* 4^ 4^, * o""^ -^O 4> ..'■•. •*.. .0* ^.<''' •^': %/ *^^: "W^ -■ 1^/ ** *^ ■ OF MR. PATTON, OF VIRGINIA, ON THE TARSFF Bllil^, I AXI) • IN REPLY TO A SPEECH OF MR. ADAIMS, OF MASSACHUSETTS. Delivered ui the House of Representatives, February 5 and 7, 18o3. Mr. Patton said, that he had not intended, until the evening befmc ask the attention of the coinmittec to any observations of iiis upon the inir tant measure now under discussion. He did not now propose to enter upon any examination of the general pi ciples of the American System. He concurred in the sentiment which been expressed, and he believed was univeiT.ally entertained in the Hot that no argument, on either side, was likely to produce a change of opini either as to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality — the expediency or expediency, as a measure ot national policy and justice — of tiiat system. ten or twelve years these questions, in all th.eir aspects, had engaged the liberations, not only of Congress, but of the people of the United States, with continually increasing anxiety and solemnity. Those wiio were no this time satisfied upon these questions, must be cither above, or below beyond the reach of argument. In the progress of the discussion, not only hostility of interest, and coi quent collision of opinion, between diilerent classes of men, have develo • themselves^ but they have unfortunately assumed a sectional location, ou ■which have arisen geographical parties, who, pushing tlicir opinions to ' tremes, have brought about a state of things which,' in the opinion of ■ reflecting men, is more menacing to the peaceful continuance of the Un I than any which has ever existed since the establishment of independence. ■ So long, said Mr. F., as tlie discussion pursued the ordinary path, J common with most of those with wliom I act on this subject, abstained intended to refrain from contributing to c debate which, confined almost r-clusively to the opponents of the biU, they seemed disposed, for reasons \ kno\fn to themselves, to protract to an almost interminable length. \ course was to wait patiently until this tide of discussion should have an t and avoid saying any thing that, by possibility, might tend to increase excitement of feeling so unfriendly to a peaceful and harmonious adjustn of this distracting contest, until some ii^cisive indication v^as given by body as to its intention to do any thing l Iculatcd to ameliorate the gr ances of which the South complained. The debate, however, has suddenly taken a new and unexpected tun the motion of the gentleman from Massachusetts, [Mr. Adams,] to st out the enacting clause of the bill, a motion which, if successful, levelb fatal blow at all prospect of conciliation and peace, and which he has thoi proper to accompany with remarks of a character, uttered in a temper, indicating a spirit, in my judgment, extremely unsuited to the occasion, crisis in theafttiirs of the country, and the source from which they proceec remarks, which I concur with the honorable genlle\nan from South Carol [Mr. Drayton,] in considering as well calculated, as any that could 1: been uttered, to throw a firebrand into our counsels, to add fuel to a fl: already burning too fiercely, and to arouse passions, and exasperate pr dices, which it ought to be the business of every patriot to ilo all in his po to extinguish, to allay, and subdue. Standing here as tlie Representativ ip&rt of a State whicli, by her Legislature, has so recently manifested, ^ '3 I iiiiL'KamplrtI uiiaiiiniity, her dcsiie to preserve peace, by entreating i.irtios to the imneiidini; contlict to forbear from proceeding to extremi- Ahich has expended so much blood and treasure in defending and main- 1" the liberties of these States; and contributed so largely, both in coun- d ill action, towards creating and preserving, and has so deep a stake m, ■ oiUinnaiice of this I'nion. it ^\ns impossible to suppress the.expression ot ■L'lc!, surpii-o, and alaim, at the s-pirit displayed so unexpectedly by the • mail fiom Massachusetts. • . xu • what purpose I know not it has seemed good to him to drag into this .»i()ii topics which have nothing to do with the bill before tlus committee. I) invite us, by the course of his remarks, to enter upon that wide tie d litical metapiiysics, which, from another source, had been unfortunately (1 out upon the political arena prematurely, unnecessarily, and, in my nent, unwisely. 1 allude to the President's proclamation, e gentleman has avowed opinions, in relation to one ot those questions, ,1 have thus been presented to the American public, involving some prin- s, in relation to the origin and character of this Government, which the of Virginia has uniformly and strenuously denied to be true; and which I it to be my duty, concurring, as I do, in this opinion, and since no othei r delegation have chosen to do so, not to permit to pass, without entering •rotest against, and making an humble ettbrt to refute thein._ I shall con- nyself to those topics whicii tl\e gentleman has drawn into discussion, and not enter upon any of the others connected with them in the document lich I have already referred; and for the full discussion of all tUe theories' lined in wliich, a more suitable occasion will be a,ftbrded, in all proba- ', during the session. le proposition which he asserts, in substance, is, that this Government is a )letely sovereign Government, created by the people of the United States le people, and exercising its powers by the authority of the people, as )oliticaI community. And by what argument does he sustain this propo- 1.'' It is (ounded exclusively upon a part of the preamble of the consti- n, '' We, the people of the United States." And he says, that, not t( t the truth of his pioposition, is "to give the lie" to the express declara- it the constitution itself. Sir, it seems to me that a candid examination IS part of the preamble, as well as every other part of it, leads to an op- e conclusion; and that, to admit the interpretation contended for by hiiriy t only to pervert tin: obvious sense ui' tlie passage he relies on, but "to the lie" (to borrow tlie gentleman's language) to the whole preamble — to tlicle of ratification, and to the most notorious historical facts. This ex- ion ()f "' \\'e, the people of the United i^tates," was objected toby Patrick •y, in the Virginia Convention called to consider of the ratification of :onstitution, as justifying the inference that a consolidated Government iitended to be created. And he asked by wiiat authority the Convention iscd the expression '' we, the people," instead of" we, the States." He iiisucred by Mr. Madison, also a member of that Convention, who had recently been a member of the Convention which framed the constitu- who had taken a prominent part in forming, and has since done more to e it fiom the perversions and misconstructions to which it has at difFer- imes been exposed, than any man living or dead. This is his language: !io are the parties to it (the constitution?) The people— but not the [lie as composing one great body, but the people as composing thirteen crclg?tties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated Govern- iit, the assent of a majority of the people woyld be sufficient for its iblishment; and as a majority have adopted it already, the remaining tes would be bound by the act of a majority, even if they unanimously aobatcd iL Were it such a Government as is now suggested, it would low binding on the people of this State, without having had the privilege leliberating upon it. Should all the States adopt it, it will then be a Go- nment established by tlie thirteen States of America, not through the rvention of the Legislatures, but by the people at large." lould be glad to know Avhat is the diflereuce between these two expres- sioiis, '' we, the people o{ the United States,"' and '' we, the people of the States united." Do they not express precisely the same idea? Do they not both assert precisely the same historical fact, viz. that the union of States was assented to by the people of the States, as such? Let us look a little further into this preamble. What did "the people of the United States" propose to do? Why, to form a 7;iore perfect union, &c. Now, who ever heard of a union of people in a political association? The term union, applied to States, is intelligible and appropriate- It was, then, the people of the States who agreed to the union of the Slates. The whole amount of it was, that they resolved to continue the union, which ex- isted before under the articles of confederation, and to make that union more perfect. This union, it is admitted by the gentleman, constituted a mere confederacy; but the origin of both is the same — created alike by the authority of the States: their assent being given, in one case, by the State Govern- ments; in the other, by the people of each State. And what was it that, in this last case, was created? a constitution for the people of America? a constitu- tion for " the people of the United States?" No, neither; but, as the preamble itself declares, " a constitution for the United States." This was not even a new name for the Government; the first section of the articles of confedera- tion declares, that ''the style of this confcdeiacy shall be t'lie United States of America." This view of the question i^ fully sustained by an authority whicii, in Vir- ginia, has always been regarded as entitled to the highest respect, and cannot fail to be so regarded every where, for the ability with which it treats of the origin and character of the Government, and the lucid manner in which It ex- pounds those doctrines of constitutif-nai construction upon which the republi- can party came into power in 1801. 1 beg leave to read a passage which places this matter, which I am now considering, in a clear light. In support of that branch of the third resolution of 1708, which affirms *Mhat the States are parties to the constitution," after enumerating the va- rious senses in which the term "States" is used in the constitution, and, among others, that, " lastly, it means the people composing those political societies in their highest sovereign capacity,"' the report drawn by Mr. Madison pro- ceeds thus:'" In the present instance, whatever different constructions of the term "States," in the resolution, may have been entertained, all will at last concur in that last mentioned, because in that sense the_ constitution was submitted to tlic " States;" in that sense the '"''Slates^'' ratified it; and in that sense of the term ^'^ States,-' they are consequently parties to the compact, from which the power of the Federal Government results,"' This is, in truth, Kothing more than a condensed statement of historical facts. The article of ratification found at the close of the constitution seems to me TO confute the interpretation for v^hich lie contends. The ratification of nine States shall be "sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the States so ratifying the satn-e^^' not over the people of America, or over the people of the United States even, but between the States so ratifying the same. The charter itself thus, at the end of it, declaring, in unequivocal terms, its character, when formed, to be a Government between States, as in its preamble it had deduced its own origin from, and declared its object to be for, — a union of Stales. Compare this article of ratification, and the pre- amble of the constitution, with the old articles of confederation. They were called "articles of confederation and perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay," &c. &.c. naming the whole thirteen; their style was, as before stated, "the United States of America." They were, then, "articles of confederation and perpetual union between the United States of America;" and so this constitution was established "be- tween the United States of America." I put it to any candid man to say if there can be a distinction made between the foundation and origin of the two Governments, as to the question whether they were compacts between States. The source from which both Governments are derived was the same. The articles of confederation constituted a g-ovemraent for the confederacy as nmrli as lliid {;i)n.4il.iitiu!i coiisliUUeo a govermaeid i'ur the Union. They are bolli GoveriniK'nts— coii.stUutioiial Govciiimeuts-— compacts between sove- reign States. They diftcr as to tlie extent of the powers conferred upon the Govcrnineiit, and in the mode in whicii those powers are to be exercised: in one case, the action of the (joveinment being upon the States? in the other, Mp:)!i tlie ciiizcns directly, in its mode of action, this Government is partly iKitioual and p;iit!y federal; in its orii^n and foundation, it is wholly federal. '!'lie Sidles created— //ic Slates preserve — tJie States alone can reform, alter, or abolish it. The honorable gentleman says, and lie seemed to be transported into the ro,i;ions of poetry at the thought, that '* there is a moral grandeur and subli- luily" in the idea of this great Government over the whole people as one peo- ple. I will not dispute with liiin about a matter of taste, though it seems to_ me to be an essential ingredient iu the grandeur and sublimity of an idea of governmeni, that it should luWe some foundation in truth. If the picture of moral grandeur and sublimity presented to the mind by this imaginary govern- ment of one people was only completed, as there is some reason to appre- hend it will be, by esigrafting upon the constitution, and establishing in prac- tice, the *''' common defence'' doctrine of the gentleman from Massachusetts, auri tlie '' general ivcifarc"' doctrine by which the gentleman from Rhode island, [Mr. Bukges,] resolves all questions of constitutional power, then we should have established a vast consolidated empire, with a government of uidiniited powers, apparently — the consummation of the hopes and eftbrts of one class of iwliticians in this country. Let me oppose to this idea of moral grandeur and sublimity, th.e sentiment of the venerable sage and patriot of Montpelier, who says, in that report v/lnch I have already quoted, that "it adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the constitu- tion, that it icsts on the legitimate and solid foundation," derived from its being formed by " the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity.-' It may suit the fancy of a poet to rcvgl in the " moral grandeur and sub- limity of an idea" of government which exists only in the imagination — the olVspring of fiction: but, to my mind, there is something more grand and elevating in the contemplations of a statesman who admires the stability and dignity of a government resting upon the solid basis of truth and reality. 1 wdl proceed to reply to some other portions of the gentleman's remarks. A new, I believe 'perfectly new, and most extraordinary argument is ad- vanced by him in favor of the protection which he claims for domestic manufactures. It is claimed as an equivalent for the protection given (as is alleged) by the constitution to the slave interest of the South. Far be it from me to under- value the benelits conferred upon the South, no less than upon other parts of the country by this Union, i have endeavored to calculate its value, and deem it incalculable. 1 should regard its dissolution as one of the greatest evils which could betiill, not ourselves and our posterity only, but the whole human family; it would blast forever the best hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world, and extinguish the lire of liberty upon all the altars on which it has been kindled by our example and our success. The beneficent protection afforded by the Union is, that it is the bond of domestic tranquillity, the safeguard against intestine commotions and civil wars, and the arm of our del'encc against toreign aggression. But the only just and legitimate protec- tion which this Government, or any other Government, can extend to indi- viduals, or classes of individuals, is to secure them in the enjoyment of the fruits of their own industry; in the unfettered exercise of their own skill and enterprise, and in the pursuit of their own happiness, in their own way; with this restriction only, in tiie language of the maxim of the civil law, that they shall so use their own as not to injure that of another. This great rule is the eorncr-stone of every well constructed edifice of government. I believe the Government of this Union was designed by its framers to rest on this solid and just foundation; and if it were thus adtninistered, it would secure all the purposes for which it was foimed— "establish justice, ensure domestic tran- quillity, provide for the common defence, promote tlie general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.'- But when any Government imposes burdens upon the community wliicli the legitimate purposes of the Government do not call for— takes money out of the pockets of the people at large, not required for public uses, but for the benefit of a particular class of individuals— its action is essentially unjust and tyrannical, no matter under what forms or pretexts it is done. And, sir, v.hen a claim is made to persevere in a system of uneaual and unjust taxation, (as we of the South regard the tariff system to be,) even at the hazard of civil war, upon the allegation that the JSouth receives an equivalent for these exactions m some peculiar protection wiiich is afforded by the constitution and the Union to our slave interest, I feel it to be proper to meet the assertion and argument on the threshold, and to examine i^ it has anv foundation in the constitution. I deny it utterly. The gentleman from ISIassachusetts has referred to various provisions of the constitution as sustaining him in this novel position. 1st. The provision by which, in apportioning representation among the tetates, it is required that three-fifths of the slaves shall be enumerated. 2d. The 4th section of the 4th article of the coiistitutioji, which provides that the United States shall, "on application of the Legislature or of the Executive," (when the Legislature cannot be convened^) " protect each- ' fetate " against domestic violence." 3d. The authority given to Congress to raise and support armies and a navy. As to the first, I need hardly remind this committee, and certainly not the gentleman from Massachusetts, that the question as to the proper basis of taxation and representation, in relation to the slave interest of the South, was coeval with the declaration of independence. Immediately after that event, the articles of confederation were discussed in the old Congress of w6. The article relating to this matter, as originally proposed, and finally adopted, provided, that " all charges of war, and other expenses incurred for the com- mon defence and general welfare, &c. shall be defrayed out of a common treasury," to be " supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the num- ber of inhabitants of every age, sex, and quality, &:c. It was proposed by Mr. Chase, of Maryland, to amend it so as that the quotas Bhould'be fixed by the number of the ivhite inhabifanfs. It is a curious piece of political history, especially taken in connexion with asentiment expressed by the gentleman from Massachusetts, that, in tlie de- cision of that question, all the slave-holding States, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, (Georgia being divided,) voted in favor of the amendment; and New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, all substantially non-slave-holding States, voted against the amendment, and rejected it. it is worth while to notice th.e argument by which this decision was sustained.; and for this purpose I will read an extract from the speech of one of the most distinguished, eloquent, and (notwithstanding that the violence of party spirit induced many to undervalue his services and character,) I will say one of the most patriotic of our Revolutionary men. I read from the speech of Mr. John Adams, He observes: " That the number of people were taken, Ijy this article, as an index of the wealth of" the State, and not as subjects of taxation; that, as to this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whetlier by that of iree- men or slaves; that, in some countries, the laboring poor were called freemen, in others, they were called slaves; but that the difference, as to the State, was imaginary only. "What matters it whether a landloid employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as much money as wiU buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries atshurt hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth annually to the Slate— increase its exports as much in the one case as the other. Certainly, five hundred freenn^n produce jio more profiis, no greater isupplies for tlio payment of taxes, than five hun- dred slaves: therefore, tlie State in which the laborers are called freemen, should be taxed no more tlian that iii which they are called slaves. Suppose, by an extraoidinary operation of jnlirie, or of law, one half of the laborers ot a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into slaves; would the State be made tlie poorer, or less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor" in most countries, that of the fishermen, particularly, of the northern States, is as abject as that of slaves," &c. Here is the argument (in which there is certainly great force) upon which the southern States were taxed, from the beginning, in proportion to their whole slave population. It goes to prove that both kinds of labor ought to contribute to the support of Government equally; and authorizes the inference, as a legitimate deductian, that they are entitled to the same kind and degree of protection, and in the same mode — by being represented. But the argument Iktc is that a dittercnt and additional protection is to be given to the labor of the North, and that too at tlie expense of the labor of the South, though the character of the labor is the same as to the State, as w^ell as the actual condition of the laborer. There was no inconsistency in the course and opinions of the distinguished man, whose argument 1 have just quoted. Immediately after the decision referred to, came on another (juestion: how the States should be represented in the Congress of the confederacy? He spoke in favor of each State vating in proportion to the numbers of her people. tSome of them who had voted for taxing us, according to the number of our inhabitants, and who represented large States, were in favor of voting in proportion to the number of free inha- bitants. On this question the interests of the small States preponderated; and it Mas settled that each State should have one vote. In the Convention these questions again arose; and the arrangement of the subjects of taxation and repiesentation, in reference to the slaves, constituted one of those distracting subjects of controversy which brought the Convention to the verge of dissolution without agreeing to a plan of government. It could not but produce difficulty; it was not a question that could be settled by any rule of abstract right. For, to borrow again the language of Mr. Adams, in the same debate, "Reason, justice, and equity, never had weight enough, on the face of the earth, to govern the councils of men; it is interest alone which «loos it, and it is interest ."ilone which can be trusted; that, therefore, the in- terests within doors should be the mathematical representatives of the interests without doors."* The representatives of the slave-holding States, in the convention, as welS as those of the non-slave-holding States, were fully sensible of this truth; and, by their course in that body, gave a new illustration of it; the interests with- out doors were represented by interests within; and the slave-holding States insisted that they were entitled to representation for their whole slave popu- lation; and the free States, that the slaves should not be counted at all. This contest resulted in the adoption of the rule of apportioning representation and direct taxes by the same ratio, and estimating three-fifths only of the slaves in regard to each. On what authority, then, does the gentleman refer to this clause of the Constitution, as conferring peculiar protection to the slave in- terest in the Syuth? Why may not we, with as much propriety, insist that it had secured to the labour of the North an advantage to which it was not entitled; and, for which, in the administration of the Government, we ought to have an e(|uivalent? Instead of having our whole population represented, as we thought it ought to have been, and for which we had the authority of Ml-. Adams, we insisted only upon a part being represented: while the tvhole populatK.n of the North Mas told. It was the result of that spirit of compro- mise which presided in the formation of the constitution; which, on several occasions, since its establishment, has effected its preservation; which must be invoked again, and now; and will not be invoked in vain, if the professions * Memoirs and covrespoiuleiice of Jefierson, vol. 1, page 27. «r devotion to the Union are as sincere as they ate loud, fieciueut, and osten- *Tlle 'gentleman from Massachusetts tells us, if the bargain were to be made over again, he would not make that compromise. 1 do nut wonder at all at it. If that unyielding spirit of forruude (as lie calls it) which he has manitested, had prevailed in the Convention, or a tithe part ot it, we should never have had this glorious Union, which he now professes so much anxiety to preserve. It'his spirit of fortitude be substituted t>>r their spirit of concord and con- ciliation, and his doctrines, as to the power and authority ot the Govern- ment, prevail, it requires little foresight to perceive that the Government inust end, sooner or later, either in an irretrievable dissolution ot the bonds ot union, or be converted into one vast consolidated Government.; which would be the sure and speedy precursor of a military despotism. , ,, ,, Sir, I had fondly hoped that, at this momentous epoch, Massachusetts would have been found standing by Virginia, in the cause of peace and harmony. 1 could not tail to remember, with lively sensibdity, their early and constant association in the struggle for independence. Together they rocked the cradle of the Revolution; together they nursed and tostered the glorious ott- springof that Revolution— the union of these States, while it was rearing into vigor and maturity. They have differed, indeed, but I trust in no hostile spirit, as to the proper construction of the title-deeds, and the most judicious mode of managing the estate. Yet, I did hope that, animated by the same holy and ardent love of justice and liberty, they would yet be found stand- ing together again, and employing their moral and political strength in the pre- servation of the noble inheritance of union tiom being despoiled by the hand of injustice, or its existence destroyed by the hand ot violence. Sir, that hope is gone. , , . , . ^ , ^i The spirit which is here indicated was not that which animated the vene- rated band of sages, heroes, and patriots, who composed the convention; they had not yet learned to forget— they were deeply imbued with that raternal sympathy and affection which had been generated in the hearts of the Ame- rican people, by their common sufferings- their common perils— their common triumphs in a common cause. When the old confederacy was upon the eve of falling to pieces, and from causes which would have led inevitably to con- flicts between the parties to it, the members ot that convention, many ot whom had liazuiUcd thcii- lives, sacrificed their fortunes, and, in the cabinet or in the field, given their support lu ilie cause to whicli tlit-y liail pledged their sacred honor, came forward, and, with true and genuine fortitude, laid upon the altar of their country their prejudices^, their passions, and then- local interests. The idea of resorting to arms, for the purpose ot avoiding the apprehended conflicts, and quieting the existing disputes, was the last that would have entered into their minds. It was the alternative most abhorred, and to prevent which almost every thing was to be yielded. But now, when a crisis scarcely less appalling is perceived by all to exist, what is the spirit displayed— the sort of "■fortitude'^ recommended to us as more worthy of admiration even than the fear ot doing injustice.^ Every ex- asperating topic, calculated to inflame passion and frighten away harmony, is sought for, and forced into the debate; and we have an exhibition of fortitude, which, if it does not delight in, is determined to tlo nothing to prevent, a civil commotion— fortitude, which enables gentlemen, rather than make any con- cession, rather than make any change even in the form ot a law, to rejoice in the prospect of making an experiment ot tlie strength ot the Government— as philosophers kill rats in an air pump, to illustrate the truths of science; and, with cold blooded indifierence, regard the approach of a c()ntfict between Governments in arms, which, if it shall once begin, no eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor can any tongue ailequately tell, its termination, or all its train ot unutterable horrors. This is not the tbititude ot patriots and statesmen, but that of professors and poets turned politicians; those "Heroes of tlie lust disclosure," (the very last,) " Who loolt on blood and carnag^e with due composure."— I't/'w/o/ McMorrog/i. Tlie gentleman, in the next place, deduces an argument in favor of this notion, that some peculiar protection is afforded to the slave interest of the South, tVoin that provision ot' tiie cnnslitution whicli stipulates that the United States shall protect each Stale at:, i..' L domestic violence. Is an opposition to the State laws and State authoiities, by " domestic violence," more likely to arise in the slave-holding States, than in the non-slave-hoiding States? I deny it. Let it be proved. Virginia has been a slave-holding State, or com- nuniiiy, for upwards of two hundred years. During all that time, there has never been any rising of the slaves against their masters, of a character so formidable as to require any i'oreign aid whatever — none which could not have been suppressed in a few days by the people in the neighborhood, with the utmost ease, without even mrirshalling the State authorities. Indeed, I know of but one event of the kind in the v;hqle Southern country, and that was the Southampton tragedy, which occurred in Virginia a year or two ago. This, in truth, was scarcely entitled to be regarded as an insurrection at all; it was a truly bloody, but aimless outrage of a madman and a few drunken followers. It is true, that, under the influence of a temporary panic occasioned by it, and a thousand unfounded rumors of contemplated and concerted risings in other places, an extraordinary and unfortunate debate was got up in the Vir- ginia Legislature, principally promoted and sustained, however, by those who have comparatively no direct interest in the subject: for thera, as here, it so happens that the anxiety which is manifested for the safety of the owners of slaves '• against domestic violence-' comes principally, not from slave owners themselves, or from the slave-holding part of the country, but from the gratui- tous, though I dare say amiable, solicitude of those who have little or no con- cern in tlie matter. Shall I be told that we have been indebted for our secu- rity, while a colony, to tlie protection atforded by the mother country, and since by the Union.? Unfortumiteiy for Vwi proposition and the argument, there have been two instances of domestic violence against the State or colonial go- vernments, by discontented and insurrectionary white men. I mean Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, and another of a character wholly different, and whicfi I am ashamed to mention in the same connexion— I mean Shay's insurrec- tion in Massachusetts. They were both very formidable. I have an impression on my mind--the gentleman from Massachusetts knows as well as any man whether it is well founded or not— that I have seen it stated, by some authority entitled to coniidenoc, ao a \mi(. ot tlie political history of this Govarnment, that tlic cAteiit and formidable character of the resistance to the State authorities in Massachusetts, by Shay and his followers contributed very essentially to overcome the reluctance which that State felt and manifested to send delegates to the convention in 1787.* Perhaps this fact may account for the peculiar arrangement of the States in voting upon a motion made in that convention, by a Southern member, to strike out the words "domestic violence," and insert "insurrections;" probably on the ground that the last word more distinctly embraced the kind of domestic violence that might be apprehended from the slaves. The votes were thus: Yeas— New .Tersey, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia Nays— New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Dela- win-e, and Maryland. Perhaps there was no essential difference between the two phrases; but it IS notat all "nlikely that the vote for retaining the words in the constitution was given in the full and awful recollection of that formidable resistance to , * f'"^? '"';:H'"-=^'/><='^e remarks, I fmcl the fact stated by me fully sustained by Mar- sliall s Life of Was ungton, page 111, olli vol.; and the insurrection described as much Tn^rnf ^ f"?'' ""."r fry^ "'"" ^ f Pi-e«ented it. The anecdote mentioned by me is hi ,vLinn, > • . 1 1™"'^ V' ^^' '""^""^^ "^^'^ ^y "^^- rn the account ^ven of .?„! o m'/ r f."'' '•" "'" ^'"'^^°"*>' of Colonel Lee, that "a majority of the •« 1 i ^^ ; r. • " r -r. '", *^PP"^'t'«". to tlie Government. Some bf the leaders ; Son of n nnr;^" " 1 '' '" '^^^hcr object, together with the abolition of debts, the (li\ ision ol property, and a ro-union witli Great Britain," &c. the State of Massachusetts which was so extensive as, in many places, to pre- vent the ad niinist ration of justice, by driving the judges from their seats, and shutting up the court houses. And it is recorded of one of the judges, who happened to be something of a '' military chieftain" too, that he marched into his court at the head of some hundreds of the people who stood by the Go- vernment, in the face of a larger body of the rebels assembled to prevent him from going on with his business, and used this memorable expression, on taking his seat, that " he would live a judge, or die a general." Gentlemen ma^ rest assured that the people of the Southern slave-holding States estimate this vaunted protection to our slave interest, so far as it is regarded as furnishing us any peculiar safeguard, unconnected -with the general blessings of union, as of very little wortii. I expect there is not a Southern man within the sound of my voice who will not bear me out in the expression of the opinion, that there is no people on earth who live in less apprehension from ^'domestic violence" than the people of the South. In support of this opinion, I beg leave to read a passage from a work which contains an able, comprehensive, and philosopical analysis of all those questions of slavery, colonization, abolition, &c. which 1 would most earnestly and respectfully request our Northern friends to peruse in a candid and dis- passionate temper. If they will do so, I think they will at least be convinced that there is no occasion fur them to suffer so much kind and anxious solici- tude for our safety, or the comfort of our slaves. I read from Professor Dews' Review of the Debate in the Virginia Legisla- ture, in '31, '32: " We believe there was not a single citizen in Virginia who felt any alarm from the negroes previous to the Southampton tragedy; and we believe, at this moment, there are very few who feel the slightest apprehension. We liavc no doubt, paradoxical as it may seem to some, but that the population of our slave-holding country enjoys as much or more conscious security than any other people on the face of the globe- You will find, throughout the whole slave-holding portion of Virginia, and we believe it is the same in the Southern States generally, that the houses are scarcely ever fastened at night, so as to be completely inaccessible to those without, except in the towns. This simple fact is demonslralion complete of the conscious security of our citizens, and their great confidence in the fidelity of the blacks." The onlj' well-grouiKled cause of apprehension that we have proceeds from the perpetual teasing interference of deluded, but, I daresay, well-disposed fanatics, who infest our country with homilies about colonization, abolition, and emancipation. Sir, the only protection we have ever required, or proba- bly ever will require, on this subject, is to " let us alone," and we will leave the entire benefit of the constitutional provision now under consideration, to our brethren of the North, as a security against domestic violence from their la- borers, whom this tariffsystem, if carried out and persevered in, will grind down, ultimately, to the point of resistance here, as well as in England, from which it is borrowed, where the starving operatives in the manufactories are almost daily found lifting their hands against their employers, committing acts of law- less outrage and desperation, and having to be dispersed by the bayonets of the military. But this protection to us is alleged to be so peculiar and important tliat it is made the pretext for sustaining a system which, it would seem to be assumed by gentlemen on both sides, is almost exclusively injurious to the slave labor of the South, and beneficial to that of the North, but which, in my opinion, acts injuriously to the labor and industry of the country every where, thougli not in an equal degree. But, with these apparently avowed effects, it is asked that' this unjust and unequal system shall be continued; that the labor of the North, by means of burdens on the slave labor of the South, may be lifted above its natural eleva- tion in all other countries, so that the North may have no occasion for consti- tutional protection against " domestic violence," while we shall be compelled to reduce the comfort of our slaves, by reason of the diminished proht of slave labor, to the lowest point of depression, and thus ihe danger of " domr«tir vio- 10 lence" increased? and we are to be comforted and pacified with the asGui'ance that protection, thus rendered necessary, is secured to us by the constitution. Such is the character of the mild and beneficent protection for which we are to be persuaded not to act upon this matter at this time, lest one of the Southern States, vvhicli is not sufiicicntly sensible of its value, and has be- come refractory, should have a triumph, and this Government should lose so favorable an opportunity of manifesting its energy, by sending the army, the navy, and the militia " to sweep from the face of the earth the high- minded, gallant, and talented representatives of that State on this floor;" "to make all her rivers run red with blood, and to exterminate one-half her pre- sent population;" and this spectacle is thus almost invoked by one gentleman in language which "Danton, Marat, and Robespierre might blush to own;" and by another, who, in a sneering tone, says that he wants to see this peace^ able struggle; and, with heartless irony and derision, urges the adoption of his motion, in order that the authorities of South Carolina and of this Government may have an opportunity of showing the peaceful character of their measures-. 3. The third source of protection to the slave interest of the South is fur* nished by the standing army and navy, on the score of which we ought to ac* quiesce in the protection ot domestic manufactures. And does the North derive no benefit from the army and navy.** Is it for the South to be reproached with the expense of keeping up the army and navy? It has been a standing reproach against us that we were not willing to consent to a sutficiently large force being kept up. The State of Virginia gave very strong evidence other indisposition to have a standing army, and that she did not want any such protection. One of the amendments proposed by her Con- vention, at the time of the adoption of the constitution was, " that no stand- ing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two-thirds of the members present in both Houses." The pre- sent army is a mere skeleton, and the navy is inconsiderable in point of strength, though it has attracted universal favor by its valor and achieve- ments. But what are they.^ Not raised or kept up, certainly, for the purpose of giving protection to the slave interest of the South; they are the fruits of the " second war of independence," as it has been called, and which certainly did much to establish our national character abroad. This was a Southern war, waged for the protection- of Northern interests: for " Free trade and sailors' rights." And what have we got? Restricted trade, and our shippuig and commercial interests heavily burdened. And now the army and navy, which is kept up in case of future national emergencies, and which, in all quarters, has been assented to in consequence of the experience of the want of such establishments at the commencement of the war, is to be charged to the Southern States, and to constitute a reason for subjecting their industry to permanent and unequal taxation. And what is to be done with them now? This army and navy is to be employed to crush one of the Southern States — to make "all her rivers run red with the blood" of her gallant people; and this for the mere purpose of proving the strength of this Government, and illustrating the value of the Union. This is, indeed, protection: " but it is such protection as vultures give to lambs, covering and devouring them," Let me not be misunderstood, I am not either the advocate or apologist of the proceedings of South Carolina. I do not believe in her doctrine of State interposition. Far from it. I believe it false in theory, and that in practice it nmst be disastrous, inevitably ending in force or separation, and perhaps both. The measures that have been adopted there, are, in my esti- mation, rash, precipitate, and unconstitutional. The citizens of these States cannot, 1 think, be justitied in resisting the regular and lawful authority of this Government by any law or ordinance of the State, so long as the State itsell remains a member of the Union, And this Government has no discre- tion but to go on and execute the laws which are sanctioned by all its consti- tuted authorities. Whenever I am called uptm to act on that question, painful astheduty may 11 be, if the attitude now assumed by South Carolina be persevered in, or should be assumed by any other State— as a member of this House, as a Representa- tive of the State of Virginia, I shall feel impelled by the duty I owe to the constitution which I have sworn to support, to give my sanction to any safe, prudent, and constitutional measure, to enable this Government to execute its laws, taking care to adopt such only as are necessary and best calculated to avoid collision. I have ever, in public and in private, cherished a disposition to acquiesce in the constitutionally expressed will of the majority, so long as that acquiescence does not sink into submission, to deliberate, palpable, and dangerous injustice and oppression. In a Government of opinion, such as ours, covering so vast an extent of territory, it is vain to expect that there will not arise great diversity of sentiment, and much collision of hostile and irreconcilable interests. I am too deeply sensible of the infirmity of my own judgment, as well as the intrinsic difficulty and delicacy of many of the ques- tions on which these differences of opinion and collisions of interests are ma- iiifestet!, to countenance the bigotry which would denounce all who differ with me as seduced by folly or actuated by knavery. I am not, therefore, prepared to buckle on my armor for the purpose of resistmg every measure which I deem unauthorized, and which operates injuriously to my interests. But there are limits to the respect which is due to the controlling authority of a majority: " to be rightful, it must be just." It must be exercised iri a spirit of moderation and forbearance. Constitutional Governments are in- tended to restrain majorities from oppressing minorities. When these bar- riers are broken down, and the will of the majority is displayed in infractions of the charter, and in perverting the powers conferred upon it to the purpose of oppression, it will be time even for temperate men to begin to inquire whether " the mask of freedom," whicli will then be worn, '•' is any better than the bold un- covered front of tyranny." I speak in no other tone than that in which Virginia claimed her rights when she adopted the constitution; when she '^declared and made known that the powers granted under the constitution, being deriv- ed from the people of the UnitedjStates, may be resumed by them whenever the same shall be perverted to their injury and oppression." And whenever abuses and usurpations are thus persevered in, and a deaf ear is turned to the voice of supplication for justice and forbearance, secession will become nof only a risht, but a sacred duty. And, in the language of Mr. Madison, "■ it cannot be doubted that a ^inde member of the Union, in the ex- tremity supposed, but in that only, would nave a right, as an extra and ultra constitutional right," " to appeal from the cancelled obligations of the constitu- tional compact to original rights and the law of self-preservation."* When that attitude is assumed by any State or number of States, what will be the relations, the rights, povyers and duties of the co-States and of this Go- vernment, towards the seceding State or States, are queries I will not go into further than to say, that there will be presented a question of peace or war between sovereignties, or Governments representing sovereignties; a ques- tion to be decided, as all such questions must be, in reference to all the cir- cumstances of the case when presented, and the consequences which will fol- low the decision; and to be settled only by acquiescence, negotiation, or public war. It is urged, however, by the gentleman from Massachusetts, and probably by other gentlemen, that we ought not to pass any bill, no matter how unob- jectionable in itself; because that would be to confirm the South Carolina ordinance — because, as I understood the argument, the operation of the ordi- nance will be obviated by the passage of any bill whatever. This is a con- sideration which will recommend to me the passage of almost any bill which does not aggravate the inequality and injustice of the present tariff, of 1832, which I think it would not be easy to do. I would rejoice at having an op- portunity, by such (if there be no other) peaceable means, to postpone a con- * The State, of course, must judge for herself of the existence of the extremity; has a right so to judge, and to act upon tliat judgment, as a sovereign State. 12 jlict, Nvhicli I am so solicitous to prevent now. I trust, however, that we shall not be satisfied with this. If we cannot agree to pass the bill reported by the Committee of Ways and Means, let us not give up the eftbrt to do some- thing material tovv'ards restoring the tranquillity of the country. Let us rea- son together, one with another, as men — as brethren — as statesmen — and not as mere politicians, or partisans, and we surely can agree on something, in a spirit of brotherly love, an'l by making mutual sacrifices of opinion and of interests, which will compose this great strife, now and forever. But the great argument against the passage of this bill is, that South Caro- lina is in a menacing attitude; that it v/oiiid be to yield to unmanly fear to accede to her demands; that it would be to give up all she asks; and that it is unbecoming the dignity of the Government for us to comply with demands made by South Carolina, with arms in her hands. I do not design to add. any thing to what has been already so ably and eloquently said by the gentle- men from New York and Georgia, (Messrs. Veuplanck and Wilde,) in answer to this argument. I think, on examination, it will be Jound that all tiie declamation — all the denunciation — all the appeals to passion, to prejudice, and to pride — which have been so freely poured forth from all quarters, in support of tliis argu- ment, have no foundation in fact. And, if it were not impossible to suppose that honorable gentlemen here, at such a time, could be influenced by such motives, it would be difficult to resist the belief that they were used as mere pretexts, to inflame and mislead — to deceive ourselves and others. Does this bill satisfy the demands of South Carolina.'' Will its passage prostrate the Government at her feet, by yielding to her menaces every thing she asks? What says the address of the Convention of South Carolina to the people of the United States.^ — " But we arc willing to make a large offering to preserve the Union, and, with a distinct declaration that it is a con- cession on our part, we will consent that the same rate of duty may be im- posed upon the protected articles that shall be imposed upon the unprotected; provided tliat no more revenue be raised than is necessary to meet the demands of the Government for constitutional purposes; and provided, also, that a duly substantially uniform be imposed on all foreign imports." This is her ultimatum, lofty enough, and somewhat arrogant. Here is what she asks; with which, as a concession, but with which alone, slip will bo cotistied. Now, doe« (he bill answer and satisfy this di^niand? Does it meet, or approach even an equalization of duties upon protected and unprotected articles.^ Or are the rates of duty on all foreign imports substantially uniform.^ No, nothmg like it. This bill has been framed by gentlemen on the Committee of Ways ancl Means lioin all parts of the Union, as a compromise of the controversy in which neither side has demanded, or had a right to demand, every thing to be yielded to it, which it thouglit strict justice would give. The rates of duty proposed by it vary on the protected and unprotected articles widely, an