Page images
PDF
EPUB

33D CONG....2D SESS.

and climate are favorable to the existence and growth of that institution; the prices current of men and women are published, ranging from $800 to $1,500, as evidence of the state of the market and the demand for human chattels. If, sir, all of the Representatives from the free States who supported this measure, and without whose aid it could not have become a law, could have realized, what seemed so apparent, that its chief end and aim was to exclude freedom from, and plant slavery in, these Territories; if they could have seen the results that have followed, and others that are foreshadowed, it would, perhaps, be unjust to suppose that a sufficient number could have been found so recreant and subservient as to have secured by their votes its passage. And now that there is no longer concealment, now that the form and shape it has assumed is familiar to all, Congress should awaken to the disgrace and infamy of planting, by the legislation of a free Government, slavery, the guiltiest of all despotisms, with its long train of blighting influences, in territory where, but for that legislation, the soil would never be cursed with its presence.

It is not my purpose to enter into a full discussion of the issues involved in the repeal of the Missouri compromise. The history of this legislation, its tendency, and purposes are yet fresh in the recollections of all; they are engraven on the public mind in characters that will not be easily effaced. As the bill I propose to introduce seeks to restore" the slavery restrictions" to the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, I shall briefly glance at some of the main features of the controversy. In 1819, Missouri, a Territory organized from that vast area known as the Louisiana purchase, which our Government had acquired by a treaty with France, applied for admission into the Union as a slave State. This at once brought to an issue the question of applying the principles of the ordinance of 1787 to this and the other Territories of the United States. The House of Representatives insisted that Missouri should not be admitted except on the condition of the prohibition of slavery; the Senate took the opposite ground; thus the doors of the Union were closed against Missouri as a slave State. The whole country was shaken by the bitter and exciting contest that ensued.

In this crisis a compromise was proposed. It was warmly urged by the South, and reluctantly assented to by the North. That compromise provided that Missouri should be admitted as a slave State, and practically, that in all territory south of 360 30' slavery should be free to enter, but that in all territory north of that line slavery should be forever prohibited. This was, in effect, at that time, a southern triumph. Announcing its adoption, Charles Pinckney said:

"At this moment we (the South) have carried the question to admit Missouri, and all of Louisiana south of 36° 30', free of the restriction of slavery. It will give the South in a short time six and perhaps eight members of the United States Senate. It is considered here, by the slaveholding States, as a great triumph."

It has given the South six Senators and thirteen members of this House, while Iowa is as yet the only free State formed from this whole Territory. This is the compromise that was annulled, this the compact that was violated by the legislation of last session-leaving the South in the full enjoyment of the fruits of that compromise, and wresting from the North the sole consideration that had been guarantied to her-the exclusion of slavery from those Territories-and leaving them an easy prey to this institution. The compromise of 1820, public honor, and good faith, require Congress to restore the prohibition of slavery to those Territories.

Sir, the bill which I propose not only seeks to restore the ordinance of freedom to the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, but to exclude slavery from all the other Territories of the Union. This was the policy of the fathers of the Republic. They

Carolina [Mr. RUFFIN] regard the institution of slavery as a great political, social, and moral blessing. The honorable member sneeringly denounces the northern abhorrence for this institution which dethrones manhood, puts out the light of intellect, and reduces to the level of brute beasts and creeping things, beings created in the Almighty's image

[blocks in formation]

they did not consider it worthy the eulogy bestowed
upon it by the honorable member. In this respect,
Mr. Chairman, though an humble individual, I
am proud to stand on the same platform with
George Washington, the Father of his Country,
with Thomas Jefferson, with James Madison; a
platform composed of the principles of all those
great apostles of human freedom, who were bap-
tized in the blood of the Revolution, and whose
locks were sprinkled with the waters of that polit-ing slavery from Kansas and Nebraska.
ical Jordan through which they passed to the
promised land of freedom.

as the Whig presidential candidate, while I was
elected by three hundred majority. They have
now claimed their right, and sent a Whig to repre-
sent them.

I fear, Mr Chairman, that I am consuming too much of the time of the committee. [Cries of "No!" "Go on!"]

Mr. FLORENCE. I will ask the gentleman a question. While the gentleman is speaking of what he chooses to call freedom, it occurs to me that the opponents of what has been called the "Nebraska iniquity," the gentlemen from New York, [Messrs. HUGHES, HASTINGS, and others,] were not remarkably successful before the people. How was it that they were stricken down? I do not want to interfere in New York politics, but, inasmuch as the gentleman made a sweeping charge, I thought it best to make the suggestion which I have made.

Mr. HUGHES. I ask my colleague to yield
the floor to me to reply to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.

Mr. GOODWIN. Certainly, sir.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I had no
intention of entering into the debate this evening.
Mr. FLORENCE. I put the question to the
gentleman from New York, [Mr. GOODWIN,] and
would like the answer from himself.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I call the gentleman from
Pennsylvania to order.

Mr. FLORENCE. I am not out of order, and
do not intend to be called to order by the gentle-
man from Ohio.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I call the gentleman to order, and shall keep calling him to order so long as he is out of order.

Mr. FLORENCE. I should like to know how the gentleman gets the floor to call me to order. Mr. GOODWIN. I yield the floor to my colleague, [Mr. HUGHES.]

Mr. FLORENCE. I put the question to the gentleman; and would rather have the answer from him. I do not ask his colleague to confess. I am not a father confessor.

Mr. GOODWIN. I am quite ready to answer the honorable member, but, at the request of my colleague, yield the floor to him.

Mr. HUGHES. Inasmuch as the gentleman from Pennsylvania has put himself in the position of a catechist, he certainly ought to allow those to respond who have been called by name. He ought not to insist on an answer from my colleague in a matter of which, perhaps, he knows nothing.

But to the point, Mr. Chairman; in pursuance of what I believed to be the wish of my constituents I did oppose to the utmost the passage of the bill to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska. My action was from an honest conviction that I was truly representing the people who had confided their interests to me.

I returned, was a candidate for reëlection, but was not reëlected. There were four candidates in the district; and I can assure the committee, that at the next session there will be seen in the seat which I now occupy a gentleman who will oppose, inch by inch, step by step, and to the extremity, every effort made for the extension of slavery over any of the fair domain of the country. [Cries of "Good!" "Good!"] Sir, if called on to repeal the enactment of this Congress, to which I have already referred, he will go boldly to his object. Thinking that I have represented my people, 1 have acted as I have; but, sir, I am as sand in the balance to what that gentleman will do, and to the lengths which he will go. He is a warm, ardent have

I presume that I have clearly defined his position. So far as the people are concerned it is, perhaps, due to them to say, that I believe they had the fullest confidence in their representative. The district which I have had the honor to represent upon this floor for two years, is politically opposed to me. It gave eleven hundred majority for General Scott

Mr. GOODE. I understand the gentleman from New York to say-I hope I misunderstood himthat he and the great body of northern Representatives in this Hall represent a constituency who mean to press to its passage a law prohibit

[Cries of " Certainly."]

Mr. GOODE. They mean to pass a law that slavery shall not be extended into the area of Territories belonging to the United States.

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir, where it does not now exist.

Mr. GOODE. I understand the gentleman to say that slavery shall not be extended into any of the Territories of the United States; and that the northern Representatives will oppose the admission of Kansas as a slave State.

Mr. GOODWIN. If I were to be here I should vote against Kansas coming in as a slave State.

Mr. GOODE. Do the body of northern members represent a constituency of a like feeling? I wish it to be known. Let the southern people know the issue which is to be presented, which is presented in the United States Congress.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I will answer, if my friend from New York will permit me. Ohio has spoken her sentiments by eighty thousand majority.

Mr. GOODE. I do not care what is the majority.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Ohio will stop slavery from going into Kansas, Nebraska, or any other Territory of the United States.

Mr. GOODE. Do it! We defy you!

Mr. GOODWIN. I ask, Mr. Chairman, why in the name of justice, of right, of humanity, should not the North demand that slavery shall be excluded from Kansas and Nebraska-from all the Territories of this Union where it does not now exist? It is my belief that the principle of this exclusion was involved in the compromises which went before and prepared the way for the framing of the Constitution, that if the adoption of this principle had not been acceded to by the South, and established by a solemn ordinance in the nature of a compact between the States, the clauses in regard to the reclamation of fugitives from service, and in regard to slave representation, concessions so favorable to the South would never have found a place in that instrument, and although th> grounds of this compromise are not set forth ir. the letter of the Constitution, yet it was to that concession that it, in a great measure, owed its existence. That concession to northern sentiment was the main, if not the only, substantial consideration for allowing the slave power to deform the Constitution with those two obnoxious provisions, for a slave representation and for the reclamation of fugitive slaves. It was thus one of the corner stones on which the Constitution and Unionrested, one of the original compromises that entered into their formation.

Mr. MAXWELL. The remark just made by the gentleman from New York is one which I cannot understand without a more specific reference to the compromise to which he alluded than he has made. I should like to inquire of him, what is the particular character of that compromise to which he refers, and which forbids the southern people to come into any territory-common territory of the United States-with whatever property they may possess, making a distinction between our right to go to such territory and the right of the northern people to go to such territory with whatever property they may possess. Sir, I should like to inquire what is the character of that compromise which contains such a proposition, and what part of the proceedings of the convention which framed the Constitution, recognizes the right of the northern people, and denies the same right southern

to the Goor people it is not proposed to deny to the southern people any right enjoyed by northern people. It gives you the same right to carry the same property into the Territories which northern people are allowed to carry there. The North seeks to exclude slavery from the Territories, and the prohibition excludes equally North and South from such power. When honorable members talk

33D CONG....1ST SESS.

of a common right to carry property to the common Territories, they are seeking to do more than that, they propose to transplant there, a peculiar, Eocial, and political institution essentially local in its character, and which the public law which obtains among States and sovereignties does not recognize. Beyond the force of the local law, which, by a notorious abuse of power transforms a man to a chattel, he ceases to be property. The possession and ownership of that which may be rightfully held as property, may be vindicated by principles of universal law, but this idea of property in man depends upon the statutes of slave States. The character of property does not go with the person upon the free soil of a free Republic, under a Constitution formed under a compromise by which slavery was to be excluded from all the common soil of the Republic.

But to return to my argument upon that compromise. And, sir, I will tell you upon what I base that compromise, and upon what the ordinance of 1787 rests. I have not time to enter into a minute historical argument, but I believe this great fact, viz: the exclusion of slavery from all the territory of the Confederacy as a condition for slave representation and slave reclamation-is clearly deducible from the history of the Congress of the Confederation, and from that of the convention that framed the Constitution. I shall merely present a condensed statement of some of the principal facts which authorizes this conclusion. In 1784, Virginia and other States ceded to the General Government the vast extent of territory lying northwest of the river Ohio, this comprised all of the territory that was in the possession, or under the jurisdiction of the United States at the period of the formation of the Constitution, as early as 1784. Indeed, on the very day of the cession, Thomas Jefferson-whose doctrines and ideas I would commend to those who believe slavery to be a great political, moral, and social blessing-introduced in Congress a plan for the government of said territory, providing, among other things, that slavery should be excluded therefrom after the year 1800, but the measure was defeated. In 1785, Rufus King, of New York, proposed in Congress a similar act of legislation, which that body also refused to adopt. It was then claimed by Representatives from slave States, that the citizens of their States should have the right to settle in said territory with their slave property, while a large majority of the people were determined that slavery should be excluded, and the question remained unadjusted.

It is to be observed that the session before referred to constituted all the public territory in the possession of the United States, or within its jurisdiction. It was all that was expected to be had in all time, for the idea was not then entertained of acquiring territory by purchase or treaty. Neither under the Constitution, or by any other act, had they provided for any territorial extension, and in the settlement of the then pending question they applied a principle which they supposed would cover all the territory that would ever be within the limits of the Union.

Well, sir, what were the next steps towards a solution of these difficulties? We find that in May, 1784, the third year after the cession of their lands by the States, a convention met at Philadelphia to reorganize the Government, and perfect the union of these States. The old Congress of the Confederation was at the same time in session in the city of New York. In the convention, also, the subject of slavery, and questions arising therefrom, prevented cordial union among the members of that body upon any plan of a Constitution. The South demanded the right to reclaim fugitive slaves, and the North insisted, not only that slavery should not be recognized by the Constitution, but that slaves should not be taken into account in apportioning the Representatives of the different States. Here we behold a striking coincidence, and the circumstances compel the conclusion that there was a full understanding between the two bodies convened at Philadelphia and New York. The Congress of the Confederation was considering plans for the proper government of the northwestern territory, and on the 9th of July, 1787, a committee was appointed to report thereon, and on the 11th of that month the committee reported. Its chairman was a Virginian.

||

Territorial Policy-Mr. Goodwin.

Mr. GOODE. Name him.

Mr. GOODWIN. I think it was Mr. Nicholas. Mr. GOODRICH. If the gentleman from New York will yield to me for a moment, I desire to read a paragraph, which I have in my desk, upon this point, for the information of the gentleman from Florida, [Mr. MAXWELL.] During the discussion in the United States Senate, while the compromise measures were under consideration, Mr. Webster, on the 7th of March, made a speech upon that subject, in which, after referring to the sitting at the same time of the Congress of the Confederation and the Convention which framed the Constitution, he says:

"There was a perfect concurrence of opinion between these respective bodies, (the Congress that passed the ordinance and the Convention that framed the Constitution,) and it resulted in this ordinance of 1787."

When Mr. Webster sat down, Mr. Calhoun rose, and here is what he said:

"He [Mr. Webster] states very correctly that it [the ordinance] commenced under the old Confederation; that

Congress was sitting in New York at the time, while the Convention sat in Philadelphia, and that there was concert of action."

Concert of action in regard to the question of slavery. Mr. Calhoun added:

"When it [the ordinance] was proposed, as I have good reason to believe, it was upon a principle of compromise, first, that the ordinance should contain a provision similar to the one put in the Constitution with respect to fugitive slaves, and next, that it should be inserted in the Constitution; and this was the compromise upon which the probibition of slavery was inserted in the ordinance of 1787." These are Mr. Calhoun's words. You will find them in his speech.

I

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that exhibits the idea I wish to express. The ordinance provided that there should "be neither slavery or involuntary servitude in said Territory, except as punishment for crime," &c. Thus this measure which had been defeated when introduced by Jefferson three years before, which was voted down when presented by Rufus King two years before, and the consummation of which had been successfully withstood for three years, was now adopted by the votes of all the Representatives North and South, save only Robert Yates. ask why this sudden change? Before, for three years, the South had continually defeated it, now they are unanimous in its favor. Without a dissenting voice they accept the ordinance proclaiming that slavery should be forever excluded from the Northwest Territory, then all the territory that our legislation could affect. Immediately upon this, the Convention proceeded with its work, and at once agreed to do, and did, what it before had been unable to do, namely, provided for the reclamation of fugitives from service, and for a representation in Congress for slaves, and upon this basis, in consideration of the freedom of the Territories, the Constitution, as regards these clauses, was adopted.

These proceedings in these two bodies, founded on mutual considerations and concessions, want nothing of the elements of a solemn compact between the contending States; and one of the sections of the ordinance provides that it shall be regarded as in the nature of a compact between the several States, and the States and Territories to which it was applicable. The Constitution of the United States, recognizing the obligation of the compact formed in the Congress of the Confederation, gave to it a further approbation and sanction. From this concurrence of circumstances I claim for this ordinance a validity and solemnity equal to those of the provisions of the Constitution itself.

Mr. GOODE. 1 understand the gentleman from New York to say, that the ordinance of 1787 met with universal approbation at the South.

Mr. GOODWIN. I state that it received every southern vote in that Congress.

Mr. GOODE. The Continental Congress which adopted the ordinance of 1787 is the body of which the gentleman speaks?

Mr. GOODWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. GOODE. Then I wish the gentleman to have the candor to state that, whilst the southern States voted for the ordinance of 1787 as a form of government for the territory northwest of the Ohio river, they voted against that provision of the ordinance which contains the prohibition of slavery; and that Mr. Jefferson and one other

HO. OF REPS.

individual were the only men from the South who cast their votes in the Continental Congress in favor of that provision of the ordinance of 1787. Is not that true?

Mr. GOODWIN. I am speaking of its final adoption by that Congress.

Mr. GOODE. Is not that the truth? Mr. GOODWIN. Let me state what I understand to be the facts.

Mr. GOODE. Search the record. Search the Journal. That is the fact..

Mr. GOODWIN. The honorable member seems to be excited.

Mr. GOODE. Well, sir, I ought to be excited [Cries of "Order!" "Order!"]

Mr. GOODE. Nobody can call me to order about a matter of this sort.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia is out of order. Does the gentleman from New York yield further to the gentleman?

Mr. GOODWIN. No, sir; the gentleman does not want me to do so, as I understand it. I am speaking of the vote on the passage of this ordinance of 1787, and I declare that my recollection is that not a single Representative in Congress, either from the North or from the South, save one, voted against it.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Jefferson voted in favor of that provision of the ordinance of 1787 which excluded slavery from the Territory, and so did a Representative from North Carolina, but the body of the slaveholding States voted against that provision when the question came up on inserting it in the ordinance of 1787, as a form of government for the Territory.

Mr. GOODWIN. I think I have yielded sufficiently now.

Mr. GOODE. We of the South have yielded sufficiently, God knows!

Mr. GOODWIN. I trust you will have to yield still more.

Mr. GOODE. Well, I do not think we will. Mr. GOODWIN. I have given my recollec tion of the vote on the passage of the ordinance of 1787, which included this provision. I may be mistaken. My recollection does not partake of infallibility.

Mr. UPHAM. If I may be allowed to make a statement which I think all gentlemen who are familiar with the records of that period will affirm to be correct, I will make it briefly, in reference to the point at issue between the gentlemen. It is true that the southern Representatives in the old Congress did vote almost unanimously against the restriction clause when introduced by Mr. Jefferson, and when introduced by Mr. King. But, sir, when, on the 9th of July, 1787, a committee was appointed, of which Mr. Carrington of Virginia was chairman, for the purpose, and under instructions, forthwith to bring in an ordinance for the establishment of a civil government in the Northwestern Territory, that committee did bring in a report two days afterwards, on the 11th of July, and that report was precisely the ordinance of 1787 as it passed the next day, with the exception of the sixth article. The committee made no report on the 11th in reference to the question of slavery; and if gentlemen will go to the library of Colonel P. Force in this city, they will see in print-printed at the time-the report which that committee made. He will show you the original document which was laid on the table of the members, and you will there find attached to that printed document, by a wafer, a fly-leaf some two or three inches square, on which the sixth article is found in the hand-writing of Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts; and that sixth article is substantially Mr. Jefferson's restrictive clause with a proviso, which proviso is the obligation to submit to the reclamation of fugitive slaves. That proviso was offered by Nathan Dane that day as a compromise, as a make-weight. The offer was at once accepted, and every member of that Congress from the southern States and from the northern States save one, on the 12th of July, recorded his vote on the Journal in favor of that restrictive clause. The whole proceeding is exhibited in the most interesting form and shape; and what is most peculiar and really striking and affecting in the case, is that that very document-printed, not in the style in which we print our bills now, but in a style adapted to the simple habits of the revolutionary

33D CONG....2D SESS.

age that original document, which Colonel Force will show you, is the identical document which was laid on the table by Nathan Dane, and to which he attached that fly-leaf, containing his amendment, which, accepted and inserted, is the sixth article of that immortal instrument-every southern member in the Congress voting for it.

Mr. GOODWIN. As I before said although the doctrine that slavery shall be excluded from the Territories is not declared in express words in the body of the Constitution, it essentially forms part and parcel of it; it is one of the corner stones upon which it rests. To establish the other compromises it was necessary to express them in the instrument, as it created the rights and privileges which constituted them, and they had no existence aside from the Constitution, but this great principle of exclusion had to be established (and unalterably as was supposed) before the Constitution could come into existence. The fathers of the Constitution intended to give it a permanency equal to that of the provisions of the Constitution, as their action and its language shows:

"It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and the States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable unless by common consent."

Then follows the clause prohibiting slavery, and the Constitution, when subsequently adopted, seemed, as before noticed, to have in view the recognition of this compact, and provided (article six) that engagements entered into before its adop

tion should be as valid under this Constitution as
under the Confederation. Neither the Constitu-
tion or laws provided for, nor did the fathers
anticipate, the acquisition of additional territory.
The principle they sought to establish was the
non-extension of slavery, its exclusion from all the
territories of the United States, its limitation to
the States where it already existed. The simple
fact alone of the application of the ordinance of
1787 to all of the territory then belonging to the
United States establishes this. To this policy the
South acceded, and received her consideration
therefor in the advantages secured to her by the
compromises in the Constitution. Therefore it
follows, as a matter of justice and right, that
this policy, so long as the South is enjoying the
benefits secured to her by these considerations,
should be extended over all of the territory subse-
quently acquired by the United States, especially
over that portion wherein slavery did not exist at
the time it was acquired. To admit slavery into
free territory; to break down the barriers that
arrest its progress, is to destroy one of the com-
promises on which the Constitution rests, and
would violate the spirit of a compact interwoven
with the existence of the Constitution. I hold,
therefore, that the prohibition of slavery should
not only be restored to Kansas and Nebraska, but
be applied to all of the Territories of the United
States.

POWER OF CONGRESS TO EXCLUDE SLAVERY FROM
THE TERRITORIES.

Territorial Policy—Mr. Letcher.

that they had the power no one will deny-was
transferred to the United States, and as the legis-
lative power is vested in Congress, and there is
nothing in the Constitution forbidding Congress
to exclude slavery from the Territories, the conclu-
sion is inevitable that Congress does possess this
power; and, possessing it, is responsible for the ne-
cessary and rightful use of it. An unbroken line
of precedents, from the first foundation of the Gov-
ernment down to the present time, also establishes
the existence of this power.

Others, sir, while they admit that Congress may
possess this power, insist that its exercise would
be a usurpation of the rights of the people, and
with the cry of non-intervention and popular sov-
ereignty-quack phrases used as a garb to conceal
the enormity and wickedness of the designs of
slavery propagandists-demand that the walls of
circumvallation, which our fathers, fresh from the
Revolution, inspired by that spirit that was with
and upheld them, in those days that "tried men's
souls," had sought to erect around this institution,
should be overthrown; that all compromises or
covenants, however solemn and binding, that place ||
obstacles in its pathway, should be violated; that
slavery should be left unrestricted to acquire new
power and possessions. Disguise it as you may,
this is practical intervention against freedom, and
in behalf of slavery. The sham non-intervention
like the silver veil" which the false prophet
and popular sovereignty of this policy are used
and imposter, "Mokanna," as described in the
his features, as his deluded followers believed,
"Veiled Prophet of Khorasson," had flung over

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

"But features horribler than hell e'er traced
On its own brood ;-no demon of the waste;
No church yard Ghole caught lingering in the light
Of the bless'd sun e'er blasted human sight
With lineaments so foul, so fierce as those.
Tho' imposter now, in grinning mockery, shows”-
"There ye wise saints, behold your light, your star,
Ye would be dupes and victims, and ye ure."

So this policy, adopted at the last session of this
body, beneath these "popular phrases," exhibits,
when the veil is raised, the deformed and horrid
features of slavery, exulting over its triumph and
the delusion of its "dupes and victims." Unless
Congress exercises its vested powers to exclude
slavery from the Territories, "those features"
will become impressed upon all the institutions of
our country.

HO. OF REPS.

settled. We seek not to penetrate the limits of the States to interfere with the institutions therein; there we leave the subject to be controlled and regulated by your local laws. But, sir, in the national domain over which the national flag waves we claim; the soil shall not be darkened by its presence. Until these "covenants of the fathers," expressed and implied, are observed and executed, there will be strife and agitation and the continued unrest of the public mind and excitement of the people, awakened by the fresh aggressions of slavery, are as the unquiet heavings of the "billows gathering on the ocean's breast," and the cry: wrung from outraged humanity, the wail of the sea-bird that tells the coming of the storm.

Sir, this question, by the force of its importance> and the magnitude of the interests at issue, demands the attention of Congress; involving great questions of human rights, the fundamental principles of Government, and the honor and welfare of the only Republic upon the face of the earth, it rises in its proportions to a grandeur and sublimity, by the side of which other questions of Government policy are dwarfed into insignificance. It cannot be evaded. Like the fabled sphinx of old, it stands by the way side that leads to our country's future, and the riddle it propounds must be solved by the legislation of Congress. May that legislation be such as becomes a people upon whom a beneficent the rich blessings of well regulated and enlightened Providence has showered with so prodigal a hand

freedom.

TERRITORIAL POLICY.

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN LETCHER,
OF VIRGINIA,

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
February 27, 1855.

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union

Mr. LETCHER said: Mr. CHAIRMAN: I have listened with a great deal of attention, and no small degree of surprise, to the speech just delivered by the gentleman from New York, [Mr. GOODWIN.] We are all citizens of the same Government; we all have a common interest in this Union, and it is well enough for us, coming from different sections of the country, to understand the precise position which each is to occupy for the future. The gentleman commenced his remarks by stating to the committee that he meant to speak candidly and franklythat he meant to give us of the South notice of the position which the North occupied, that we might understand hereafter the course of events. Now, sir, I desire to know, in order to a correct understanding, whether it is the national sentiment of the North, so far as that gentleman is aware, that, at the next Congress, an attempt is to be made to repeal the fugitive slave law, or to modify that law in such a manner as to annex to it the condition of a jury trial in the place in which the absconding slave may be arrested?

Mr. GOODWIN. I cannot tell what the decision of the whole North would be on that question, but I, for one, speaking for myself, should be very happy, indeed, to see it done.

Mr. Chairman, I am aware that it is claimed by some that Congress has not the power to exclude Mr. Chairman, to show the necessity of conslavery from the Territories of the Union. Now,||gressional legislation to exclude slavery from the Constitution authorizes Congress to "make the Territories, I had intended to speak of the all needful rules and regulations" respecting the Ter- political, social, and moral evils of that institution, Mr. LETCHER. As I understood the gentleritories of the United States. When we remem- as portrayed by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, man from New York, awhile ago, he undertook ber that rules and laws are synonymous terms; and all of the early statesmen of the South-as to speak, not only for himself, but for the Empire that the commentators define law to be a rule of exhibited in the experience of the past, and as State. He undertook to declare what the public action, and thus give to the clause the same force evidenced by its present influences of its destruc- sentiment of that State was on the great question in as if the word rules was changed for that of laws, tion of the rights of free labor, making honest which the South was interested, and in which the it seems very clear that the power to legislate for industry a badge of degradation and dishonor; existence of the Union itself was concerned. the Territories is expressly delegated to Congress. thus rendering it impossible for free and slave Mr. GOODWIN. The gentleman did not underThis would, of necessity, include the right to pro- labor to exist together; of its confining the advant-stand me correctly. In speaking of the sentiment hibit slavery therein. ages of education and knowledge to the few, and of the North, and the sentiment of the State of But if the Constitution was silent, there is an- withholding them from the many; of its baneful New York, I spoke of the decision they had renother source from which Congress derives the effects in exhausting the soil, dwarfing the ener- dered in reference to the repeal of the Missouri right to legislate for the government of the Ter-gies, and paralyzing the enterprise of the people compromise, and that there was a great majority ritories. The power to acquire territory, by conthere in favor of the restoration of the restriction quest or treaty, carries with it the right to govern of the Missouri compromise, excluding slavery and control it when acquired. The territory ceded from these Territories. to the United States by other nations, was ceded "in full property and sovereignty" upon the cession; all the power these nations possessed over these territories became vested in our Government, subject only to the restrictions of the Constitution; their power to exclude slavery therefrom-and

who dwell underneath its dark shadow, but time
will not permit, and I must draw my remarks to
a close.

Sir, it is only by fulfilling the purposes and
pledges of the fathers of the Republic in excluding
slavery from the Territories, and by divorcing the
National Government from all connection with,
and responsibility for, this institution, that peace
and quiet can be restored, and this vexed question

Mr. LETCHER. I will come to that question in due time. Let us get back to the point. I want to ascertain, and it is due to that section of the country from which I came, that it should know, whether it is the settled and fixed purpose of the North to undertake to interfere with the

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

33D Cong....2d Sess.

fugitive slave law, either by a repeal or by such a modification of its provisions as shall render the law no longer a safe and efficient protection for us in the recovery of our slave property.

So far as that point is concerned, let it pass, as the gentleman finds difficulty in answering my question, and let me come to another point. I desire to know whether it is the settled policy of New York, or whether it is the settled policy of the North, in a future Congress, to attempt to revive the Missouri restriction.

Territorial Policy—Mr. Letcher.

defense of the rights, institutions, and honor of the glorious South. The Union has its benefits and blessings. I acknowledge them all; but a Union based upon other principles than those of equality has no charms for me. I come from a State which has maintained her rights in times past, and which will stand by them in all time to come, with equal firmness. Whenever an attempt is made to strike down her institutions, and interfere with the rights of her citizens, the North will find that Virginia can and will exhibit a spirit of stern resistance, that she will stand by her rights and institutions to the death.

Mr. GOODWIN. I understand that a great majority of the electors of the State of New York are in favor of restoring the slavery restriction to Mr. HUGHES. If the people of the State of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, and are Virginia, or, more particularly, of the district opposed to the introduction of slavery therein. which the gentleman represents so ably upon this Mr. LETCHER. That is frank, and I under-floor, felt it to be for their interest, and that the stand exactly what the position of the gentleman is. I understand it to be openly proclaimed that, at the next session of Congress, an attempt is to

from the manner in which the gentleman speaks, and from the sentiments which have been uttered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GIDDINGS] tonight, that this is their fixed and settled purpose, and even the sanctity of the Union or the preservation of the Government will not prevent them from making the effort.

right belonged to them to do it, to ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, would th the gentleman then wote for such a proposition?

Mr. LETCHER. I hold that we have no right to meddle with it at all; that Congress has no business to pass a law interfering with it; that it is an usurpation of power, which can lead to nothing but mischief.

Let me say another thing to the gentleman from New York. God knows the gentleman went far enough last year with the anti-Nebraska party in this war against the institutions of the South; yet it seems that he did not go far enough for his constituents, and he was thrown, therefore, over

his place. It seems that the gentleman did not go far enough. Out of the Democrats sent here to this Congress how many are left to tell the tale? Is there a solitary one sent to the next Congress who voted for the Nebraska bill?

I desire to know, upon the third point, what is the settled policy of the State of New York, or the northern portion of this Confederacy, in regard to the exclusion of slavery, by congressional prohib-board, and a regular Seward Whig sent here in ition, from the Territories-the common property of the nation. A gentleman suggests here, that this necessarily embraces the point to which I have already referred. I will ask, then, whether it is the settled policy of the North to resort to northern power in this House, for the purpose of excluding, in all time to come, by the exercise of congressional power, slavery from the Territories of Kansas, Nebraska, or any other, which has been acquired by the common blood and common treasure of this country?

Then, upon the fourth point, I desire to know how the Empire State and the North stand. Are they in favor of passing a law here at a future session of Congress abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia?

Mr. GOODWIN. I cannot speak, of course, in relation to the action of the North upon this subject.

Mr. LETCHER. Well, of the Empire State, then.

Mr. GOODWIN. I have no doubt that the State of New York would be in favor-I certainly am-of submitting the proposition to the people of this District to determine whether they would abolish slavery therein or not.

Mr. LETCHER. It will be recollected by every gentleman who has recurred to the history of past events, that, upon one occasion, a Representative from the State of New York introduced upon this floor a proposition, which was adopted by this House, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.

I have now obtained the answers to the questions I proposed, and these answers are pregnant with meaning to the South. It is important to us that we should understand the purposes and objects of the northern people. It is important to us, for the reason that the South should come here at the next session with a spirit of determination prepared to resist any effort of this sort on the part of the North, be the consequences what they may. If this Union cannot be preserved upon terms of equality, and if the territory of this country, acquired by the common blood and common treasure, is not to be open alike to the North and the South, then we desire to be informed of the fact; and whenever the crisis comes, the Union must be dissolved, whatever may be the regret that will attend its dissolution. I, for one, regarded || as one of the most conservative men in my own State, and unwilling to believe that there was a settled purpose of this kind anywhere, am yet prepared for the result, whenever these issues shall be forced upon us by the people of the North. I shall stand by the rights of the land in which I was born, and in which, I trust, my bones shall repose. I ask nothing here but what I am willing to accord to others; and so long as I have life, or voice, or an arm to raise, they will be raised in

Mr. HUGHES. Not one.

Mr. LETCHER. There is the evidence of what is the feeling of the Empire State, to which the gentleman over the way [Mr. GOODWIN] referred, and this is one of the States where they say a great national party has sprung up, that is to preserve the Union, that is to keep off agitation so far as the question of slavery is concerned. Here is the evidence-a solid column of antiNebraska men, prepared to vote for a repeal of the fugitive slave law, to resist the introduction of slavery into the Territory of Kansas, even if the people of that Territory wish it; and, if I understand their sentiments, they are ready to vote against the admission of Kansas, if it shall apply for admission into this Union as a slave State. Is it not so? What member from the North on this floor will deny that such are the opinions of the people he represents on this floor?

Mr. HAMILTON. I have the floor, I believe, but I merely wish to say now that it is not my purpose to interrupt this general debate. I wish to say something to-morrow on the Army appropriation bill.

Mr. HUGHES. I only wish to say that there is an election coming off in Virginia.

Mr. LETCHER. I feel very little concern about it, so far as my own election is concerned; for my friends, both Whigs and Democrats, who have always shown me so much kindness, assure me that I will have no opposition.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will the gentleman from Maryland yield the floor a few minutes, as I wish to reply to the gentleman from Virginia?

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will remind the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HAMILTON] that he obtained the floor fifteen minutes before ten o'clock. Does he yield to the gentleman from Ohio? [Mr. GIDDINGS.]

Mr. LETCHER. If I am taking the time of my friend from Maryland, I shall resign the floor

at once.

Mr. CAMPBELL. I suggest that, by unanimous consent, the gentleman from Maryland shall be allowed to take the floor for as much time as he wants, within an hour, after this running fire is concluded.

[Cries of "Agreed!" "Agreed!"] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not decide that that can be done until to-morrow morning.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I will express to the committee my gratification at having the privilege of exchanging sentiments with the able gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. LETCHER,] who represents a different section of the country from that which I

HO. OF REPS.

represent. I am pleased to say that the gentleman from Virginia and myself can talk over this matter like men, as become statesmen, without undue excitement. I am willing-having held a seat here for some time, and expecting to continue here for some two years more-to say to this House and the country what I understand to be the northern sentiment prevailing in the free States, so far as I understand it; and I wish to do it in a dispassionate manner, that all shall explicitly comprehend my views. I do understand that, in the convention which framed the Constitution, it was understood, most distinctly and explicitly, that slavery was a State institution, confined to State jurisdiction, with which the Federal Government neither had nor should have any power to interfere.

Mr. LETCHER. I want the gentleman to come to the present issue. I want to know what we may expect now, not what has occurred heretofore.

Mr. GIDDINGS. 1 will do so. Mr. Gerry declared in that Convention that slavery was a State institution; that while the Federal Government had no jurisdiction over it we should be careful to lend it no sanction. To this that body lent an implied approval, no member dissenting from it, but all apparently coinciding with the view of Mr. Gerry. Now, sir, I say to the honorable gentleman from Virginia, and to the House, that the freemen of the free States intend to carry out in practice this doctrine of the Constitution and of the fathers of our Republic. We intend to separate this Government and the people of the free States from all responsibility and all guilt of sustaining oppression, of upholding slavery, and direct its action to the encouragement of liberty, virtue, and the elevation of our race. Our people intend to be purified from the crimes and iniquities of slavery and the slave trade. While we leave the institution with the slave States, untouched by our legislation; while we guard all the States in the enjoyment of their privileges, we will protect our own rights with equal assiduity.

Now, sir, in order to do this-for I only rose to state to my friend what I understand to be the issues involved in the present conflict as to slavery in the District of Columbia, to which the gentleman last alluded-I will first reply, that we will secure to the people here "popular sovereignty." We will repeal the laws which we have enacted, which now sustains slavery and the slave trade here, and leave the people of this District to maintain their "popular sovereignty," of which we heard so much from my friend and his party at the last session of Congress. I mean all the people, black and white, permitting each to be sovereign of his own conduct, so long as he interferes with the rights of no other person. That we will not, by the law of Congress, rivet the chains, nor put hand-cuffs upon our fellow-men here; that we will withdraw our power from the support of slavery, and leave the whole people of this District to enjoy their popular sovereignty. I do not think we shall ask the people of the District whether we may separate ourselves from the support of slavery here; we will do it of our own emotion, our own judgment. We will not share the guilt, nor the disgrace, of upholding the slave trade here, of sustaining the practice of rearing boys and girls for the market in this city. We are not going to interfere with slavery here; we will cease to interfere with that institution; but we will encourage freedom, not slavery. We do not intend to say that men here shall be free. God and nature have said that-and we will protect the rights which our Creator has conferred on mankind.

And I further say to the gentleman, that, in the next place, we will take good care to follow in the footsteps of Jefferson, and of the Congress of 1787, and exclude slavery from every foot of territory belonging to this Government by law of Congress.

I say again, I have had some experience here, and expect to be a member of the next Congress; and I do expect, as I expect to live and get back here, to see the next Congress bring in a bill, and pass it through this body, that shall strike the chains from every slave within the territory of the Federal Government. This, sir, is the great and principal issue on which nearly all men of all parties at the North unite, which no party can withstand. Some may hesitate on other points, but this is one on which we intend to unite in all

[blocks in formation]

let me ask the gentleman from Virginia whether
he would turn out, run after, and catch a slave for
any other man under Heaven?

Mr. LETCHER. Go on.

Mr. GIDDINGS. Will you answer? I will reply to any question propounded to me on this important subject. But as the gentleman from Virginia does not answer, I will ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. WITTE,] whether he would run after, chase down, and catch a slave for a slaveholder?

Mr. LETCHER. I have not surrendered the floor to the gentleman. I want him to go on. When he concludes I intend to comment on the revelations which he has made, and may yet make before he concludes.

elections, making it a test with all candidates for office; but we will do it without excitement. [Laughter.] With this, however, is connected another, the exclusion of any slave State which may seek admission to the Union. We will never give to another State the odious superiority over ourselves of holding an influence over the free States proportioned to the number of their slaves, allowing five slaves to be equal to three of our freemen. The man who would thus degrade the freemen of the North will be regarded as a traitor to northern honor and northern interests. We intend doing this, and I would respectfully say that no threats of dissolving the Union will deter us. That mode of frightening our people has been too often, and too long resorted to. It has lost its prestige. It has ceased to frighten our school girls. We hope Mr. GIDDINGS. I am commenting on the last to act like statesmen, like men who have their point. We will live up to all our constitutional country, and their country's good at heart, who obligations; there we stop. If you can catch your labor for freedom, for the happiness of mankind. slaves when they get away into our northern States, We expect to maintain the rights which we our- do it; we will not catch them for you; we will not selves hold under this Government. We intend appoint officers for the purpose of catching them; that freedom, the liberty of man shall be the ob- we will not pay for catching them. The Constijects of this Government, and not slavery. Under-tution imposes no such obligation upon us. Catch stand-for I have been misrepresented for twenty your slaves as you can, but do not ask us to lay years I have never thought of interfering with aside our feelings of manhood, our moral princíthe rights of the slave States; I have never main-ples, our independence, and self-respect to catch tained upon this floor, by the way side, by the them for you. fire side, nor have I, in public or in private, intimated that we possess the power to interfere with slavery in the States. On the contrary, I repeat, that while we protect the Constitution, and assiduously maintain it in its full force, we will take care to maintain the rights which it confers upon the North, as well as the privileges of the South; we will maintain the rights of the free States, as well as those of the slave States. Our rights in Ohio are equal to those of the other States. We mean to wield the Government for the purpose of maintaining the freedom of every foot of soil subjected to the laws of Congress, and against the extension of the slave power by admitting any new slave State.

The next point, Mr. Chairman, is that of prohibiting the sale of any human being under process issued from the Federal courts. We will not prostitute the process of the Federal courts to the purpose of selling men and women at public auction. I want my friend to understand this issue in its full length and breadth.

Next, we will repeal the law of 1807, authorizing the coast-wise slave trade. We will not protect the slave trade on our southern coast, nor will we lend our power to encourage men while dealing in slaves. The pirate that hangs at the yard-arm on the coast of Africa is less guilty, in our opinion, than the man who deals in Christian slaves in this city. We will, therefore, repeal the law referred to, which authorizes the transportation of slaves under the flag of the United States. It is our flag, and it shall not be prostituted to such damnable and disgraceful purposes. We will purify it, and leave slave-dealers to take care of their slaves in their own manner. We will not suffer our moral purity to be contaminated by this infamous traffic in human flesh. We will lustrate ourselves from it. We will purify the Government from it. Do not talk about the dissolution of the Union; we mean to elevate the people of the southern as well as those of the northern States. Our object is the increase of intelligence, virtue, and happiness of all the people.

Mr. Chairman, besides all this we are of the opinion that we shall let the slaveholders catch their own slaves. We will not go one step beyond the law of 1793. That law gave no process, but allowed the slaveholder to catch his slave if he could, and permitted the slave to escape if he could That law was signed by Washington. It was an enactment of those who had framed the Constitution in part. That law gave no process, authorized no officer to issue process, made it the duty of no officer to arrest a slave; nor did it require northern men to aid in such arrest, nor to pay the expense of taking such slave back to servitude. The law of 1850 is, in all these points, unconstitutional. Our feelings revolt at these provisionswe will not carry them out, nor will we obey them. I therefore say that the furthest extent to which we will go will be to restore the law of 1793. We will not catch your slaves for you. It is humiliating, degrading to our natures. Why, sir,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Chairman, I can just here give an illustration. A fugitive slave came to me and asked my advice as a lawyer. It was when we were under the old law; and I did not hesitate to advise and counsel those who called on me. Looking the man full in the face, I said: "Do you believe, sir, that God created you with the soul and feelings of a man? That He endowed you with the inalien. able right to life, liberty, and happiness?" "I do," was his prompt and earnest reply. "Have you the manhood to assert and defend those rights?" "I have," said he. "Then do it, was my reply. "I cannot defend you; but, were I in your place, I would defend my liberty while I could wield a weapon." I do not hesitate to tell them that they are men; that we shall not stop them. We let them know that we can do nothing; that they are left to their own manhood for protection.

[ocr errors]

I wish, Mr. Chairman, no misunderstanding in this matter. We will not be catchpoles for southern slaveholders. We will stand purified from the institution. No law will, no law can, compel us to catch the slaves. There is, there can be, no law which will force northern men, elevated and intelligent freemen, to turn out and give chase after runaway slaves. We have had demonstration of what I say lately in Wisconsin. There it was attempted to involve freemen in this slavecatching policy. You have seen the result. Popular sentiment is opposed to it. Our feelings of humanity, our principles of Christianity forbid it; our constitutional rights are opposed to it.

Mr. LETCHER. The gentleman has got through with all my queries to him, and he is now branching off on other subjects.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Ho. OF REPs.

Mr. GIDDINGS. I ask the gentleman to allow me to correct him in one particular. The gentleman speaks of my proposing to prevent the interState slave trade. That is not precisely my position. So far as the transportation of slaves from one slave State to another internally, is concerned, I have nothing to do. It is the coastwise slave trade upon the high seas that I propose to prevent. Congress have the right to make regulations for the navigation of the high seas, and I desire that this shall be one of them.

Mr. LETCHER. Very well; take it as it is now stated, and it presents a point which it is utterly impossible for the South to yield. It is pushing this interference to an issue where it would be disgraceful for the South to attempt_to shun it, and she will not attempt to shun it. To accede to the terms thus dictated to her by the North, is basely to surrender all claim to her property, and to admit that wherever it goes beyond the limits of a slave State and enters a free State, it becomes, in the language of the gentleman from Ohio, "sovereign in the State to which it may flee for the time being.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Chairman, under such circumstances as these, the gentleman from Ohio says he has no idea that I, or any one who comes from the South, would be inclined to sever the bonds of the Union -that we have talked too much upon that subject -and that we will submit hereafter, as we have always submitted heretofore. In other words, that there is not spirit enough in the South-that there is not manliness enough in the South-to stand by southern rights, to uphold southern interests, to protect southern property, and to defend slavery whenever it shall be assailed by our enemies, from any quarter whatever! Sir, do northern gentlemen entertain this opinion of us? Do they believe that we have been reduced to so abject a position, that we have not the courage to assert our rights, nor the power to defend our property? If such is their opinion, then their conduct in endeavoring to bring about a dissolution of the Union, by forcing upon us the measures indicated to-night, is precisely what might have been expected. They ought not to desire a longer connection with us. They will find, sooner or later, if these questions are pressed, that they have been sadly mistaken. If we cannot be considered as the equals of the gentleman from Ohio, and the equals of those whom he represents upon this floor; if the North are determined that we shall not have peace on this vital subject; if they are determined to press it at all hazards; regardless of consequences to themselves and to us, be it so. We shall have the agreeable reflection of knowing that we are not to blame; that the evil results cannot be charged upon us; that the North, and the North alone, are to blame. If the Union shall be dissolved, they cannot say we did it.

But the gentleman from Ohio says the North will not submit to have her rights interfered with. Sir, will the gentleman be good enough to tell us Mr. Chairman, I am very well satisfied that I when and where the South has ever interfered, gave the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. GIDDINGS] the either directly or indirectly, with the rights of the opportunity for the interruption which he has North? When have we of the South endeavored made. He has stated, with that frankness and to take away-to steal, by the aid of “underground that candor which he has uniformly exhibited|| railroad," by force or fraud, or by any other when discussing this question, the sentiment and means the property of the citizens of the North? purposes of the North, so far as he has been able Have we ever made such an attempt upon the to learn it. We all know that he is well posted constituents of the gentleman from Ohio? Never, up as to the sentiment of the northern people, as sir, never! I believe the gentleman professes to to their purposes and objects, so far as any action, hold to the doctrine of State rights, as declared in present or future, connected with slavery is con- the resolutions of 1798 and 1799. I think the cerned. He says they are for repealing the fugi- declaration he has made to-night is very much tive slave law; that they are in favor of allowing the same, in substance, with that made a few days the South to recover, as they best can, the slaves ago by Mr. WILSON, the Massachusetts Senator, who have run away from their owners when they in the other end of the Capitol. These two genhave reached a free State. He says, also, that he tlemen hold very much the same opinions in is for that sort of legislation that will remove reference to State rights, slavery, the fugitive slave slavery from the District of Columbia, the navy-law, the Nebraska bill, and other questions of a yards, and all other territory owned by the United kindred character. They both hold to the docStates. He says that he is in favor of preventing trine that the North shall declare the law, and the the inter-State slave trade, and for confining slavery South shall have the glorious privilege of submisto the States where it now exists; that he is not sion. The North is to make its demands, and the disposed to allow slavery to go into any of the South is to yield a prompt obedience to those deTerritories of the United States; but that, on the mands. The North is to prescribe its rules, and contrary, he is determined, and the North are de- the South are to comply with them promptly and termined, to restore the Missouri compromise line, without a murmur. and to prohibit slavery forever from the Territory of Kansas, even though the people of that Territory may be unanimously in favor of its introduction.

Now, let me tell the gentleman from Ohio that, whatever he may think of the spirit of the South, he will find that there is a spirit there that will

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »