that beyond those powers enumerated they had none, except they were essentially necessary to carry into effect those that were given. The second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declared that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," was satisfactory, to his judgment, that it was intended the citizens of each State, forming a part of one harmonious whole, should have, in all things, equal privileges; the necessary consequences of which was, that every man, in his own State, should have the same rights, privileges, and powers, that any other citizen of the United States had in his own State; otherwise discontent and murmurings would prevail against the general government who had deprived him of this equality.

For example, if the citizens of Pennsylvania, or Virginia, enjoyed the right, in their own State, to decide the question whether they would have Slavery or not, the citizens of Missouri, to give them the same privileges, must have the same right to decide whether they would or would not tolerate Slavery in their State; if it were otherwise, then the citizens of Pennsylvania and Virginia would have more rights, privileges, and powers in their respective States, than the citizens of Missouri would have in theirs. Mr. S. said he would make another quotation from the same work he had before been indebted to, which he believed had considerable bearing on this question. "The powers delegated by the proposed constitution, to the federal gov. ernment, are few and defined; those which are to remain in the State Governments, are numerous and indefinite; the former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign cominerce, with which last the powers of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." The applicability of this doctrine to the question under consideration was so obvious, that he would not detain the House to give examples, but leave it for gentlemen to make the application. He would, however, make one other reference to the Constitution, before he proceeded to speak of the practice under it; in the second section of that instrument it was provided, that representatives, and direct taxes, shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, threefifths of all other persons." This provision was not restricted to the States then formed, and about to adopt the Constitution; but to all those States which might be included within this Union, clearly contemplating the admission of new States thereafter, and providing. that to them, also, should this principle of representation and taxation equally apply. Nor could he subscribe to the construction, that as this part of the Constitution was matter of compromise, it was to be limited in its application to the original States only, and not to be extended to all those States that might after its adoption become members of the Federal Union; and a practical exposition had been made by Congress of this part of the Constitution, in the admission of Kentucky, Louisiana,


and Mississippi States, all of whom were slaveholding States, and to each of them this principle had been extended.

Mr. S. believed, that the practice under the Constitution had been different from that now contended for by gentlemen; he was unapprised of any similar provision having ever been made, or attempted to be made, in relation to any other new State heretofore admitted. The argument drawn from the States formed out of the Territory northwest of the river Ohio, he did not consider as analogous; that restriction, if any, was imposed in pursuance of a compact, and only, so far as Congress could do, carried into effect the disposition of Virginia in reference to a part of her own original Territory, and was, in every respect, more just, because that provision was made and published to the world at a time when but few, if any, settlements were formed within that tract of country; and the children of those people of color belonging to the inhabitants then there have been, and still were, held in bondage, and were not free at a given age, as was contem. plated by the amendment under consideration, nor did he doubt but that it was competent for any of those States admitted in pursuance of the ordinance of '87, to call a convention, and so to alter their constitution as to allow the introduction of Slaves, if they thought proper to do so. To those gentlemen who had in their argument, in support of the amendments, adverted to the instance where Congress had, by the law authorizing the people of Louisiana to form a constitution and State government, exercised the power of imposing the terms and conditions on which they should be permitted to do so, he would recommend a careful examination and comparison of those terms with the Constitution of the United States, when, he doubted not, they would be convinced that these restrictions were only such as were in express and positive language defined in the latter instrument, and would have been equally binding on the people of Louisiana had they not been enumerated in the law giving them authority to form a constitution for themselves.

Mr. S. said, he considered the contemplated conditions and restrictions, contained in the proposed amendments, to be unconstitutional and unwarrantable, from the provisions of the treaty of cession, by the third article of which it was stipulated, that "the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted, as soon as possible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and, in the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoy. ment of their liberty, property, and the religion which they profess."

This treaty having been made by the compctent authority of government, ratified by the Senate, and emphatically sanctioned by Congress in the acts making appropriations to carry it into effect, became a part of the supreme law of the land, and its bearings on the rights of the people had received a practical exposition by the admission of the State of Louisiana, part of the same Territory, and acquired by the same treaty of cession, into the Union. It was in vain for gentlemen to tell him that, by the terms of the treaty of cession, the United States were not bound to admit any part of the ceded Territory into the Union as a State; the evidence of the obligation Congress considered they were under, to adopt States formed out of that Territory, is clearly deducible from the fact, that they had done so in the instance of Louisiana. But, had no State been admitted, formed of a part of the Territory acquired by that treaty, the obligation

[ocr errors]

of the government to do so would not be the less apparent to him. The inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States." The people were not left to the wayward discretion of this, or any other gov ernment, by saying that they may be incorporated in the Union. The language was different and imperative: "they shall be incorporated." Mr. Scott understood by the term incorporated, that they were to form a constituent part of this republic; that they were to become joint partners in the character and councils of the country, and in the national losses and national gains; as a Territory they were not an essential part of the government; they were a mere province, subject to the acts and regulations of the general government in all cases whatsoever. As a Territory they had not all the rights, advantages and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Mr. S. himself furnished an example, that, in their present condition, they had not all the rights of the other citizens of the Union. Had he a vote in this House? and yet these people were, during the war, subject to certain taxes imposed by Congress. Had those people any voice to give in the imposition of taxes to which they were subject, or in the disposition of the funds of the nation, and particularly those arising from the sales the public lands to which they already had, and still would largely contribute? Had they a voice to give in selecting the officers of this government, or many of their own? In short, in what had they equal rights, advantages, and immunities with the other citizens of the United States, but in the privilege to submit to a procrastination of their rights, and in the advantage to subscribe to your laws, your rules, your taxes, and your powers, even without a hearing? Those people were also "to be admitted into the Union as soon as possible." Mr. Scott would infer from this expression, that it was the understanding of the parties, that so soon as any portion of the Territory, of sufficient extent to form a State, should contain the number of inhabitants required by law to entitle them to a representative on the floor of this House, that they then had the right to make the call for admission, and this admission, when made, was to be, not on conditions that gentlemen might deem expedient, not on conditions referable to future political views, not on conditions that the constitution the people should form should contain a clause that would particularly open the door for emigration from the North or from the South, not on condition that the future population of the State should come from a slaveholding or non-slaveholding State, "but according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," and none other. The people of Missouri were, by solemn treaty stipulation, when admitted, to enjoy all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States. Can any gentleman contend, that, laboring under the proposed restriction, the citizens of Missouri would have all the rights, advantages, and immunities of other citizens of the Union? Have not other new States, in their admission, and have not all the States in the Union, now, privileges and rights beyond what was contemplated to be allowed to the citizens of Missouri? Have not all other States in this government the right to alter, modify, amend, and change their state constitutions, having regard alone to a republican form? And was there any existing law, or any clause in the Federal Constitution, that prohibited a total change from a slaveholding to a nonslaveholding State, or from a non-slaveholding to a slaveholding State? Mr. Scott thought, that if this provision was proper, or within the powers of Congress, they also had the correlative right to say, that the people of Missouri should not be admitted as a state, unless they provided, in the

formation of their state constitution, that Slavery should be tolerated. Would not those conscientious gentlemen startle at this, and exclaim, what, impose on those people slaves, when they do not want them? This would be said to be a direct attack on the State independence. Was it in the power of Congress to annex the present condition, Mr. Scott deemed it equally within the scope of their authority to say, what color the inhabitants of the proposed state should be, what description of property, other than slaves, those people should or should not possess, and the quantity of property each man should retain, going upon the agrarian principle. He would even go further, and say, that Congress had an equal power to enact to what religion the people should subscribe; that none other should be professed, and to provide for the excommunication of all those who did not submit.

The people of Missouri were, if admitted int the Union, to come in on an equal footing with the original States. That the people of the other States had the right to regulate their own internal police, to prescribe the rules of their own conduct, and, in the formation of their constitutions, to say whether Slavery was or was not admissible, he believed was a point conceded by all. How, then, were the citizens of Missouri placed on an equal footing with the other members of the Union? Equal in some respects-a shameful discrimination in others. A discrimination not warranted by the Constitution, nor justified by the treaty of cession, but founded on mistaken zeal, or erroneous policy. They were to be bound down by onerous conditions, limitations, and restrictions to which he knew they would not submit. That people were brave and independent in spirit, they were intelligent, and knew their own rights; they were competent to selfgovernment, and willing to risk their own happiness and future prosperity on the legitimate exercise of their own judgment and free will. Mr. Scott protested against such a guardianship as was contemplated now to be assumed over his constituents. The spirit of freedom burned in the bosoms of the freemen of Missouri, and if admitted into the national family, they would be equal, or not come in at all. With what an anxious eye have they looked to the east, since the commencement of this session of Congress, for the good tidings, that on them you had conferred the glorious privilege of self-government, and independence. What seeds of discord will you sow, when they read this suspicious, shameful, unconstitutional inhibition in their charter? Will they not compare it with the terms of the treaty of cession, that bill of their rights, emphatically their magna charta? And will not the result of that comparison be a stigma on the faith of this government? It had been admitted by some gentlemen, in debate, that, were the people of Missouri to form a constitution conforming to this provision, so soon as they were adopted into the Union it would be competent for them to call a convention and alter their constitution on this subject. Why, then, he would ask gentlemen, would they legislate, when they could produce no permanent, practical effect? Why expose the imbecility of the general government, to tie up the hands of the State, and induce the people to an act of chicanery, which he knew from principle they abhorred, to get clear of an odious restriction on their rights? Mr. Scott had trusted that gentlemen who professed to be actuated by motives of humanity and principle would not encourage a course of dissimulation, or, by any vote of theirs, render it necessary for the citizens of Missouri to act equivocally to obtain their rights. He was unwilling to believe, that political views alone led gentlemen on this or any other occasion; but, from the language of the

member from New-York (Mr. Taylor), he was compelled to suspect that they had their influence upon him. That gentleman has told us, that if ever he left his present residence, it would be for Illinois or Missouri; at all events, he wished to send out his brothers and his sons. Mr. Scott begged that gentleman to relieve him from the awful apprehension excited by the prospect of this accession of population. He hoped the House would excuse him while he stated, that he did not desire that gentleman, his sons, or his brothers, in that land of brave, noble, and independent freemen. The member says that the latitude is too far north to admit of Slavery there. Would the gentleman cast his eye on the map before him, he would there see, that a part of Kentucky, Virginia, and Maryland, were as far north as the northern boundary of the proposed State of Missouri. Mr. Scott would thank the gentleman if he would condescend to tell him what precise line of latitude suited his conscience, his humanity, or his political views, on this subject. Could that member be serious, when he made the parallel of latitude the measure of his good will to those unfortunate blacks? Or was he trying how far he could go in fallacious argument and absurdity, without creating one blush even on his own cheek, for inconsistency? What, starve the negroes out, pen them up in the swamps and morasses, confine them to southern latitudes, to long, scorching days of labor and fatigue, until the race becomes extinct, that the fair land of Missouri may be tenanted by that gentleman, his brothers, and sons? He expected from the majority of the House a more liberal policy, and better evidence that they really were actuated by humane motives.

Mr. S. said, he would trouble the House no longer; he thanked them for the attention and indulgence already bestowed; but he desired to apprise gentlemen, before he sat down, that they were sowing the seeds of discord in this Union, by attempting to admit states with unequal privileges and unequal rights; that they were signing, sealing, and delivering their own death-warrant; that the weapon they were so unjustly wielding against the people of Missouri, was a two-edged sword. From the cumulative nature of power, the day might come when the general government might, in turn, undertake to dictate to them on questions of internal policy; Missouri, now weak and feeble, whose fate and murmurs would excite but little alarm or sensibility, might be come an easy victim to motives of policy, party zeal, or mistaken ideas of power; but other times and other men would succeed; a future Congress might come, who, under the sanctified forms of constitutional power, would dictate to them odious conditions; nay, inflict on their internal independence a wound more deep and dreadful than even this to Missouri. The House had seen the force of precedent, in the mistaken application of the conditions imposed on the people of Louisiana anterior to their admission into the Union. And, whatever might be the ultimate determination of the House, Mr. S. considered this question big with the fate of Cæsar and of Rome.

Mr. COBB, of Georgia, observed that he did not rise for the purpose of detaining the attention of the House for any length of time. He was too sensible of the importance of each moment which yet remained of the session to obtrude many remarks upon their patience. But, upon a measure involving the important consequences that this did, he felt it to be an imperious duty to express his sentiments, and to enter his most solemn protest against the principle proposed for adoption by the amendment. Were gentlemen aware of what they were about to do? Did they foresee no evil consequences likely to result out of the measure if adopted? Could

they suppose that the southern States would sub mit with patience to a measure the effect of which would be to exclude them from all enjoyment of the vast region purchased by the United States beyond the Mississippi, and which belonged equally to them as to the northern States? He ventured to assure them that they would not. The people of the slaveholding States, as they are called, know their rights, and will insist upon the enjoyment of them. He should not now attempt to go over ground already occupied by others, with much more ability, and attempt to show that, by the treaty with France, the people of that Territory were secured in the enjoyment of the property which they held in their slaves. That the proposed amendment was an infraction of this treaty, had been moet clearly shown. Nor would he attempt to rescue from slander the character of the people of the southern States, in their conduct towards, and treatment of, their black population. That had also been done with a degree of force and eloquence, to which he could pretend no claim, by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Barbour), and the honorable speaker. He was, however, clearly of opinion that Congress possessed no power under the Constitution to adopt the principle proposed in the amendment. He called upon the advocates of it to point out, and lay their finger upon that clause of the Constitution of the United States, which gives to this body the right to legislate upon the subject. Could they show in what clause or sec tion this right was expressly given, or from which it could be inferred? Unless this authority could be shown, Congress would be assuming a power, if the amendment prevailed, not delegated to them, and most dangerous in its exercise. What is the end and tendency of the measure proposed! It is to impose on the State of Missouri conditions not imposed upon any other State. It is to de prive her of one branch of sovereignty not sur rendered by any other State in the Union, not even those beyond the Ohio; for all of them had legislated upon this subject; all of them had decided for themselves whether Slavery should be tolerated, at the time they framed their several constitutions. He would not now discuss the propriety of admitting Slavery. It is not now & question whether it is politic or impolitic to tole rate Slavery in the United States, or in a particu lar State. It was a discussion into which he would not permit himself to be dragged. Admit. however, its moral impropriety: yet there was a vast difference between moral impropriety and political sovereignty. The people of New York or Pennsylvania may deem it highly immoral and politically improper to permit Slavery, but yet they possess the sovereign right and power to permit it, if they choose. They can to-morrow so alter their constitutions and laws as to admit it, if they were so disposed. It is a branch of sove reignty which the old Thirteen States never sur render in the adoption of the Federal Constitu tion. Now, the bill proposes that the new State shall be admitted upon an equal footing with the other states of the Union. It is in this way only that she can be admitted under the Constitution. These words can have no other meaning than that she shall be required to surrender no more of her rights of sovereignty than the other States, into a union with which she is about to be admitted, have surrendered. But if the proposed amendment is adopted, will not this new State be shorn of one branch of her sovereignty, one right, which the other States may and have exercised, (whether properly or not, is immaterial,) and de now exercise whenever they think fit?

Mr. C. observed, that he did conceive the principle involved in the amendment pregnant with danger. It was one, he repeated, to which he believed the people of the region of corntry

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »