tin 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011 897 829 8 
 
 HOLL1NGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543 
 

 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. J. A. HUGHSTON, OF NEW YORK, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE SLAVERY QUESTION, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 8, 185 6. 
 
 Ci WASHINGTON: 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 
 1856. 
 

 ' sj 
 
THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 
 
 o 
 <* 
 
 The House hi inc in ihe Committee of the Whole on the 
 state of the Union— 
 
 Mr. HUGHSTONsaid: 
 
 Mr. Chairman: The House will bear me wit- 
 ness that I have not been very troublesome since 
 the commencement of this session of Congress; ! 
 nor do I design to be in whatever subsequent 
 deliberations we may have in charge. I b 
 then, that g< ntlemen will accord to mi thatatten- 
 .. hich I am always happy to extend to them. 
 I ask no gentlemen to yield me aught that I am < 
 not willing to accord fairly to them, as a m liter 
 of courtesy. Whether they do or not, I will 
 endeavor to treat all with due coorl 
 
 I am happy, Mr. Chairman, to ascertain that 
 here <>n the floor of this House, gentlemen from 
 all parts of the Union are accustomed to< ntertain 
 their own sentiments and to speak them fn 
 frankly. If they did not I could not accord to 
 them my respect as g. i \nd, however 
 
 much any gentleman on this floor may differ 
 from me in political sentiments, I care not if he 
 avows his opinions frankly and in all sincerity. 
 If he does, I shall be the last person on this floor 
 to call in question his right; and, however much 
 his s. iitinients may differ from those entertained 
 by my humble self, I shall respect him and his 
 position. 
 
 Sir, the only real question, in my view, which 
 interests the country is the question of the exten- 
 sion or non-extension of slavery in the Territories 
 of the United States. I hold to the opinion that 
 Slavery exists nowhere on the face of God's earth, 
 aXQ pt by the force of positive law. Gentlemen 
 may talk about political differences between the [ 
 
 old Whig party — of which I claimed to be a 
 m. ruber in the State whence I hail — and the Dem- 
 ocratic party. But I am not aware that there is any 
 real difference of opinion between the rank and file 
 of the old Whig party of the State of New York 
 and the rank and file of the Democratic party of 
 the same State. Where is your question of cur- 
 rency? Disposed of. Where is your question 
 Of a United States Bank? Dead long ago. The 
 question <>f a tariff, which should never have dt- 
 \ ided political parties, is not now agitated. What 
 is the line which divides as r The simple matter 
 as to whether the slave power shall exert an over- 
 shadowing influence and control in this Govern- 
 ment, or whetle rtlie free and indomitable energy 
 of a free people, devoted to and determined to up- 
 hold and sustain the interests of free white peo- 
 pleand free whit.' labor, should prevail. Thl 
 the point, and the only p 
 
 Now, sir, perhaps it would not be unprofitable 
 for us to recur in brief to the past history of this 
 Government. I believe, sir, when the Constitu- 
 tion of this country was adopted, and even prior 
 to that period, slavery existed in the thi. 
 original colonies. But before I proceed further in 
 that direction, let me remark that so far as the 
 y, the patriotism, and the wisdom, which 
 animated our forefathers are concerned, all those 
 who composed that glorious brotherhood, who 
 banded together in defense of the rights and lib- 
 erties of the colonies, are entitled to the same 
 meed of praise, and to be held in the same 
 degree of adorable consideration. Whether they 
 hailed from South Carolina, from Georgia, from 
 Massachusetts, or from New York, makes no 
 
sort of difference in that regard. They devoted 
 themselves and their best interests to the sustain- 
 ing of their glorious cause. They shared a com- 
 mon triumph; and far be it from me to make any 
 sort of distinction as to the meed of honor and 
 of credit to be awarded to them, one and all. 
 But, sir, allow me to ask, what, prior to the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution under which we live and 
 under which we enjoy blessings and privileges 
 which no country ever enjoyed before, was the 
 action of this Government? What was the action 
 of the illustrious sages of that day? Who was 
 it but the illustrious Jefferson that led on the 
 cohorts of freedom — the cohorts of those who 
 defended the interests of freedom ? He, by his 
 proposition and advocacy of the ordinance of 
 1787, devoted to freedom the entire territory 
 which was then the common property of this 
 Union, or of the original colonies; and it was 
 therein declared that slavery or involuntary 
 servitude should not be allowed to exist within 
 the Northwestern Territory belonging to this 
 Union. 
 
 Sir, it was in view of the lights and in view of 
 that past legislation of the Congress of the Con- 
 federation, that the Constitution of the United 
 States was adopted in 1789. And doubtless the 
 founders and adopters of the Constitution had 
 that legislation of the Congress of the Confedera- 
 tion in view when, in and by the express terms 
 of that instrument, they authorized Congress to 
 prohibit the importation of slaves into the United 
 States, from and after the year 1808. Why did 
 they authorize its prohibition then ? If the further 
 extension and perpetuation of slavery was right 
 (hen, if it was calculated to advance the interests 
 of the people of this country, why allow of its 
 suppression then ? 
 
 And, sir, gentlemen have talked about inter- 
 national law. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
 Warner] the other day said, that under the uni- 
 versal law of nations the right to property in 
 slaves was recognized. Sir, how is it now? By 
 the universal law of nations, to which the gentle- 
 man from Georgia appeals, the foreign slave trade 
 is declared to be piracy, and is so punished. 
 
 Now, sir, let me ask what are the compromises 
 of the Constitution under which we live? Under 
 that Constitution all persons held to service or 
 labor are allowed to form a portion of the basis 
 of representation authorized in that instrument. 
 Now, sir, that may have been right then. I am 
 the last man to invade or quarrel with the com- 
 promises of that Constitution. 
 
 And allow me further to say that, although I 
 
 profess to be the advocate of free-soil, and am 
 ready to do as much as the next individual to 
 advance the interests of the cause, yet I will 
 never allow myself to become a party to any 
 invasion of the Constitution or vested rights of 
 any of the States in this Union. Yes, sir, I would 
 protect the vested or constitutional rights accord- 
 ing to my understanding of them, of Alabama or 
 Virginia, as cheerfully and to the same extent that 
 I would those of New York. 
 
 And allow me further to state, that whatever 
 may be my opinion at this day of the propriety 
 of having conferred upon any State in this Union 
 the rights which at the foundation of the Govern- 
 ment were conferred upon the original States, yet 
 I will not quarrel with those rights, as I under- 
 stand them; I will not seek directly or indirectly 
 to take them away. But when you come to the 
 question as to whether slavery shall be allowed 
 to be extended over territory which is now the 
 free common property of all the States of the 
 Union, then I claim that I have the right to be 
 heard in behalf of the people whom I have the 
 honor to represent on this floor. I should be 
 derelict in the discharge of my duty to them, if 
 I did not demand to be heard in behalf of their 
 interests. And, sir, although, as I have said, I 
 would not interfere to any extent with the vested 
 right of any State now in this Union, still I may 
 be allowed to refer to some facts in connection 
 with the party, by whose plurality vote this 
 House was organized, and which holds the same 
 sentiments which I entertain, and which occupies 
 the same position which I occupy, in regard to 
 this question of slavery. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, we are accused of being aggress- 
 ors upon the rights of the South. Sir, where 
 have we aggressed? When have we aggressed 
 upon their rights ? In what manner, and in what 
 particular ? It seems to me that -when we con- 
 sent that the slave territory and the slave States 
 of the Union should be allowed the basis of rep- 
 resentation which they enjoy in respect to slaves, 
 that it is an indication of magnanimity; it is an 
 evidence of a desire to do justice upon our part to 
 all of the States of the Union, and with this fact 
 before us, are we to be charged with aggressing 
 upon the rights of the southern States? 
 
 At the organization of the Government slavery 
 existed in every State in the Union; but the his- 
 tory of our progress shows that in every State 
 where slavery has been abolished, there has been 
 a rapid increase of wealth and population, and 
 in every element of prosperity. And it was in 
 view of this anticipated fact, I suppose, that our 
 
southern friends insisted upon this slavery basis 
 of representation , in order to preserve their promi- 
 nence and power as a political element of the 
 Union; but, notwithstanding all that, by the ordi- 
 nance of 1787, all the territory then in the pos- 
 session of the Government was dedicated to free- 
 dom; and still later on, when the Missouri ques- 
 tion came up, when Missouri came knocking at 
 our doors for admission into the Union, as gen- 
 tlemen all know, there was violent objection made 
 to the admission of that State as a slave State. 
 
 Soon the cry of a dissolution of the Union was 
 raised by the friends of the admission of Missouri 
 as a slave State. Northern doughface after dough- 
 face appeared upon the scene. They, together 
 with the men from the South, devoted themselves 
 earnestly to the extension of slavery over the 
 Territories, to the great injury of free white labor. 
 The compromise was passed, and the North 
 acquiesced in the admission of Missouri. Then 
 was adopted the Missouri restriction, that slavery 
 or involuntary bi rvitude should not be extended 
 further north than 3f>° 30'. 
 
 So they went on; but as time advanced it was 
 discovered thai the free States were increasing 
 rapidly in population, beyond all expectation; 
 and that slavery should be further extended in 
 order to preserve to the South its full power and 
 sway in the politics of the country. The Demo- 
 cratic party was then in vigorous existence, and 
 controlled the destinies of the Government. The 
 wily politician <>f the North sooa learned that, 
 unless he made his peace with the slaveholding 
 interest, he would be treated as an outlaw. The 
 idea of Free-So ilism would not be tolerated in con- 
 nection with the Democratic party. Any man 
 who undertook tn play the part of a freeman was 
 ostracised, and al once shot down-. His influence 
 ceased as a member of the Democratic party. 
 Then it was that .Mr. Atherton, of New Hamp- 
 shire, for the purpose of conciliating the slave 
 elemi nl of this < lovernment, introduced his reso- 
 lution against the right of petition. Then it was 
 that men enough were found in the American 
 House of Repr sentatives to adopt that resolution. 
 Besides, a law had shortly previous been passed 
 by Congress, at the demand of the slaveholding 
 interest, to pr< v. nt the circulation of publications 
 and papers deemed prejudicial to the rights of the 
 South. Then it was that the Constitution of the 
 United States was violated. The rights of the 
 North were push d aside, and power was given to 
 petty postmasters in slave States to overhaul the 
 mails of the country, and decide what should and 
 what should not be circulated. And from this 
 
 decision there was no appeal. Great Heavens ! 
 that was Democracy, was it, to prohibit an y mem- 
 ber of Congress to circulate among the people 
 documents which he deemed fit and proper for 
 the public information, and to give the decision 
 and control of the entire matter to a petty post- 
 master, whose office did not yield more than five 
 dollars yearly revenue to the Government. 
 
 We will pass on. That was acquiesced in on 
 the part of the North. The slave element grew 
 stronger and stronger. I understand that the 
 slave-owners are only one seventh of the white 
 population of the southern States. If I am wrong 
 gentlemen will correct me. The States of New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, have 
 one hundred and seven thousand four hundred 
 and fifty-eight more people than the slave States 
 have of white population. Now, should they 
 have less power than the people of those States? 
 Is it right? It is " nominated in the bond," I 
 know; and I only refer to it to show the magna- 
 nimity of our people in the North in reference 
 to the subject; Theyare disposed that southern 
 rights and interests should be preserved accord- 
 ing to the provisions of that Constitution made 
 by our fathers in better days than these. We of 
 the North have no representation for our prop- 
 erty — not the least. 
 
 By the census of 1850 it appears that the total 
 white' population of the fifteen slave States was 
 fi, 184, 477, and those States have eighty-eight 
 Representatives in this body; while the popu- 
 lation of the above-mentioned States of New 
 York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts, by the 
 same census, was 6,291,935, and with only sixty- 
 nine Representatives, thus giving slavery an 
 excess of nineteen Representatives. 
 
 What have we next in the aggressions of the 
 South. I deny that there were any on the part 
 of the North. Texas was rapping for admission 
 into the Union. She was formed out of territory 
 which had belonged to anotherpower. Mr. Van 
 Buren, then President of the United States, and 
 a candidate for renomination, expressed himself 
 fi arlessly and frankly on that point; more so than 
 he had done on any previous occasion. He was 
 ostracised for it. Mr. Clay, the anticipated 
 nominee of the Whig party at that time, was 
 questioned, and he answered in that decisive spirit 
 which always characterized the man. We all 
 know the result. A man of the South, and an 
 ardent friend of slavery extension, prevailed, and 
 that, too, by the votes of the free North. 
 
 Then, we next pass on to 1850. Then, as ill- 
 luck would have it, the President elected by the 
 
whole people of the United States deceased. Then 
 it was that Mr. Fillmore, the Vice President of 
 this Union, a son of New York — a State from 
 which I come — a man whose antecedents upon 
 the slavery question were well known and well 
 understood, stepped into the presidential chair — 
 a man who, I may be allowed to say, if his sub- 
 sequent action as President of the United States 
 was honest, and governed by honest convictions 
 and upright motives, was not honest when, in 
 1838 and 1840, being a candidate for Congress, 
 he answered certain letters addressed to him by 
 certain Abolitionists, emphatically indorsing the 
 doctrine of the non-extension of slavery. 
 
 But, after the compromise measures of 1850 
 were adopted, the whole country acquiesced in 
 them. We were disposed to acquiesce in them, 
 and we supposed that the slavery agitation inci- 
 dent to this country and Government had ceased, 
 and we hoped we were rid of that matter. But we 
 soon discovered our mistake. Several gentle- 
 men, actuated by some motive or other, were not 
 disposed to allow the question to rest there, for 
 they introduced into the Kansas-Nebraska bill a 
 repeal of the Missouri restriction. That aroused 
 the free sentiment of the North. Men who were 
 disposed prior to that period to adhere strictly to 
 the Missouri compromise, and to sustain it in its 
 full spirit and intent, felt themselves relieved 
 from any further obligation to compromise with ; 
 slavery in one single iota or particular, and j 
 therefore it is that we find so many gentlemen 
 representing Free-Soil constituencies upon this 
 floor; and I may be allowed to say that the con- 
 vention by which I was nominated — and which, 
 by-the-by, was a Whig convention, and none 
 other — in my district, (which gave Mr. Polk some 
 twenty-five hundred majority,) composed of the 
 counties of Delaware and Otsego, adopted this 
 platform: "That the repeal of the Missouri com- 
 promise, in which they had been disposed there- 
 tofore to acquiesce, absolved them from any 
 further obligation to compromise with slavery in 
 the future; and that all such compromises were to 
 be avoided, as alike dangerous to freedom, free 
 labor, and free men." Therefore, I desire it to 
 be distinctly understood that I am not in favor of 
 the restoration of the Missouri compromise which 
 you have rejected, although I, and my people 
 behind me, were disposed to acquiesce in it, and 
 to sustain it if it had been preserved intact; but 
 we will not now have it by my consent. I profess 
 to be a sort of Democrat in sentiment; and I am 
 willing to say that I usually yield to the decisions 
 of the Democracy of numbers. 
 
 Well, it seems that you have got the Kansas- 
 Nebraska bill passed; and the doctrine is, that 
 its assumed principles of squatter sovereignty 
 are a sort of panacea to be applied to heal all divi- 
 sions and all diversity of feeling in this great 
 Union which we have heretofore had. See what 
 the consequence has been! Border-ruffianism has 
 borne sway in Kansas; and the slavery element 
 of the country is demanding that Kansas shall be 
 admitted as a slave State into this Union, as a 
 sine qua non. As far as I am concerned, and the 
 people whom I have the honor to represent, we 
 are determined that it shall not be so admitted; 
 and I can tell gentlemen who have been finding 
 fault here during the debates which have been 
 had upon this floor, with the mode and manner 
 in which the free people of the North -have seen 
 fit to emigrate to that Territory, and who have 
 indulged in a great many criticisms upon the pro- 
 priety of that conduct, that, if our people see fit 
 to go singly and alone, or in groups, they have 
 the right to do so; and it is not the right of any 
 gentleman, or any person, in any quarter of the 
 Union, to object to the manner in which they see 
 fit to conduct themselves in the matter of their 
 migration. 
 
 One further remark, and I have done. I dis- 
 cover here upon this floor, though 1 am a new- 
 comer, unaccustomed to legislation and its usages, 
 that, notwithstanding a great many southern Rsj>- 
 resentatives differ radically upon some questions, 
 for instance, where the foreigner is concerned, and 
 on that point are at swords' points and hostility 
 to each other — and in that particular I can very 
 well, and with propriety, if I obey the sentiments 
 of my heart and lifelong opinions, act with the 
 Democrats — yet the very moment this divine in- 
 stitution, as they call it, is concerned, those gen- 
 tlemen who have been in actual hostility to each 
 other embrace in the most loving and fraternal 
 concord, and have nothing further to say of their 
 previous conflicts. I do not know that I have any 
 reason to find fault with that. They say that 
 they believe the institution of slavery is right; 
 and, as 1 said before, I shall not question their 
 sincerity. I shall not question the sincerity of 
 any gentleman upon the floor in the avowal of 
 any sentiment which he sees fit to avow. Why 
 should not the free North also act as a unit upon 
 this question? If their Representatives upon this 
 floor obey the sentiments of their constituencies, I 
 am very sure they will act as a unit with scarce an 
 exception; and if northern Representatives had 
 always done so, where would have been these 
 aggressions which have been, from time to time, 
 
made by the South upon the North, and its rights 
 and interests? They never would have occurred. 
 I said, sir, some time ago, prior to the organ- 
 ization of this House, in reply to the gentleman 
 from Kentucky, [Mr. A. K. Marshall,] that I 
 would define my position. If I have not already 
 done so, I will define it in a very few words. I 
 deny, sir, the charge that I am an Abolitionist, 
 or ever was. I do not recognize the right of an 
 Abolitionist to go into the State of Virginia, or 
 any other State, and interfere with the vested 
 rights of property existing there, which an Abo- 
 litionist, I suppose, would claim the right to do. 
 They call me, and the party with which I act, 
 Black Republican. I claim that slavery shall not 
 be extended into the Territories of this Govern- 
 
 ment which are now free, for this reason: that 
 servile labor and free labor cannot exist on the 
 same soil. The free people whom I in part rep- 
 resent have a right to their heritage; they have 
 a right to go there, and to carry there their mate- 
 rial of wealth — free labor, and not be interfered 
 with by servile labor brought from any quarter. 
 I am for sustaining the rights of free white labor 
 in the Territories; and therefore am I obnoxious 
 to the charge of being a Black Republican ! On 
 the contrary, sir, are not those gentlemen who 
 are for advancing and extending slavery and in- 
 voluntary servitude into the free Territories of 
 this Government, rather to be charged with being 
 members of the Black Democrat party, or of the 
 Black South American party ? 
 
IS-** con gress 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 011897 829 8 £ 
 
 HOLL1NGER 
 pH8.5 
 
 MILL RUN F3-1543