.sw u:t:.?^oo,o ^ESs HOLUNGER pH 8.5 MILL RUN F3-1343 DEFENCE OF MASSACHUSETTS. SPEECHES or HON. CHARLES SUMNER, ON THE BOSTON MEMORIAL FOB, THE REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL, AND IN REPLY TO MESSRS. JONES OF TENNESSEE, BUTLER OF SOUTH CAROLINA, AND MASON OF VIRGINIA. .'■^\ IN SENATE OF UNITED STATES, JUNE 26 AND S8, 18S4. WASHINGTON, D. C. BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINTERS. 1854. jflE ' WBRHMNC Mi « m SPEECHES. [IN SENATE.— On tbe 22d June, Mr. Rock- well, of Massachusetts, presented the following Memorial, stating that it was signed by twenty- nine hundred persons, chiefly of Boston, and moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary : " To the Ilonorable the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress asembled : The un- dersigned, men of MassachiiscUs, ask for the repeal of the Act of Congress of 1850, known as the FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL." On June 26, a debate ensued, on the motion to refer the memorial, in which Mr. Jones of Ten- nessee, Mr. Rockwell of Massachusetts, and then again Mr. Jones, took part At this stage, Mr. SUMNER took the floor, and spoke as follows : ] Mr. President : I begin by answering the in- terrogatory propounded by the Senator from Ten- nessee, [Mr. Jones.] He asks, "Can any one sup- pose that, if the Fugitive Slave Act be repealed, this Union can exist?" To which I reply at once, that if the Union be in any way dependent on an act — I cannot call it a law — so revolting in every regard as that to which he refers, then it ought not to exist. To much else that has fallen from that Senator I do not desire to reply. He has discussed at length matters already han- dled again and again in the protracted debates of this session. Like the excited hero of Mace- donia, he has renewed past conflicts, " And thrice ho routed all his foes, And thrice he slew the slain." Of what the Senator has said on the relations of Senators, North and South, of a particular party, it is not my province to speak. And yet I cannot turn from it without expressing, at least, a single aspiration, that men from the North, whether "Whigs or Democrats, will neither be cajoled or driven by any temptation, or lash, from the sup- port of those principles of freedom which are in- separable from the true honor and welfare of the country. At last, I ti-ust, there will be a back- bone in the North. My colleague has already remarked, that this memorial proceeds from persons of whom many were open supporters of the alleged Compromises of 1850, including even the odious Fugitive Slave Bill. I have looked over the long list, and, so far as I can judge, find this to be true. And, in vay opinion, the change shown by these men is typi- cal of the change in the community of which they constitute a prominent part. Once the positive upholders of the Fugitive Slave BID, they now demand its unconditional repeal. There is another circumstance worthy of espe- cial remark. This memorial proceeds mainly from persons connected with trade and commerce. Now, it is a fact too well known in the history of England, and of our own country, that these per- sons, while often justly distinguished by their individual charities and munificence, have been lukewarm in their opposition to slavery. Twice in English history the "mercantile interest" frowned upon the endeavors to suppress the atroci- ty of Algerine slavery ; steadfastly in England it sought to bafile Wilberforcc's great effort for the abolition of the African slave trade ; and, at the formation of our own Constitution, it stipulated a sordid compromise, by which this same detest- ed. Heaven-defying traffic, was saved for twenty years from American judgment. But now it is all changed — at least in Boston. The represent- atives of the "mercantile interest" place them- selves in the front of the new movement against slavery, and, by their explicit memorial, call for the abatement of a grievance which they have recently bitterly felt in Boston. Mr. President, this memorial is interesting to me, first, as it asks a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and secondly, as it comes from Massachu- setts. That repeal I shall be glad at any time, now and hereafter, as in times past, to sustain by vote and argument; and I trust never to fail in any just regard for the sentiments or interests' of Massachusetts. With these few remarks, I would gladly close. But there has been an arraignment here to-day, both of myself and of the Common- wealth which I represent. To all that has been said of myself or the Commonwealth — so far as it is an impeachment of either — so far as it subjects either to any just censure, I plead open- ly, for myself and for Massachusetts, " not guilty." But pardon me, if I do not submit to be tried by the Senate, fresh from the injustice of the Ne- braska Bill. In the language of the common law I put myself upon "God and the country," ftiid clftiin the same trial for my honored Com- manweallh. So far as the arraignment touches me person- ally, I hardly (.■arc to speak. It is true thatl have not hesitated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere, and unequivocal condemnation of the Fugitive Slave Bill. 1 have denounced it as at once a violation of the law of God, and of the Constitution of the United States. In violation of the t'unstitution, it commits the great question of luunau freedom — than vhich none is more sacred in the law — ntjt to a solemn trial, but to summary i)rocecdinps. It commits this question — not to one of the high tribunals of the land — biit to the unaided judgment of a single petty magistrate. It commits this (piestion to a magistrate, ap- pointed, not by the President with the consent of the Senate, but by the court ; holding his office, not during good behaviour, but merely during the will of the court; and receiving, not a regu- lar salary, but fees according to each individual case. It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, by afliilavits, without the sanction of cross-ex- amination. It denies the writ of habeas corpus, ever known as the palladium of the citizen. Contrary to the declared purposes of the fra- mers of the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back " at the public expense." Adding meanness to the violation of the Con- stitution, it bribes the commissioner by a double fee to pronounce against freedom. If he dooms a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars ; but, saving him to freedom, his dole is five dollars. But this is not all. On two other capital g:o'.uid.s do T oppose this act as unconstitutional ; first, as it is an assumption by Congress of powers not deletrivted by the Constitution, and in dero- gdtiou of the rights of the States ; and, second- ly, as it takes away that essential birthright of the citizen, trial by jury, in a question of personal liberty and a suit at common law. Thus obnox- ious, I have regarded it as un enactment totally devoid of all constitutional obligation, as it is clearly devoid of all moral, while it is disgrace- ful to the country and the age. And, sir, I have hoped and labored for the creation of such a Public O[jinion, firm, enlightened, and generous, ?.s should render the act practically inoj)erative, (uid should press, without ceasing, upon Congress for its rcjjLMl. For all that I have said on this head, I have no regrets or apologies ; but rather joy. and .satisfaction. Glad 1 am iu having said fl; Ighid I am now iu the opj)ortunity of affirming it all anew. Thus much for myself. In response for Massachusetts, there arc other things. Something curely must be pardoned to hor history. In Massachusetts stands Hoston. In Loslon stands Fancuil llall, where, throughout t?if-. porils which prcced.'d the Ilcvolution, our p-Jriot fathers assembled iu vdw tlieinselves to freedom. Here, in those days, spoke .lames Otis, fall of the tlKjught that " the people's .sufci.y is the law of God." Here, also, spoke Jame.s Warren, Inspired by the sentiment that " death with all its tortures is preferable to slavery." 'And here, also, thundered John Adams, fervid with the convic- tion tliat " consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust." Not far from this venerable hall — betAveen this temple of freedom and the very court-house, to which the Senator [Mr. JoMEs] has referred — is the street where, in 1770, the first blood was spilt in conflict between Brit- sh troops and American citizens, and among the victims was one of that African race which you so much despise. Almost within sight is Bun- ker Hill : further off, Lexington and Concord. Amidst these scenes, a Slave-ITunter from Vir- ginia appears, and the disgusting rites begin by which a fellow-man is to be doomed to bondage. Sir, can you wonder that the people were moved ? ■' Who can bo wise, amazed, temperate and fuiious, Loyal and neutral, in a moment ? No man." It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty executed, and that one of its servants perished in the effort. On these grounds the Senator from Tennessee charges Boston with fanaticisra. I ex- press no opinion on the conduct of individuals ; i)ut I do say, that the fanaticism which the Sena- tor condemns, is not new in Boston. It^is the same which opposed the execution of the Stamp Act, and finally secured its repeal. It is the same which opposed tlie Tea Tax. It is the fanaticism which finally triumphed on Bunker Hill. The Senator says that Boston is filled with traitors. That charge is not new. Boston, of old, was the home of Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now are those who are truly animated by the spirit of the American Revolution. In condemning them, in condemning Massachusetts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give a proper con- clusion to the utterance on this floor, that the Declaration of Independence is " a self-evident lie." Here I might leave the imputations on Massa- chusetts. But the case is stronger yet. I have referred to the Stamp Act. The parallel is of such aptness and imj)ortance, that, though on a former occasion I presented it to the Senate, I cannot forbear from pressing it again. As the precise character of this act may not be familiar, allow me to remind the Senate, that it was an attempt to draw money from the Colonies through a stamp tax, while the determination of certain questions of forfeiture under the statute was del- egated, not to the courts of common law, but to courts of admiralty, without trial by jury. This act was denounced in the Colonies at once on its jjassage, as contrary to the British Constitution, on two princijial grounds, identical in character with the two chief grounds on which the Slavo Act is now declared to be unconstitutional ; first, as an assumption by Parliament of jiowers not belonging to it, and an infraction of rights so- cured to the ('olonics ; and, secondly, as a denial of trial by jury in certain cases of properly. On these grounds the Stamp Act was held to bo an outrage. The Colonies were iiroused against it. Vir- ginia first declared herself by solemn resolutions, which the timid thought " treasonable; " yes, sir, "treasonable," even as that word is now applied to recent manifestations of opinion in Boston — even to the memorial of her twenty-nine hun- dred merchants. But these '' treasonable " reso- lutions soon found a response. New York fol- lowed. Massachusetts came next. In an address from the Legislature to the Governor, the true ground of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident with the two radical objections to the Slave Act, are clearly set forth, with the following pregnant conclusion : " We deeply regret that the Parliament has ' seen fit to pass such an act as the Stamp Act; 'we flatter ourselves that the hardships of it will ' shortly appear to them in such a light as shall ' induce them, in their wisdom, to repeal it ; in ' the mean time, we must beg your Excellency to ex- ' citse us from doing anything to assist in the execii- ' tion of it." The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by the Tories of that day, precisely as the uncon- stitutional Slave Act has been welcomed by im- perious numbers among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant Governor and judge in Massa- chusetts, wrote to Ministers in England : " The Stamp Act is received with as much de- ' cency as could be expected. It leaves no room ' for evasion, and will execute itself." Like the judges of our day, in charges to grand juries, he resolutely vindicated the act, and ad- monished " the jurors and the people " to obey. Like Governors in our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature of Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. "I shall not," says this British Governor, " enter into any disquisition of ' the policy of the act. I have only to say it is an ' act of the Parliament of Great Britain." Like marshals of our day, the officers of the customs are recorded as having made " application for a ' military force to assist them in the execution of ' their duty." The elaborate answer of Massa- chusetts — a paper which is one of the corner- stones of our history — drawn by Samuel Adams, was pronounced "the ravings of a parcel of wild enthusiasts," even as recent proceedings in Bos- ton, resulting in the memorial before you, have been characterized on this floor. Was I not right in adducing this parallel? The country was aroused against the execution of the act. And here Boston took the lead. In formal instructions to her Representatives, adopt- ed unanimously in town meeting at Faneuil Hall, the following rule of conduct was prescribed : " We, therefore, think it our indispensable du- ' ty, in justice to ourselves and posterity, as it is ' our undoubted privilege, in the most open and ' unreserved, but decent and respectful terms, to ' declare our greatest dissatisfaction with this ' law. And we think it incumbent upon you by no ' means to join in any public measures for counte- ' nancing and assisting in the execution of the same. ' But to use your best endeavors in the General ' Assembly to have the inherent inalienable rights ' of the people of this province asserted, and vin- ' dicated, and left upon the public record, that ' posterity may never have reason to charge the ' present times with the guilt of tamely giving ' them away." The opposition spread and deepened, and one of its natural tendencies was to outbreak and violence. On one occasion in Boston it shoved itself in the lawlessness of a mob, of a most for- midable character, even as is now charged. Lib- erty, in her struggles, is too often driven to force. But the town, at a public meeting in Faneuil Hall, called without delay, on the motion of the opponents of the Stamp Act, with James Otis as chairman, condemned the outrage. Eager in hostility to the execution of the act, Boston cherished municipal order, and constantly dis- countenanced all tumult, violence, and illegal proceedings. On these two grounds she then stood; and her position was widely recognised. In reply, March 27, 17G6, to an address from the inhabitants of Plymouth, her own consciousness of duty done is thus expressed : " If the inhabitants of Boston have taken the ' legal and icarrantable measures to prevent that mis- ' fortune of all others the most to be dreaded, the ez- ' ecution of the Stamp Act, and, as a necessary ' means of preventing it, have made any spirited ' applications for opening the custom houses and ' courts of justice ; if, at the same time, they have ' borne their testimony against outrageous tumults ' a?}d illegal proceedings, and given any example of ' the love of peace and good order, next to the ' consciousness of having done their duty is the ' satisfaction of meeting with the approbation of ' any of their fellow-countrymen." Thus was the Stamp Act annulled, even before its actual repeal, which was pressed with assidu- ity, by petition and remonstrance, on the next meeting of Parliament. Among the potent influ- ences was the entire concurrence of the mer- chants, and especially a remonstrance against the Stamp Act by the merchants of New York — like that now made against the Slave Act by the merchants of Boston. Some asked at first only for its modification. Even James Otis began with this moderate desire. The King himself showed a disposition to yield to this extent. But Franklin, who was then in England, when asked whether the Colonies would su\)mit to the act, if mitigated in certain particulars, replied : " No, never, unless compelled by force of arms." Then it was, that the great Commoner, William Pitt, in an ever-memorable speech, uttered words which fitly belong to this occasion. He said: " Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to ' sedition in America. They have spoken their ' sentiments with freedom against this unhappy ' act, and that freedom has become their crime. ' Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech in this ' House imputed as a crime. But the imputation ' shall not discourage me. It is a liberty I mean ' to exercise. No gentleman ought to be afraid ' to exercise it. It is a liberty by which the gen- ' tleman who calumniates it might and ought to ' have profited. The gentleman tells us America ' is obstinate ; America is almost in open rebel- ' lion. I rejoice that America has resisted. Three ' millions ofslaves, so dead to all the feelings of lib- ' erty as voluntarily to submit to be slaves, would ' have been fit instruments to make slaves of all ' the rest. I would not debate a particular point ' of law with the gentleman ; but I draw my d ' ideas of freedom from the vital powers of the ' British Constitution — not from the crude and ' f«llacLou5 notions too much relied upon, as if we ' were but in the morning of liberty. I can ac- ' knowledge no veneration for any procedure, law, ' or ordinance, that is repugnant to reason and ' the first elements of our Constitution. The ' Americans have been wronged. They have been ' driven to madness. Upon the whole, I will beg ' leave to tell the House what is really my opin- ' ion. It is, that the Stamp Act be repealed, ab- ' solutely, totally, and immediately, and that the ' reason for the repeal be assigned, because it was ' founded on an erroneous principle." Thus spoke this great orator, at the time tute- lary guardian of American liberty. He was not unheeded. Within less than a year from its ori- ginal passage, the Stamp Act — assailed as uncon- stitutional on the precise grounds which we now occupy in assailing the Slave Act- — was driven from the statute-book. But, sir, the Stamp Act was, at most, an in- fringement of civil liberty only, not of personal liberty. It touched questions of property only, but not the personal liberty of any man. Under it, no freeman could be seized as a slave. There was an unjust tax of a few pence, with the chances of amercement by a single judge without jury ; but by this statute no person could be de- prived of that vital right of all, which is to other rights as the soul to the body — the right of a man to himself. As liberty is more than property, us man is above the beasts that perish, as heaven is higher than earth, so are the rights assailed by an American Congress above those once assailed by the British Parliament ; and just in this propor- tion must be our condemnation of the Slave Act by the side of the Stamp Act. And this will yet be declared by history. I call upon you, then, to receive the memorial, and hearken to its prayer. All other memorials asking for changes in existing legislation are treated with respect, promptly referred, and acted upon. This should not be an exception. The memorial simply asks the repeal of an obnoxious statute, which is entirely within the competency of Congress. It proceeds from a large number of respectable citizens whoso autograph signatures are attached. It is brief and respectful in form ; and, in its very brevity, shows that spirit of free- dom which should awaken a generous response. In refusing to receive it or refer it, according to the usage of the Senate, or in treating it with any indignity, you offer an affront, not only to these numerous petitioners, but also to the great right of petition, which is here never more sacred than when exercised in behalf of freedom against an obnoxious statute. Permit me to add, that by this course you provoke the very spirit which you would repress. There is a certain plant which is said to grow when trodden upon. It remains to be seen if the Boston i^etitioners have not some- thing of this quality. But this I know, sir, that the Slave Act, like vice, is of so hideous a mien, that " to be hated it needs only to be seen ; " and the occurrences of this day will make it visilde and palpable to the people in new forms of in- justice. SECOND SPEECH. [Mr. SUMNER was followed in the debate, by Mr. Butler of South Carolina, Mr. Mason of Virginia, Mr. Pettit of Indiana, Mr. Dixon of Kentucky, Mr. Mallory of Florida, and Mr. Clay of Alabama, and, on the 28th June, obtained the floor, and spoke as follows :] Mr. President : Since I had the honor of ad- dressing the Senate two days ago, various Sena- tors have spoken. Among these, several have alluded to me in terms clearly beyond the sanc- tions of parliamentary debate. Of this I make no comjjlaint, though, for the honor of the Senate at least, it were well that it were otherwise. If to them it seems fit, courteous, parliamentary, " to unpack the heart with words, And fall a cursing, like a very drab, A scullion," I will not interfere with the enjoyment which they find in such exposure of themselves. They have certainly given us a taste of their characters. Two of them, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler] who sits immediately before me, and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] who sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their heads are amply crowned by time. They did not speak from any ebuUiiion of youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. It is melancholy to believe that, in this debate, they showed them- selves as they are. It were charitable to believe that they are in reality better than they sliowed themselves. I think, sir, that I am not the only person on this floor, who, in lately listening to these two self-confident champions of the peculiar fanaticism of the South, was reminded of the striking words by Jefferson, picturing the influence of slaverj', where he says, " The whole commerce between ' master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the ' most boisterous passions, the most unremitting ' despotism on the one part, and degrading sub- ' mission on the other. Our children see this, and ' learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative ani- ' mal. The parent storms. The child looks on, ' catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the ' same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives ' loose to his worst passions, and, thus nursed, ed- ' ucated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot ' but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. ' The man must he a prodigy who can retain his ' manners and morals nndqwaved bi/ such circiim- ' stances." Nobody who witnessed the Senator from South Carolina or tlie Senator from Vir- ginia in this debate will place either of them among the "prodigies " described by Jefferson. As they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seem- ed to them, in the characteristic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well stocked with slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. Sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these things. It is not according to my nature. Bear witness, that I do it only in just self-defence against the unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. And in doing it, I desire to warn cer- tain Senators, that if they expect, by any ardor of menace or by any tyrannical frown, to shake my fixed resolve, they expect a vain thing. There was, perhaps, little that fell from these two champions, as the fit was on, which deserves reply. Certainly not the hard words they used so readily and congenially. The veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] complained that I had characterized one of his " constituents," a person who went all the way from Virginia to Boston in pursuit of a slave, as a Slave-Hunter. Sir, I choose to call things by their right names. White I call white, and black I call black. And where a person degrades himself to the work of chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspira- tion of freedom and the guidance of the north star, has sought a freeman's home far away from the cofQe and the chain, that person, whomsoever he may be, I call a Slave-Hunter. If the Senator from Virginia, who professes nicety of speech, will give me any term which more precisely de- scribes such a person, I will use it. Until then I shall continue to use the language which seems to me so apt. But this very sensibility of the veteran Senator at a just term, which truly de- picts an odious character, shows a shame in which I exult. It was said by one of the philos- ophers of antiquity, that the blush is a sign of virtue; and permit me to add, that, in this vio- lent sensibility, I recognise a blush mantling the cheek of the Senator, which even his plantation manners cannot conceal. And the venerable Senator from South Caro- lina, too, [Mr. Butler;] he has betraj-ed his sensibility. Here let me say that this Senator knows well that I always listen with peculiar pleasure to his racy and exuberant speech, as it gurgles forth — sometimes tinctured by generous ideas — except when, forgetful of history, and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend that which is obviously indefensible. This Senator was disturbed, when to his inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether I would join in returning a fellow-man to slavery, I exclaimed, " Is thy servant a dng, that he should do this thing?" In fitful phrases, which seemed to come from the unconscious ex- citement so common with the Senator, he shot forth various cries about " dogs ; " and, among other things, asked if there was any " dog " in 8 the Constitution ? The Senator did not seem to bear in mind, tlirongh the heady currents of that moment, that, by the false interpretation he has given to the Constitution, he has helped to nur- ture there a whole kennel of Carolina blood- hounds, trained, with savage jaws and insatiable sceut, fur the hunt of flying bondmen. No, sir. I do not believe that there is any " kennel of bloodhounds," or even any " dog," in the Con- stitution of the United States. But, Mr. President, since the brief response which I made to the inquiry of the Senator, and which leaped unconsciously to m}- lips, has drawn upon me various attacks, all marked by grossness of language and manner; since I have been charged with openly declaring my purpose to vi- olate the Constitution, and to break the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shall be par- doned for showing simply how a few plain words will put all this down. The authentic report in the Globe shows what was actually said. The report in the Sentinel is substantially the same ; and one of the New York papers, which has been put into my hands since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under its telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial accuracy, though it omits the personal individual appeal addressed to me by the Senator, and which is preserved in the Globe. Here is the New York report: " Mr. BcTLER. I would like to ask the Senator, ' if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, ' would Massachusetts execute the constitutional ' requirements, and send back to the South the ' absconding slaves? " Mr. ScMNER. Do you ask if I would send back ' a slave? " Mr. Butler. Why, yes. " Mr. Sumner. " Is thy servant a dog, that he ' should do this thing?" To any candid mind, either of these reports ren- ders anything further superfluous. But the Sen- ators who have been so swift in misrepresenta- tion deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done. Now, sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the authoritative words of Andrew Jackson, in his memorable veto, in 1832, of the Bank of the Uni- ted States. To his course, at that critical time, were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court and /iw oa(h to support the Constitution. Here is his triumphant reply : " If tbc opinion of the Supreme Court eovers 'the whole ground of this act, it ought not to 'control the co-ordinate authorities of this Gov- 'ernment. The Congress, the Executive, and the 'Court, must each for itself be guided by its own 'opinion of the Constitution. Each public ojjirer, • who lakes an oath to sujiport the Coniftitution,' ■ twears that he uiU tupport it an he tmdersland* it, 'and not as it is under.stood b)/ others. It is as much the duty of the House of Repre.'^entatives, • of tiie Senate, and of the President, to decide 'upon the constitutionality of any bill or rcsolu- ' tion, wliich may be presented to them for pas- ' sage or approval, as it is of the supreme judges ' when it may be brought before them for judicial 'decision. The authority of the Supremo Court mast not, therefore, be permitted to control the ' Congress or the Executive, when acting in their ' legiiilative capacities, but to have only such in- ' fluence as the force of their reasoning may de- ' serve." Mark these words, and let them sink into your minds. " Each public oflBcer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it ia understood by others." Yes, sir, as hk under- stands IT, and not as it is understood by others. Does any Senator here dissent from this rule ? Does the Senator from Virginia? Does the Sen- ator from South Carolina? [Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no reply.] At all events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable ; in har- mony, too, let me assert, with that libertj'- which scorns the dogma of passive obedience, and asserts the inestimable right of private judgment, wheth- er in religion or politics. In swearing to support the Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to support it as t/ou understand it. Oh, no, sir. Or as the Senator from Virginia un- derstands it. Oh, no, sir. Or as the Senator from South Carolina understands it, with a ken- nel of bloodhounds; or, at least, a "dog" in it, " pawing to get free its hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to sup- port the Constitution as I understand it ; nor more, nor less. Now, I will not occupy your time, nor am I so disposed at this moment, nor does the occasion require it, by entering upon any minute criticism of the clai^e in the Constitution touching the surrender of " fugitives from labor." A few words only are needful. Assuming, sir, in the face of commanding rules of interpretation, all leaning towards freedom, that in the evasive lan- guage of this clause, paltering in a double sense, the words employed can be judicially regarded as justly ap[ilicablc to fugitive slaves, which, as you ought to know, sir, is often most strenuous- ly and conscientiously denied — thus sjjonging the whole clause out of existence, except as a provision for the return of persons actually bound by lawful contract, but on which I now express no opinion ; assuming, I say, this interpretation, so hostile to freedom, and derogatory to the members of the Federal Convention, who solemn- ly declared that they would not yield any sanc- tion to slavery, or admit into the Constitution the idea of property in man ; assuming, I repeat, an interpretation which every ])rinciple of the common law, claimed by our fathers as their birthright, must disown ; admitting, for the mo- ment only, and with shame, that the Constitu- tion of the United States has any words, which, in any legal intendment, can constrain fugitive slaves, then I desire to say, that, as I understand the Constitution, this clause does not impose upon mt, as a Senator or citizen, any obligation to take i)art, , shows her sensibility on this sulyect. A Boston ship lunl brought home two negroes, seixcd on the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke Massachusetts : " The General Couit, conceiving themselves ' bonml by the first oj)portunity to bear witness ' against the heinous and crying sin of inan-steal- ' ing, also to prescribe such timely redress for ' what is past, and tuch a law/or thr/uliirr a.i may ' sufficiently deter all thote belonyivj to u», to have to ' do in such vile and most odious conduct, justly ab- ' horred of all yood and just men, do order that the ' negro interpreter, with others unlawfully taken, ' be, by the first opportunity, at tlie charge of the ' country, ior the j)resent, sent to his native ' country of Guinea, and a letter with him of the ' indignation of the Court thereabout and justice ' thereof" The Colony that could issue this noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it allowed its rocky face to be jjressed by the footsteps of a single slave. But a righteous public opinion early and constantly set its face against slavery. As early as 1701 a vote was entered upon the re- cords of Boston to the following effect : "The Rep- resentatives are desired to promote the cncour.ag- ing the bringing of white servants, and to put a pe- riod to neyroea being .ilavcu." Perhaps, in all history, this is the earliest testimony from any official body against negro slavery, and I thank God that it came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a heavy duty was imposed upon every negro im- ported into the province; in 1712 the importa- tion of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden ; but the general subject of Slavery attracted little attention till the beginning of the controversy, which ended in the Revolution ; when the rights of the blacks were blended by all true patriots with those of the whites. Spar- ing all unnecessary details, suffice it to say, that, as early as 17(3!), one of the courts of Massachu- setts, anticipating, by several years, the renown- ed judgment in Somersett'scase, established with- in its jurisdiction the j)rinciple of emancipation; and, under its touch of magic power, changed a slave into a freeman. Similar decisions followed in other places. In 177G, the whole number of blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over '' hardy " Massachusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as 'one is to sixty-five; while in " slaveholding" I South Carolina the number of negro slaves, at that time, was not far from one hundred thou- ' sand, being nearly one slave for every freeman, ' thus rendering that Colony anything l)Ut "har- I dy." At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of Vorktown had led the way to that peace which I set its seal upon our National Independence, ' Massachusetts, animated by the struggles of the Revolution, and filled by the sentiments of Free- dom, placed in front of her Bill of Rights the emphatic word.?, that "all men are born free and equal," and by this declaration cxtermiinxted every vestige of slaveiy within her borders. ' All hail, then, to Mas^im Iniselts, the just and generous ConimonwcaltL in wiiose behalf I have ' the honor to si)eak. • Thus, sir, does the venerable Senator err when , he [iresumes to vouch Massacliusetts for slavery, ' and to associate this odious institution with the names of her great patriots. ' Mr. ROCKWELL. Will my honorable col- league allow me to send to the Chair, and have read in this coinieclion with his pres<'nt remarks, j n passnge from (Iriiham's History of the United States 7 Mr. Sr.M.N'KF.. I do not know the passage to 11 which my colleague refers, but I welcome any interruption from him. The Secretary read as follows : " Among other subjects of dispute with the ' British Government and its officers, was one ' more creditable to Massachusetts than even her ' magnanimous concern for the liberty of her cit- ' izens and their fellow-colonists. Negro slavery ' still subsisted in every one of the American ' provinces, and the unhappy victims of this yolse ' were rapidly multiplied by the progressive ex- ' tension of the slave trade. Georgia, the young- ' est of all the States, contained already fourteen ' thousand negroes ; and in the course of the ' present year alone, more than six thousand ' were imported into South Carolina. In New ' England, the number of slaves was very insig- ' nificant, and their treatment so mild and hu- ' mane as in some measure to veil from the pub- ' lie eye the iniquity of their bondage. But, the ' recent discussions with regard to liberty and ' the rights of human nature, were calculated to ' awaken in generous minds a juster impression ' of negro slavery ; and during the latter part of ' Governor Bernard's administration, a bill pro- ' hibitory of all traffic in negroes was passed by ' the Massachusetts Assembly. Bernard, however, ' in conformity with his instructions from the ' Crown, refused to affirm this law ; and thus ' opposed himself to the virtue as well as to the ' liberty of the people whom he governed. " On three subsequent occasions, laws abolish- ' ing the slave trade were passed by the same ' Assembly during Hutchinson's administration ; ' but all were in like manner negatived by the ' Governor. And yet it was at this very period, ' when Britain permitted her merchants annually ' to make slaves of more than fifty thousand men, ' and refused to permit her Colonies to decline a ' participation in this injustice, that her orators, ' poets, and statesmen, loudly celebrate the gen- ' erosity of English virtue, in suffering no slaves ' to exist on English ground, and the transcend- ' ent equity of her judicial tribunals in libera- ' ting one negro who had been carried there. ' Though Massachusetts was thus prevented from ' abolishing the slave trade, the relative discus- ' sious that took place were by no means unpro- ' ductive of good. A great amelioration became ' visible in the condition of all the negroes in the ' province ; and most of the proprietors gave lib- ' erty to their slaves. This just action — for such, ' and such only, it dcsei-ves to be termed — has ' obtained hitherto scarcely any notice from man- ' kind, while the subsequent and similar conduct ' of the Quakers in Pennsylvania has been cele- ' brated with warmth and general encomium. So ' capricious is the distribution of fame, and so * much advantage does the reputation of virtue ' derive from alliance with sectarian spirit and ' interest." Mr. SUMNER. I am obliged to my colleague. The extract is in substantial conformity with clear historic truth, which the Senator from South Carolina, in one of his oratorical effluxes, has impeached. But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he attributes to "slaveholding" communities a leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. Here are his exact words, as I find them in the Globe, revised by himself: " Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of ' Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by ' Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from ' whom was it answered ? The answer is found ' in the acts of slaveholding States — anhnis opi- ' busque parati. Yes, sir, the independence of ' America, to maintain republican liberty, was ' won by the arms and treasure, by the patriot- ' ism and good faith of slaveholding communi- ' ties." Mark the language, sir, as emphasized by him- self Surely, the Senator with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska bill, cannot stand here and proclaim "the good- faith of slaveholding communities," except in irony. Yes, sir, in irony. And let me add, that when this Senator presumes to say that American Independence " was won by the arms and treas- ure of slaveholding communities," he speaks either in irony or in ignorance. The question which the veteran Senator from South Carolina here opens, by his vaunt, I have no desire to discuss ; but, since it is presented, I confront it at once. This is not the first time, during my brief service here, that this Senator has sought on this floor to provoke a comparison between slaveholding communities and the free States. Mr. BUTLER, (from his seat.) You cannot quote a single instance in which I have done it. I have always said I thought it was in bad taste, and I have never attempted it. Mr. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always listen to him, and I know whereof I affirm. He has profusely dealt in it. I allude now only to a single occasion. In his speech on the Ne- braska bill, running through two days, it was one of his commonplaces. In that he openly present- ed a contrast between the free States and " slave- holding communities," in certain essential fea- tures of civilization, and directed shafts at Mas- sachusetts, which called to his feet my distin- guished colleague at that time, [Mr. Everett,] and which more than once compelled me to take the floor. And now, sir, the venerable Senator, not rising from his seat and standing openly be- fore the Senate, ventures to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons. Mr. BUTLER. Will the Senator allow me ? Mr. SUMNER. Certainly; I yield the floor to the Senator. Mr. BUTLER. Whenever that speech is read— and I wish the Senator had read it before he commented on it with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm — it will be found that I was particu- lar not to wound the feelings of the Northern people who were sympathizing with us in the great movement to remove odious distinctions. I was careful to say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons ; and when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement assertion of the honorable Senator, he will find that when 1 12 quoted the laws of Massachu!«etts, jiarliculurly one act which I termed the toticjs quolics act, by which every uegro was whipped every time he came into Massachusetts, I quoted them with a view to show, not a contrast between Soutii Car- olina and Massachusetts, but to show that, in the whole of this country, from the beginning to this time — even in my own State, I made uo excep- tion — pulilic opinion had undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same change in Massachusetts, for at one time they did not re- gard this institution of slavery with the same odium that they do at this time. That was the purpose ; and I challenge the Senator as an ora- tor of fairness to look at it, and see if it is not so. Mr. SUMNER. Has the Senator done? Mr. BUTLEIl. I may not be done presently; but that is the purport of that speech. Mr. SUMNER. Will the Senator refer to his own speech ? He now admits that, under the guise of an argument, he did draw attention to •what he evidently regarded an odious law of Mas- sachusetts. And, sir, I did not forget that, in doing this, there was, at the time, an apology which iU-conccaled the sting. But let that jiass. The Senator is strangely oblivious of the statisti- cal contrasts, which he borrowed from the speech of a member of the other House, and which, at his request, were read by a Senator before him on this floor. The Senator, too, is strangely ob- livious of yet another imputation, which, at the very close of his speech, he shot as a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. It is he, then, who is the offender; and uo hardihood of denial can extricate him. For myself, sir, I understand the sensibilities of Senators from slaveholding com- munities, and would not wound them by a super- fluous word. Of slavery I speak stronglj', as I must ; but thus far, even at the expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts, founded on details of figures and facts, which are so ob- vious between the free States and " slaveliolding communities ; " especially have I shunned all al- lusion to South Carolina. But the venerable Senator, to whose discretion that State has in- trusted its interests here, will not allow me to be still. God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina. 1 know well the gallantry of many of her sons. I know the response which she made to the appeal of Boston for union against the Stamp Act^ — the fugitive slave act of that day — by the pen of Christopher Gadsden. And 1 re- member with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her " weakness in having such a number of slaves," though it is to his credit that he rec(jgnised slavery as a " crime." GJancroft's History of United States, vol. .'J, page 42G.) I have no pleasure in dwelling on the hu- miliations of South tJaroIina; I do not desire to exfjosc her sores ; I would not lay bare her na- kedness. But tiie Senator, in his vaunt for "slaveholding communities," has made a claim for slavery which is so incijnsistent with history, and so derogatory to freedom, that I cannot allow it to pass unanswered. This, sir, is not the first time, even during my little experience here, that the same claim has been made on this floor; and this seems more astonishing, because the archives of the country furnish such ample and undoubted materials for its refutation. The question of the comparative contributions of men by different States and sec- tions of the country in the war of the Revolution, was brought forward as early as 1790, in the first Congress under the Constitution, in the animated and protracted debate on the assumption of State debts V)y the Union. On this occation Fisher Ames, a Representative from ilassachusetts, mem- orable for his classic clotjuence, moved a call upon the War Department for the number of men furnished by each State to the Revolutionary ar- mies. This motion, though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small majority. Shortly after- wards, the answer to the call was received from the Department, at that time ander the charge of General Knox. This answer, which is one of the documents of our history, places beyond cavil or criticism the exact contribution in arms of each State. Here it is: (^American Archires.) Statemenl of the numher of troops and militia fur- niahed by the several Slates, for the support of the Revolutionary war, from 1775 to 1783, inclusive. Northern States. New Hampshire Massachusetts Rhode Island Connecticut New York Pennsylvania New Jersey (H B » xi a o s us o ^ .5 5j 3 a 12,496 2,003 67,937 15,155 5^908 4,284 32,039 17,781 25,608 10,727 7,792 3,312 7,357 6,055 14,598 83,092 10,192 39,831 21,093 32,965 16,782 c -5 a O M 7,300 9,500 1,500 3,000 8,750 2,000 2,500 Total 172,496 46,048 218,553 30,950 Southern States. Delaware 2,387 376 2,763 1,000 Maryland 13,912 5,464 19,376 4,000 Virginia 26,672 4,163 30,835 21,880 North Carolina 7,263 2,716 9,969 12,000 Soutli Carolina 5.508 - 5,508 28,000 Georgia 2',679 - 2,679 9,930 Total 58,421 12,719 71,130 70,810 It should be understood that, at this time, there was but little difference in numbers between the population of the Southern States and that of the Northern States. By the census of 1790, the Southern had a jjopulation of 1,956,354; the Northern had a poi)ulation of 1,968,455. But not- withstanding this comp.-irative equality of popu- lation in the two sections, the North furnished vastly more men than the South. Of continental troops, the Southern States fur- nished 58,421 ; the Northern furnished 172,496; making about three men furnished to the conti- nental army by the Northern SU\tes to one from the Southern. Of militia, whose services are authenticated by the War Office, the Southern States furnished 13 12,719 ; the Northern furnished 46,048 ; making nearly four men furnished to the militia by the Northern States to one from the Southern. Of militia, whoso services were not authenti- cated by the War Office, but are set down in the return as conjectural only, we have 76,810 fur- nished by the Southern States, and 30,950 fur- nished by the Northern; making, under this head, more than two men furnished by the Southern to one from the Northern. The chiaf services of the Southern States — for which the venerable Sena- tor now claims so much— it will be observed with a smile, were conjectural only I Looking, however, at the sum total of conti- nental troops, authenticated militia, and conjec- tural militia, we have 147,940 furnished by the Southern States, while 249, &03 were furnished by the Northern; making 100,000 men furnished to the war by the Northern more than the South- ern. But the disparity swells when we directly com- pare South Oaroliua and Massachusetts. Of con- tinental troops, and authenticated miiitia, and con- jectural militia. South Carolina furnished 33, .508, while Massachusetts furnished 92,592 ; making in the latter sum nearly three men for one fur- nished by South Carolina. Look, however, at the continental troops and the authenticated mili- tia furnished by the two States, and here you will find only 5,508 furnished by South Carolina, while 83,092 were furnished by Massachusetts — being sixU'en tiiiir.s more than hy South Cnrolinu^ and much more than by all the Southern Statea together. Here are facts and figures of which the Senator oight not to be ignorant. Did the occasion require, I might go further, and minutely portray the imbecility of the South- ern States, and particularly of South Carolina, in the war of the Revolution, as compared with the Northern States. This is a sad chapter of history, upon which I unwillingly dwell. Faith- ful annals record that, as early as 1778, the six South Carolina regiments, composing, with the Georgia regiment, the regular force of the South- ern Department, did not, in the whole, muster above eight hundred men ; nor wa^ it possible to fill up their ranks. During the succeeding year, the Governor of South Carolina, pressed by the British forces, oifered to stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war, leaving it to Vie de- cided at the i)eace to whom it should belong — a premonitory symptom of the secession proposed in our own day ! At last, after the fatal field of Camden, no organized American force was left in this i-egion. The three Southern States — ariimui opibiisqae parati, according to the vaunt of the Senator — had not a single battalion in the field. During all this period the men of Massachusetts were serving their country, not at home, but away from their own borders ; foi-, from the time of the Declaration of Independence, Massachu- setts never saw the smoke of an enemy's camp. At last, by the military genius and remarkable exertions of General Greene, a Northern man, who assumed the command of the Southern ar- my. South Carolina was rescued from the British power. But the trials of this successful leader reveal, in a striking manner, the weakness of the "slaveholding" State which he saved. Some of these are graphically presented in his letters. Writing to Governor Reed, of Pennsylvania, un- der date of 3d May, 1781, he says: " Those whose true interest it was to have in- ' formed Congress and the people to the north- ' ward of the real state of things, have joined in ' the deception, and magnified the strength and rc- ' sources of this country infinitely above their ability. ' Many of those, who adhere to our party, are so ' fond of pleasure, that they cannot think of ma- ' king the necessary sacrifices to support the Rev- ' olution. There are many good and virtuous people ' to the soiithxcard ; but they cannot animate the in- ' habitants iri general, as you can to the northward." — Gordon's History of American Revolution^ vol. 4, page 87. Writing to Colonel Davies, under date of 23d May, 1781, he exposes the actual condition of the country : " The animosity between the Whigs and Tories ' of this State renders their situation truly deplo- ' rable. There is not a day passes but there are ' more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage ' disposition. The Whigs seem determined to ex- ' tirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. ' Some thousands have fallen in this way in this ' quarter, and the evil rages with more violence ' than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these ' massacres, the country will he depopulated in a ' few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can ' live." To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 29th December, 1780, describes the weakness of his troops : "It is uow within a few days of the time you ' mentioned of being with me. Were you to ar- ' rive, you would find a few ragged, half-starved ' troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything ' necessary for either the comfort or convenience 'of soldiers." * * * ''The country is al- ' most laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder ' one another with little less than savage fury. ' We live from hand to mouth, and have nothing ' to subsist on but what we collect with armed ' parties. In this situation, I believe you will ' agree with me, there is nothing inviting this ' way, especially when I assure you our whole ' (brce fit for duty, that are properly clothed and ' properly equipped, does not amount to eight ' hundred men." — Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. 1, page 340. Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, he says : " There is a great spirit of enterprise prevail- ' iiig among the militia of these Southern States, ' especially with the volunteers. But their mode ' of going to war is so destructive, that it is the ' greatest folly in the ivorid to trust the liberties of a ^people to such a precarious defence." — -Johnson's Life of Greene, vol. \,p. 397. Nothing can be more authentic or complete than this testimony. Here also is what is said by David Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South Carolina, in his history of the revolution in that State, published in 1785, only a short time after the scenes which he describes : " While the American soldiers lay encamped, 14 ' [in the low country nt-iir Cliarli-ston,] their lat- ' tered rags wore so comiilctcly worn out, that 'seven hundred of them were as nuked as they ' were born, excepting a suiiill strip of cloth ' about their waists, and they were nearly as des- ' titute of meat as of clotliing." — ['ol. 2, p. 258. The military weakness of this " slaveholdiug coramuiiity" is too apparent. Learn now its oc- casion : and then join with me in amazement that a Senator from South Carolina should at- tribute our independence to anything " slavehold- iug." The records of the country, and various voices, all disown his brag for Slavery. The State of South Carolina, b^- authentic history, di.^own.s it. Listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive testimony, under date of March 20, 1770, from the Secret Journal of the Continental Congress : " The committee appointed to take into consid- ' eration the circumslancrs of the Southern Stale", and 'the ways and means for M^(> safety and defence, 'report, that the State of South Carolina, (as rep- ' resented by the Delegates of the said State, and 'by Mr. Huger, who has come here at the retjuest 'of the Governor of the said State, on purpose to 'explain the circumstances thereof.) is UNABLE 'to make any effectual efforts with militia, by rea- ' son of the great proportion of citizens neccusar;/ ^to remain at home, to prevent iiisiirreclion among the ^negroejs, and to prevent the desertion of them to 'the enemy. That the state of the country, and ' the great number of these people among them, expose 'the inhabitants to great danger, from the endcav- 'ors of the enemy to excite them to revolt or de- ' scrt."— Fo/. 1, ;>. 105. Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her militarj' weakness, and its ignoble occasion; thus repudiating, in advance, the vaunt of her Sena- tor, who finds strength andgratulation in slavery rather than in freedom. It was during the war that she thus shrived herself, on bended knees, in the confessional of the Continental Congress. But the same ignominious confession was made, some time af\cr the war, in open debate, on the floor of Congress, by Mr. liurke, a Representative from South Carolina: " There is not a gentleman on the floor who is ' a stranger to the feclde situation of our State, ' when we entered into tiie war to oppose the lirit- ' ish [lower. We were not on,';/ u-ifhout money, n-ithotil ' (tn army or military stores, but tee vere few in ' number, and likely to be entangled icith our dumes- * tics, in cafe, the enemy inradtd t/r." — Annals of Congress, 1780, 1791, vol. 2, page 1484. Similar testimony to the weakness engendered by .slavery was also borne by Mr. .Madison, in open debate in Congress: " Every addition Ihey [Goorgia and South ' Carolina] rc-eive to their number of slavcfl, ' Und.1 to tcraf-rn iLin, and rcndi-r them less capable ' of self-defence." — AnnaU of Congress, vol, \,page ■MO. The historian of South Caroliiin, Dr. Ramsay, a contemporary observer of tiie very scenes which ho eclnration of Independence its mighty tune, resounding through the ages. " Let it be remembered,' said the nation, spealcing by the voice of the Continental fJungress, at the close of the war, " that it has ever been the priiie and boast of Ameriia, that the rights for which slie has con- tended were tiik luonrs of fiL'MAN satikb!" Yes, sir, in this behalf, ant" by this sign, we con- quered. Such, sir, is my answer on this head to the 15 Senator from South Carolina. If the work which I undertook has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. Whatever I undertake, I am apt to do thoroughly. But while thus rebelling the insinuations against Massachusetts, aad the as- sumptions for slavery, I would not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that Senator, or of the State which he represents. I cannot forget that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound together by the ties of a common country — that Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister States, and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between them ; but I am constrained to declare, that throughout this debate I have sought in vain any token of that just' spirit which, within the sphere of its influence, is calculated to pro- mote the concord whether of States or of indi- viduals. And now, for the present, I part with the ven- erable Senator from South Carolina. In pursuing his inconsistencies, and in exposing them to judgment, I had almost forgotten his associate leader in the wanton and personal assault to which I have been exposed — I mean the veteran Senator fkim Virginia, [Mr. Mason,] who is now directly in my eye. With imperious look, and in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble, that Senator has unS-ertaken to call in question my statement that the Fugitive Slave Bill denied the writ of habeas corpus ; and, in doing this, he has assumed a superio "ity for himself which, permit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can sanction. Sir, I claim little for myself; but 1 shrink in no respect from an}^ comjiarison with that Senator, veteran though lie be. Sitting near him, as has been my fortune since I have been on this floor, I have come to know someming of his conversalion, something of his manners, some- thing of his attainments, something of his abili- ties, something of his character — aye, sir, and something of his associations ; and, while I would not underta!ce to disparage him in any of these respects, yet I feel that I do*not exalt myself un- duly — th|it I do not claim too much for the posi- tion which I hold, or the name which I have es- tablished — when I openly declare that, as a Sena- tor of Massachusetts, and as a man, I place my- self at every point in unhesitating comparison with that honorable assailant. And to his per- emptory assertion that the Fugitive Slave Bill does not deny the habeas coi-jnis, I oppose my assertion, as peremptory as his own, that it docs, and there I leave that question. Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which the Senator from Virginia displays at the expo- sure of the Fugitive Slave Bill in its true charac- ter. He is the author of that enormity. From his brain came forth the soulless monster. He is, therefore, its natural guardian. The' Senator is, I believe, a lawyer. And now, since he has shown a disposition to meet objections to that offspring, he must not stop with the objection founded on the denial of the habeas corpus. It is true, sir, if anything but slavery were in ques- tion, such an objection would be fatal ; but it is not to be supposed that the partisans of an in- stitution founded on a denial of human rights, can appreciate the proper eflicacy of that writ of freedom. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend his progeny; not by assertion, but by reason. Let him rally all the ability, learning, and sub- tlety, which he can command, and undertake the impossible work. _ Let him answer this objection. The Constitu- tion, by an amendment which Samuel Adams hailed as a protection against the usurpations of the National Government, and which Jefferson asserted was our "foundation corner-stone," has solemnly declared that " the powers not delega- ted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Stronger words could not be employed to limit the powers under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the National Govern- ment, particularly in derogation of freedom. By the Virginia resolutions of 1^98, which the Sen- ator is reputed to accept, this limitation of the powers of the National Government is recognised and enforced. The Senator himself is under- stood, on all questions not affecting the claims of slavery, to espouse this rule in its utmost strict- ness. Let him now indicate, if he can, any rti- cle, clause, phrase, or word, in the Constit„cion, which gives to Congress any power to establish a "uniform law throughout the United Stat«s " on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him now show, if he can, from the records of the Federal Convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such ])Ower. Vrnatever may be its interpretation in other ^espect,^, the clause on which this bill purports to be founded gives no such a power. Sir, nothing can come out of nothing; and the Fugitive Sla\e Bill is, therefore, without any source or origin in the Constitution. It is an open and unmitigated usurpation. And, sir, when the veteran Senator of Virgiui;i has answered this objection: when he has been able to find in the Constitution a power which is not to be tbund, and to make us see what is not to be seen, then let him answer another objec- tion. The Constitution has secured the inesti- mable right of trial by jury in " suits at common law," where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. Of course, freedom is not sus- ceptible of pecuniary valuation, therefore there can be no question that the claim for a fugitive slave is within this condition. In determining what is meant by " suits at common law," re- course must be had to the common law itself^ precisely as we resort to that law in order to de- termine what is meant by trial by jury. Let the Senator, if he be a lawyer, now undertake to show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, ac- cording to the early precedents and writs — well knov/n to the framers of the Constitution, es[ie- cially to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John Rutledge, of South Carolina, both of whom had studied law at the Temple — a sail at common laic, to which, under the solemn guaranty of the Constitution, is attached the trial by jury, as an inseparable incident. Let the Senator undertake to show this, if he can. And, sir, when the veteran Senator has found a power in the Constitution where none exists, and has set aside the right of trial by jury in a LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 16 Buil 4t commoQ Ihvt, ihcn let bim answer yet uiutbcr objection, liy the judgiueut of ibe Jsu-^ prenie Court of tbe United States, a claim fur u^ fupr'uivf -iliivc is declared to be <« ciuf, undrr the ( withiu tbe judiciul power; and tbis j I tbe Court is cimfirnied by comuioii ueiiM- .i;:i loinuion law. Let tbe 8eniil<>r under- take to show, if he i.;iu, bow such iin exalted ex- ! •rcitie of judicial power can be contidcd to a Hiiijjle i petty luiiyi-strate, appointed not by tbe I'resident, j Ikilb the advice and consent of tbe ^^en:Ue, but , by tbe Court ; holding his oflice, not during good behaviour, but merely during the will of tbe , Court; and receiving not a regular salary, but ' fees according to eiu;h individual case. Let the : Senator answer tlii^ objei lion, if, in any way, by I »ny twist of learning, logi'', or law, be can. Thus, sir, d») I present the issue directly on this ( outrageous enactment. Let the author of the [ Fugitive Slave Bill meet it. He will find me ready j to Allow him in argument, though I tru.-^t never to be led, even by bis example, into any departure ' from those courtesies of debate which are essen- tial to the harmony of every legislative body. Su'.b, .Mr. Trcsidenl, is my response to all that , has lueu said, so far aa I deem it in any way , worthy of attention. To tbe two associate chief- , tains in ibis personal assault, tbe veteran .Senator I from Virginia, and the Senator from South Car- | oliua w II I II II II III " "^^ replied comple 011 897 864 fi 9 ined in the cry, ..„..,>. v..^.o^. oasuciaics ui&i started ; but 1 shall not be tempted further. Some there are who are be^t answered by silence ; best answered by withholding the words which leap impulsively to the lips. And now, turning my back upon these things, let me, for one moment, before 1 close, dwell on a single aspect of this discussion which will render it memorable. On former occasions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently assail- ed, or practically denied. Only two years ago, memorials for the roi)eal of the Fugitive Slave Bill, presented by ine, were laid on your table, Mr. I'residcnt, without reference to any commit- tee. All is changed now. Senators have con- demned the memorial, and sounded the cry of " treason," •' treason," in our ears ; but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person I'as so completely outraged the spirit of our institution^ or forgotten himself, as to persist in objecting tt» the reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. It is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here have been treated with in- dignity ; but the great right of petition — the sword and buckler of the citizen — though thus discredited, has not been denied. Uerdf sir, is a triumph of Freedom.