AMERICAN REVIEW, No. XXIV. FOR DECEMBER, 1849. LETTER TO THE HON. H. S. FOOTE, OF THE U. S. SENATE. Preliminary Remarks. cised by their representatives in Congress, therefore, the people of California have no more right to exclude slavery than Con THE following letter communicated for publication by a gentleman of Louisiana, presents the argument from precedents, for the power of Congress over the territo-gress has. ries, in so able a manner, we have no hesitation in placing it before our readers for its own sake. We had, indeed, entertained a hope, that this distressing and absurd controversy had come to an end-that Mr. Calhoun and his followers had given up their position as an untenable one, which exposed them to contempt. It was, therefore, with feelings of the strongest indignation and sorrow-indignation at their audacity, and sorrow for the consequences which must fall upon the constituency of such a desperate faction, that we learned from good authority that it is the intention of Mr. Calhoun to resist the admission of California as a State, with a restriction of slavery as a part of its organic law. It is to be argued, that after the admission of California, she shall be at liberty to exclude slavery, (a right, indeed, not to be gainsayed,) but that the Senate shall not suffer a constitution to pass under its seal which excludes slavery from a state. It is farther said, that a territorial people have no right to form a state government without the assent of Congress, and that that they can pass no laws inconsistent with the "rights" of the slave-holding portion of the Union. That as the sovereignty belongs to every citizen, and must be exer VOL. IV. NO. VI. NEW SERIES. That Mr. Calhoun will argue in this strain does not seem improbable, or that much more astonishing feats of logic should be performed by him. Our hope was, that the occasion would not arise, that a spirit of compromise and conciliation would by this time have arisen in the South, powerful enough to dash the projects, and check the mad career, of this assiduous Destroyer. The friends of the constitution must once more buckle on the armor of defence, and meet the enemy at his own weapons, the weapons of argument. If argument cannot save, argument will destroy the Union, for the mischief has been done hitherto, on earth, as it was in heaven, by argument. A State, we are to be told, must not form itself upon the territory of the nation, until Congress has authorized it to do so. So great is the majesty and power of Congress, a body of free citizens numbering many thousands on a far removed tract of land, and mingled together with a much larger population of foreign adventurers, shall have no power to organize a government for themselves, in the absence of all other efficient government. So poor, again, and feeble is the authority of Congress, it must not interfere 36 with the affairs of that people to regulate or control them; it must not, nay, cannot enact such laws as may be deemed salutary and necessary for their prosperity. So powerful is any one citizen of the United States, he may, notwithstanding any enactment of Congress, move into the distant territory with his slaves. So weak are a vast number of such citizens assembled together upon the soil of the distant territory, and making there a nation, they have not the power, unless permitted to do so by Congress, to exclude any citizen bringing slaves among them, no matter how injurious they may esteem it to be to themselves as a people. ample, may revolt from the State of which they were members, and re-establish slavery as an organic and unchangeable part of their domestic constitution, and may then be admitted to the Union. And, -a people, those of California, for example, have no liberty to establish for themselves a constitution which excludes slavery: or, if they do so, they cannot be admitted into the Union. It is indeed to be hoped that no such absurd and disgraceful contradictions as these will be heard in the Senate chamber this winter; and yet, such is the madness of the faction, and such the confidence of their leaders, the event is greatly to be Again: a people, the Texans, for ex-feared. 1 SIR: BATON ROUGE, July 4, 1849. The address of the Southern delegates in Congress is now before me-in speaking of which, you have thought fit to say: "Every statement of which is true beyond contradiction-every argument of which is irresistible cogency-every sentence and line of which are marked with high toned patriotism and devout regard for the Union." Taking your opinion as conclusive evidence in support of the orthodoxy of the address the address itself contains three premises which it is my present purpose to notice. First. "Ours is a Federal Government, a Government in which, not individuals, but states, as distinct sovereign communities are constituents to them as members of the Federal Union the territories belong, and they are hence declared to be territories belonging to the United States." Second. The states then are the joint owners "of the territories," therefore the conclusion-that the Federal Government has no right to extend or restrict slavery "in the territories-no more than to establish or abolish it." Third. "That with few exceptions of no great importance, the south had no cause to complain prior to the year 1819," of the manner the territories were ruled and regulated by the Federal Government relative to the extension or restriction of slavery therein. From these premises, an argument is deduced, that the Federal Government is now, without power and authority to impose any restrictions whatever on "individuals" who may be disposed to migrate with slave property into territories belonging to the United States as joint owners. The first premise, for the purpose of this argument will be assumed as true. But this concession necessarily carries with it an admission, that the words" We the people of the United States," were inappropriately used in the preamble to the Constitution; therefore without a purpose or meaning, and Gen. Washington meant nothing when saying in his farewell address "The unity of Government which constitutes you one people is now dear to you." Again, in admitting the Federal Government to be a compact between the thirteen original states, and the states to be established, as "distinct sovereign communities," and not a Governent of the " people of the United States," and the states were to be the constituents of the Federal Government, and not "individuals," I must leave it for you to assign, by what authority the states invested the Federal or legislate respecting the personal rights of "individuals," either in the states or territories. Government with power to interfere with | Congress assembled, may think proper to give their consent. Such conclusions, deduced from the premises assumed, and the cogent arguments advanced by the address, make the Constitution under the Federal Government The address dared not assert, that all and every original inherent power over states' sovereignty did not abide exclusive-nothing more than a political syllogism, to ly with, and was derived from the people, and that states are anything more than creatures of their will; yet according to the address, the states had the power to stipulate what the Federal Government should or should not do respecting individual rights; otherwise the states representing themselves as "distinct sovereign communities" in the formation of the Federal Government, and not as representatives of the people, assumed to confer on the Federal Government a power over individuals which they, the states, could not respectively exercise. If the states did not derive directly, and expressly from the people, power to form the Federal Government, the "states as distinct sovereign communities," having the right so to do-and individuals, as well as the states, were not to be constituents of the Federal Government-why was it said that power which the Federal Government should not exercise, because not expressly conferred, and which the states could not respectively exercise, should be reserved to the "people?" How can the people of the United States exercise any of their collective rights, or powers, but through the Federal Government? A Government, of which they are not constituents! If this was so, why was it expressed, that the Federal Government might or might not, as it pleased, impose a tax of ten dollars on such persons as the states might think fit to admit by migration importation, as citizens or otherwise, until the year 1808; after that date, such persons to be subjected to the absolute will and control of the Federal Government? or On such an hypothesis the term "people" is without meaning in the Constitution, and the words " We, the people of the United States," together with the ninth section of the first article of the Constitution should be stricken therefrom, unless it may be said that the Federal Government may legislate on the rights of individuals, provided the states respectively, and not in be stated thus: The states, and not individuals, are the constituents of the Federal Government. The Federal Government cannot affect the rights of individuals without the consent of the states: therefore, any act of Congress not ratified by the states respectively, cannot affect individual rights. All this may be admitted, with a further concession, that the several states under the Constitution retain and possess a more distinct absolute sovereignty than they had under the confederation; and the interrogatory embraced in the second premise, "Has the Federal Government a right to 'extend or restrict' slavery in the territories?" must be answered in the affirmative if the admission in the address be true-"That with a few exceptions the South had no cause to complain prior to the year 1819." The exceptions are not stated, but the admission is an affirmation that the manner the Federal Government "ruled and regulated" the territories to the year 1819, was in conformity with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, and in accordance with the will and wishes of its constituents, the several states, as "distinct sovereign communities." The territories belonging to the United States as joint owners, and as "distinct sovereign communities," are held by them, either in perfect or imperfect ownership. This question I will leave with you to determine, and I will cheerfully abide your decision. If the territories are held by the states in perfect ownership, the Federal Government can declare they shall never be occupied; or the states can partition the territories among themselves in kind, and each state dispose of its own portion at its pleasure. If the territories are held by the states in imperfect ownership, hence for the use and benefit of the United States collectively, to be disposed of to the citizens of the several states, who may think fit to migrate thither and to be governed |