Mm ■11 'iMiIitjii!ill!Lkiiiiiijii''a '■■';'i>:t;t:{.;:ii;: «:.J«« ,1. ;M::')'ni;rl':.|.; !;..:.( '['lur.t.f'A.I'.r.t',' LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DDDDSD7fl^lA I . *'»in* aO 'v ♦oho' .^ ^o^ -'rr-.' ♦ « \ ,^ Of* • .0^ ,*^ ...... •^^ f -^ -_-* O o -^^^ ^<» o; •? / f SPEECH OF miBo <5?o IBiiIEIB(DW2Ba OF VIHGINIA, ON THE RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI. Beliverzd in the Senate of the United States, Jan. 31, 1820. Mr. J. Barbour, of Virginia, delivered his sei> timents, in nearly the following terms : Mr. President : The Senate will do justice to my sin- cerity when I declare, that it is with unfeigned reluctance I rise to address them at this stage of the discussion ; that, had I yielded to my feeling's, instead of obeying a sense of duty, I should have remained silent. Whatever the human mind could well conceive, has been either spoken or written on this subject ; and no superiority of intellect could add an ade\itional ray of light. So vain a hope, therefore, with my humble pretensions, would be the height of folly. The question, however, involves such important conse- quences, whether we view it in its constitutional light, or as it regards the honor of the nation, plightud by treaty, or consider it as to its expediency, as involving the dura- tion of the Union, or in any event its tranquility, it seems to justify, if not to require, any man to disclose the rea- sons of his vote. But, personal considerations apart, the feeling which this policy, as insulting as it is unjust, has so justly excited in the South and West, in wliich my constituents so naturally participate, seems to require that their representative on this floor should raise his 1 6> .:bz3 voice, however feeble, in solemn protest against its 3.^ doption. In the contemplation of this subject and the sentmients avowed in its discussion, I had expected to have felt noth- ing but unmixed regret ; 1 had expected to have travel- led an unpleasant path, filled only with thorns. To my relief I have found here and there a solitary spot of ver- dure, on which my eye dehghtedto dwell. 1 have seen the most prodigious display of the powers of the human mind ; 1 have seen its empire enlarged far beyond my most sanguine hopes. I do not mean to confine my re- marks to one or two, but to extend them to most of those who have engaged in the debate. They have surround- ed this body with deserved renown ; to which, although I feel a consciousness I cannot add, yet I must be permit- ted, as a member of the body, to claim some participation. But 1 have seen more ; I have seen a degree of firmness and magnanimity most ennobUng to human nature. Sena- tors rising supecipr to clumor and popular excitement, and filling the measure assigned them by the constitution at the expence of office, with the sacrifice of populari- ty, firmly discharging their duty. Such men, compared wi'th the supple politician, who bends Ike a reed to the blast ; who, to promote his own aggrnndizement; practis- es upon the prejudices of mankind, will, by an impartial posterity, when the false fire of the moment shall liave subsided, be placed in the zenith, while the latter will be consigned to the nadir, of the moral world. Go on, illus- trious Senators! in the career of glory you have com- menced ! Abide whatever sacrifice the faithful discliarge of your duty may produce, with fortitude ! and reap your reward, in the consolation of reflecting that you have sav- ed your country from ruin, and in the justice of all trying time With these exceptions, all that I have heard lias filled me with solicitude and pain. I have heard senti- ments uttered that go to shake the foundations of the Union, and to produce a revolution in the government ; principles avowed directly hostile to the compact on which reposes our Union, and tlie doctrine avowed, that all power not prohibited belong* to the general govern- ment To combat these, to deprive them ol all authority, by showing their fallacy, will be the object of my endeav- ors Before, however, I proceed to tins, let me notice an attempt which has been made to give a character to this question which it does not deserve. It has been said Uiat this is a question between slavery and freedom. A more indefensible perversion was never attempted to be practised on the human mind. Such a statement of the question is a libel on the South. I appeal, without the fear of coniradiction, to every member of the Senate, from every quarter of the Union, when I ask if the SouUi- s ern members have not invariably supported, with unani- mity, every proposition which had for its object the sup- pression of the slave trade ; and whether, during the last session, we did not indulge them in the project, as wild as it was well-designed, of expending thousands for the accommodation of the unfortunate victims of that abom- inable trade, by authorizing the government to provide t^^em an asylum in Africa, to be maintained at the public expence. Can, then, any man believe we wish to multi- ply the number ? The question wc are called to discuss, is not whether slaves shall be multiplied. If it was, there would be but one sentiment here. What is the real question ? Shall we violate the constitution, by imposing restrictions on the people of Missouri ? While exercising the great privilege of forming their government, shall we disregard the solemn obligations imposed by treaty ? And shall we finally do an unmeasurable act of injustice, in excludingthe people of one half the republic from partici- pating in that country bought by a common treasure and their exclusive counsels ? And for what ? Not to diminish slavery, but to confine it within its present limits — de- structive to the slaves themselves, and fatal eventually to the whole population — instead of diflfusing them over a wide-spread country, where their comf -rts would be in- creased, and by their disproportionate numbers they might be within the reach of the suggestions of policy and of humanity. Not to diminish slavery, I repeat again ; but to seduce the white population from this por- tion of country thus interdicted, and to increase the dis- proportion of the blacks to such an extent as forever to shut the door of hope upon them ; or to drive us from the country, and surrender it exclusively to them. This is the real state of the question, which I will now proceed to discuss ; and, for the sake of perspicuity, I propose to do so under the following heads : 1st. You have no constitutional right to impose the restriction in- volved in the amendment. 2d, That the treaty by which we acquired the country forbids it. And, od. That it is inexpedient and unjust to do so, 1st. Your constitutional right. It may not be unim- portant, in discussing this branch of the subject, to as- cend to the origin of the government. To ascertain its Jiumiiity, its progress in acquiring power, and its now alarming pretensions. A discussion of this character will not be entirely without its use in reference to the gene- ral course of our legislation. Some gentlemen may there- by acquire the information they seem to lack, that all power not prohibited is not granted necessarily to the gov- ernment, as has been contended for by at least one of the -speakers who have^gone before me. The present constitu- tion isnothingmorethananexpinsionoftheconfederatioo J Its object is the same ; the means of attaining that object have only been enlarged. And what was that ? To operate on oun external concerns, and to regulate such subjects internafty as could not, fronr. their character and extent, be prii^rly administered by any of the states ; and there only tpf'^e extent specifically enumerated in the consti- tution, It will be recollected, that this mass of power, awarded to the confederation, was surrendered by sove- reign states, whose jealousy of the general government was such, that^ as experience evinced in the practical re- sults, |hey were entirely incompetent to the object. It is w'orthy of remark, how cautiously they guarded a- gainst the abuse of this very limited authority, by the 2d article of that instrument, which is to the effect follow- ing : " Art. 2. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly dele- gated to the United States in Congress assembled." I invite the attention of the Senate particularly to the phraseology of this article, as disclosing the real design of the contracting parties as to the extent of the power of the individual states, and of the general government. And, sustaining the position I have before taken as to the objects whose administration was intended to be confid- ed to the general government, I have been thus fall on this branch of the subject, because, although a similar clause was not introduced in the constitution of the Unit- ed States, yet it was distinctly understood the same prin- ciple attached to the constitution, as well from the spe- cific enumeration of the powers, as the cotemporary ex- positions by the most approved writers • but, above all, by tlie 10th amendment of the constitution, to the effect following : " The powers not delegated to the United btates by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." And it may be stated, that, if there was any one point on which the people of America universally agreed, it was that necessity of restraining the general govern- ment within the prescribed Umits, to guard against en- croachmcMts on the authority of the states, and thereby prevent a consolidation which has been universally con- sidered as a synonime with monaj'chy. These are truths geitrally admitted, and always have been, in the abstract ; but, in their application, we are mor. tified to perceive an endless variety of opinions, some contending for a latitude so wide in their interpretation of the powers of the government as to defy limitation ; while others insist, and justly insist, that they view the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the ■eompact to which the states are parties, as limited by tlie ^laiii sense and Intention of the instrtinnent constituting' that compact. This is the language of the celebrated resolutions of the Virginia Assembly. Not merely be- cause they were adopted by that body, but because^ it was a part of the republican creed, to which a vast majo- rity of the American people gave their hearty approba- tion, and by which the line was completely drawn be- tween the dirterent pohtical parties of that day. It is a sound principle, Avhich I wish to see revived, (for it seems to have been forgotten,) and resorted to, in all doubtful cases, as an infalhble standard. Andliere, I protest against a species of special pleading which, re- jecting the principle just alluded to, hunts for powers iii words or sentences, taken here and there from the in- strument and patched togethei-, forming something like a pretext for the exercise of powers palpably interdicted by the plain sense and intention of the instrument. These prehmiuaries being disposed of, we are brought to the conclusion that those wl)o contend for the power in ques- tion must show it. This has been attempted, and no two agree as to the portion of the constitution from which they derive the power. This circumstance of it- self is entitled to great consideration. If the subject had been of a character whose administration could not be effected by the states, in their nidividual character, one might be disposed to give a latitude of construction to the clause of the constiuitionj if any existed, that related to this subject ; but, wlien it is known that the subject of slavery had been exclusively under the control of the stat^s^ to the entire exclusion of the general government, except in a case of a peculiar character, (the slave trade,) before we assume upon ourselves the exercise of sucU an authority, we should be satisfied that the power has been plainly given. In lieu of which, one gentleman pre- tends to find it in a clause wiiose only object was a re- stramt upon Congress ; while another acknowledges that lie considers this clause as giving no such authority, and refers us to another; while other gentlemen select ne\7 clauses imparting tins authority. Let us examine them respectively. 1st. let us consider the 1st clause of the 9l1i section, 1st article. Gentlemen contend that the v/ord 'migration,' is tie magical word in which is contained the power about to be exercised. The plain answer to this is, that it produces a confusion of ideas, to assert thata clause, whose palpaple design was to restrain Congress from exercising an authority, imparts a substantive grant of power ; but, it is reasoned, why restrain Congress, till the year 1808, from exercis- ing an authority which they did not possess ? Do gen- tlemen me?n to say that all power interdicted by the 9lh section would belong to Congress, had not suQh re- 1 * friction been inserted ? The gentltnian from New- Hampshire contends for this monstrous doctrine, and asks, had it not been for the clause interdictii.g titles of nobility, would not Congress have had the power to have created a nobility ? The gentleman seems not to under- stand the first principles of the government--for, if his doctrine be acted upon, it is equal to a revolution, and a government of limited powers would instantly be con- verted into one of absolute authority. I should have paid less attention to this doctrine by supposing that the gen- tFeman had not reflected upon it, had he not uttered - tRe same thing during the last session. It seems, there- fore, that this IS one of his fixed principles. A more here- tical or a more dangerous one, cannot well be conceived. ;^t, sir, were I for a moment to yield a point so palpa- ble as this, still, I might contend that the gentlemen would be without the power contended for. What is life argumeiit on their part? That 'migration' and 'impor- tation* equally relate to slaves — That ' importation' re- lates\o foreign slaves, while 'migration' refers to domes- tic slaves passing from one state to another, and that Congress, therefore, has a right to prevent their passage to the Missouri. Now, I contend that 'migration' was intended to refer to free foreigners, coming to this coun- try, while 'importation' was intended to apply to skves from abroad This conclusion is warranted, as well by the phraseology of the section, as by the circumstances of the country. What is its language ? That the migra- tion or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808 : but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person. If this interpre- tation be received, the meaning of the clause isintelJigi- ble and rational. By dropping 'migration' whfn speak- ing of a tax or duty, it may be fairly inferred that the migra- tion spoken of was, that of free men, to tax whom would be absurd. But the circumstances of the country at that time are entitled to great weight in forming our opm- ion. A large portion of the middle, southern, and west- ern states, were sparsely inhabited. It was among the grievances enumerated, as leading to the revolution, that the crown of Great Britain had indicated a hostility to the migration of foreigners. Hence, lest the more populous portions of the United States should indulge in a similar abuse of power, Congress was expressly interdicted from taking any step in relation thereto, prior to the year 1808. That this was the true import of this clansf, is not only sustained by the considerations to which I have just re- ferred, but is supported by an exposition given us at a period near tlie adoption of the constitution. Those who opposed the alien law in Congress insisted upon this in- terprevatijn, and none witii more force tliaii my prede- cessor, Judjje Tazewell, one of the most disliiiguished men of whom Virg-inia can boast. In his speech, which I have now before me, on the alien law, he liolds the lang-iiage 1 now do, and contended that Congress was virtually violating this clause. The Senate will recollect this discussion was in 1798; and it*is worthy of remark, that the application of this word to slaves was first made by tile friends of the ahen law, to elude the force of this argument. The committee of the House of Representa- ■ tives, in an elaborate report, dravvn with a view to de- fend this law, assert that 'migration' related to slaves; but even the authors of that report contend only that it relates to the importation of slaves from abroad. But, we are told, Congress has fixed ihe meaning of tliis clause by the law of 1804, interdicting the bringing of slaves into Louisiana from any place in the United States, ex- cept by removal with their owners. But nothing is to be gained by this precedent. 1st. Louisiana was a territory, and not a state. 2d. It was the result of an excitement produced by peculiar causes, which have been amply detailed by the gentleman from South Carolina, and pass- ed probably without discussion. 3d. it was repealed at the next session, by the law i-elative to the territory ot Mississippi, in which Louisiana was placed on the same footing with that territory. So that, if it weigii any thing, it is against the interpretation contended for, as Congress retraced its steps withm one year after the passage of the law of 1804. But the admission for argument sake was a mere gratuity, that a negative clause might be in- terpreted into a grant of power. I contend, this clause gives no power. How should it be understood, ac- cording to the plain intent of the constitution? To Con- gress had been given the power to regulate foreign commerce, and to establish an uniform rule of natur^iza- tion. But, lest this power should be exercised against the wishes of a particular portion of the Union, for the reasons stated above, this clause was i troduced. I do not mean to be understood as saying any thing about the right of Congress to interfere in the case of the migra- tion of foreigners ; whether they have or not is not now involved; and its restriction till 1808 by no means im- plies necessarily such a power. For it is palpable that this section was drawn, out of abundant caution, 8c, as is evinced by the 4th clause of that section, Congress is interdicted from exercising an authority in any other way than had been previously prescribed. Its language is — no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Hence, it follows that, as I said be- 8 ■fore, a restraint on Congress does not imply the exist- ence of the power restrained; for 1 presunie the gentle- man from New Hampshire would iuirdly contend that Congress, even without this clause, would have had the power to vary the standard of the apportionment of di- rect taxation. But, it is said, that, as Congress has the power to prevent the importation of slaves under the clause of regulating foreign commerce, they have the power to prevent the passage of slaves from one state to another under the clause of regulating the commerce between the states. Now, sir, what is comnitrce, ac- cording to the commiOn understanding of niankincl, or in its strictest sense, as furnished by the most approved lexicographers? Ii is traffic. Andean any one soberly contend that a removal of the head of a family, like the patriarch of times gone by,- carrying with hiin his house- hold, is engaged in that kind of commerce whose regu- lation has been given to Congress. His slaves are a part of his family ; they have descended from generation to generation ; are the depository of the history of his fa- mily; h'ave rocked the cradle of his infancy, or have been companions of his youth; for them he has an affectionate regard; to preserve whom, if adversity come upon him, he will sell his home, and seek a more propitious fortune in the wilderness. Will any man call such a removal carrying on commerce ? But, again, what was the end in view in giving this power to Congress ? To ascertain this, let us recur to the state of this country prior to the adoption of the constitution. The states, having abso- lute authority over this subject, had adopted various and ■vexatious regulations upon the commerce between each ether : they were as foreigners, each availing itself of its peculiar situation, at the expense of the other states. Those lying on the Atlantic made the interior tributary to them ; and, as in all unwisely-organized confederacies, this policy was generating heart-burnings, so unfavorable to union. To prevent this, to the parent government was given the power of regulating this commerce — the whole amount and object of which was, to guarantee an unrestrained intercourse between the states; not to shackle or embarrass it; still less to apply it to the ordi- nary intercourse between coterminous states in the end- less transactions occurring between their citizens. To relieve myself from a further comment on this part of the discussion, permit me to refer the Senate to the 11th No. of the Federalist. 1 will subjoin one other remark : if Congress were justifiable in attempting to legislate on this subject — I mean the commerce between the states — it can be done only by a general law; for the 5th clause of the 9th section of the 1st article expressly in- hibits Congress from a partial legislation ; and, by a re- cuiTeu^e to this clause, wliicb should be united with that giving- the power to Cong-ress to regulate the commerce between the states, it will be seen to what object this power was intended to relate : by it, the plain intent of the parties is so manifestly proclaimed, that I cannot see how it can be misunderstood by one honestly enquiring after its just meaning. But, it is contended by some, that this power- is to be found in the 3d section of the 2d clause of the 4th article. The answer to this is, that this clause relates to territo- ries, and not to states. As there is a bill depending* be- fore us directly involving your power to legislate on the territories, it is unnecessary to discuss this question now. It is sufficient to say that it is doubtful whether you have the power, even in reference to territories; but it Is palpable you can have none, under this clause, as it re- gards states. We now come to consider the last clause in the con- stitution in which it is contended that this power has been granted, viz. the 1st clause of the 3d section of the 4th article. This is the only clause which, in my estima- tion, has any thing- to do with the subject. New states may be admitted, Jkc. This is a mere extension of the 11th article of the confederation, which was linuted to the admission of Canada, and other colonies; meaning", no doubt, other Britisli colonies. To Canada the most perfect equality was guaranteed, by this clause, with the original members of the confederacy. The words "new states" must have been intended to convey a specific idea. The words are used by persons who distinctly un- derstood their import ; tor they were the direct repre- . sentatives of states whose attributes of sovereignty had been secured, in the 2d article of the confederation, by an express declaration, that all power was retained which had not been expressly given to the general government. And, in addition, the practice ot twelve years had left no doubt as to the power which had been retained and exercised by the states. When, then, they gave to Con- gress the power of admitting new states into this Union, it must be understood that, with the exception of the power then transferred to the g-eneral government, or expressly withheld by the constitution, all other power belonged to the states, and, the moment that a new state is admitted into the Union, it is placed upon the most perfect equality with the other states, as well to its riglits as its obligations. But it is, that 'new states may be admitted into this Union " My friend from Ma- ryland has, in a masterly aj'gument, shewn that it is this Union into which they are to be admitted, and no other ; which would not ensue if to one state rights were given •v;hich were withheld from another: for the terms of the • 10 Union, in that case, being different, the UnioH could not be the same ; and, therefore, they would not be admitted into this Union. It would be worse than useless for me to add any thing to what he has said, ^yhat, then, is your power ? Simply whether you will admit or refuse. This is the limit of your power. And even this power is subject to control. Whenever a territ®ry is sufficiently larg-e, and its population sufficiently numerous, ycur dis- cretion ceases, and the obligation becomes imperious, that you forthwith admit. For I hold that, according to the spirit of the constitution, the people thus circum- stanced are entitled to the privilege of self-government. Have we not a right to contend, that, if the Convention had intended to give to Congress the pou er of admitting on conditions, it would have said so ? The constitution has not authorized the exercise of such a power directly, and there is nothing to justify the exercise of such a power by implication, if implication were allowable. If, then, it be true, that your discretion, even as to ad- mission, is limited, as I have endeavored to show, and in the present case all the constituent qualifications exist on the part of the people of Missouri for self-government, you are bound to say that she shall be admitted as a state into this Union. If she be admitted as a state, all the at- tributes of the old states instantly devolve on her, and the most prominent of those attributes is the right to fashion her government according to the will and pleasure of the good people of that state : whereas your restriction de- prives her of that privilege forever ; and your restriction applies to a species of property that most pecuharly be- longs to the jurisdiction of the state government. For, can it be believed, that the states holding slaves could ever have intended to impart to non-slave-holdmg states an authority over a property in which tliey had no com- mon interest ; a property, in relation to which, so f?.r from the necessity of surrendering the power to control it to the general government, self-preservation required that it should be left exclusively to the state-governments. To all this it is repUed, that the uniform course of the government, since the ordinance of '87, amounts to a pre- cedent not now to be canvassed. Incases of doubt it is readily admitted tliat dccbions, after mature deliberation, upon full discussion of distin- guished men, arc entitled to great weight in analogous cases. Now, sir, how far will the proceedings of Con- gress under the ordinance operate as a precedent ? The ordinance itself was founded in usurpation. No such povv- er hud been granted Congress by the confederation. I.est I should be charged with an assumption myself, I will call to my aid the work so frequently referred to — the Federalis't. In page 235, this is expressly admitted. . It 11 lb there slated that it was an assumption on the part oi CoagTtss. I have seen it stated, iud>. cd, in a paniph'et or speech, (for 1 know not what to cull it,) that Congress had the power, as incident to their cliaructer. Mark the facility with which every usurpation of power is jusdtied ! Wliat is not expressly given, may he implied ; or, if there be nothing to justify implication, it may be incidtntal ; and, if it be neither the one nor the other, the next step is, that it ought to have been given ; and tlius, by some means, every power which it is desirable to exercise, will be, or may be, claimed. But, rejecting these claims as entirely untenable, I assert, the ordinance itself was an assumption of power. It is admitted that it has been acquiesced in, aad all its provisions have been earned into effect. It is not now to be disturbed. But it still is nothing as a precedent ; because it attached to a wilder- ness, and not to men. Those who subsequently settled this country adopted it from choice. Their sentiments and habits were fusiiioned by the principles of the ordin- ance, and, when admitted into the Union, instead of the right of Congress to impose a restriction on them being denied, and discussed and seriously decided, I am Avar- ranted in saying that the question was never stirred. Why enquire into a condition that was perfectly useless, the people themselves not wishing to hold slaves ? But this I assert, that the people of the states embraced by this ordinance, when in Convention, considered themselves unrestrained, and considered the question with an exclu- sive eye to its expediency. The course therefore pursued by the government, un- der this ordinance, is not entitled to the least weight as a precedent; but, if it were, I beg leave to present various precedents of a directly different character. The states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Ala- bama, have all been admitted without restriction. To what then does the history of our proceedings amount ? That, in every instance, other than those connected with the ordinance, Congress has admitted without restric- tion. Congress has never before dared to apply it to a portion of country where slaves were ; in effect, where it was to amount to a restriction. It is, however, urged, that conditions were imposed on Louisiana. The principal part of these were merely in conformity to the great principles of freedom; were incorporated in the law in reference to the peculiar people whom we were about to introduce into the Union— people wiio had before liv- ed under a difterent form of government, and who were supposed not sufficiently versed in the principles of our government; and were justifiable only, if at all. under the power of Congress to guarantee to each member of the confederacy a republican form of government. I doubt, 1 <^ however, the power of Congress to impose them at all but sure I am, that they had no power to restrict them as to the languag-e wlucii they should employ in promulga- ting their laws. The best criterion to test the right of'Con- gress to impose this restriction, is to enquire by what means will they enforce obedience, were Louisiana to refuse a compliance. For, to every legitimate power you have the corresponding one of enforcement. AVhere the latter is wanting, the former does not exist. This I think may be assumed as an axiom in our government. The ex- ercise theiefore of this power was without right, and serves no other purpose than to show the facility with which all governments advance in the acquisition of power. They well may be likened to a screw : they never retrograde ; every acquisition becomes a temptation ta new aggressions, and notunfrequently the means by which they are realized. There is one idea so repeatedly ur- ged, that those who entertain it must have credit for tlir^.ir sincerity, and that is, that we have greater pow- er with the states to be formed out of acquired territory than ni that originally a part of the United States. By what course of argument this conclusion is arrived at, I am at a loss to discover. There is but one distinction ac- knowledged in the constitution between tiie then existing Bta!:s 6ttiiuse thereafter to be admitted, and that is coiifin- ed to the importation of slaves. This shows that in all other respects t!»ey were to be on an equal footing with the old states ; for, had such not been the design of the con- vention, as they discnminated in the one case, they would have done so in every particular where it was intended. In addition, it may be remarked, that, in the 3d clause of the 2d section of the 1st article, the same principle of representation, as it regards slaves, was to be extended to such states as may be admitted ; pointing directly to the clause, of course,' that new states might be admitted into the Union. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Mel'en) says that we impose no condition ; but that the people of Mis- souri, iftluy accept it, impose it on themselves. And he illustrates his idea by a comparison of this case with that of the Bank of the United btates. 1 regret to find that gentleman placing the great privilege of a people to govern thcniselves, upon so hum'^le a footing as an equa- iitv with a hank corporation. AVhere is the resemblance ? Congress has the right to refuse to incorporate a bank; if, however, it disjienses this privilege, it may impose what terms it pleases. If they be acceptable or other- wise, nciu can complain. But Congress is boiiiidby the constitution, in this (:asc,to admit Missouri inio the I^nion; if it refuse, it ui!l do an immeasurable injury to the people of Missouri, because it deprives tliem of the 13 g-f eat privilege of self government. If you impose con- ditions as Si sine qua 11071 to her admission, however se- vere these conditions may be, she may.possibly, to obtain possession of the inestimable blessing of self government, accede to them ; but her consent is obtained by a species of force. Justice claims of power its rights — power grants a part only, and requires, before that part be given, a reUnquishment of the remainder. Is this no condition, although justice, despairing of the whole, should acqui- esce in the terms presented by power? It is unneces- sary to add any thing to a proposition so palpable. The gentleman from Pennsylvania says this is no restriction, but a blessing. Let the people of Missouri decide for themselves. We do not ask that Missouri shall admit slavery. All that we require is, that she may decide for herself. If it be, as gentlemen assert, a blessing, what have you to fear from the good sense of the people of Missouri ? You have pronounced them capable of self government m all the important concerns of life, except in this particular. Why not trust to her discretion in this ? Send out your go-carts of pamphlets, the substan- ces of speeches made in the Senate; pronounce before them your long Jeremiads against slavery, long as a Scotch coronation prayer,and can you doubt the success of your endeavors to prevent the introduction of slavery among them? Why leap the boundaries of the constitu- tion to force upon them that which you say is a blessing ? But, the gentleman from Pennsylvania asks, shall vre suffer Missouri to come into the Union with this savage mark on her countenance ? I appeal to that gentle- man, to know v/hether this be language to address to an American Senate, composed equally of members from states precisely in the condition that Missouri would be in, were she to tolerate slavery. Are these sentiments calculated to cherish that harmony and affection so essen- tial to any beneficial results from our Union ? But, sir, I will not imitate this course, and I will strive to repress the feeling which such remarks are calculated lo awaken. Permit me here to notice an observation made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis,) who, in this instance, departed from his usual urbanity. Were he to visit Europe, he fears that,on his landing, his country be- ing known, he might be upbraided by some Spaniard, for example, who might tell him he was from tiie land ot' hypocrites — with freedom on their Ups, and the bloody scourge brandishing in their hands. Would the gentle- man be without an answer ? Might he notsa}', how dare you thus defame, you slave ? Do you not bow the knee before the bloody sceptre of cruelty and superstition ? Is not the emblem of your power the wheel of the inqui- 2 14 sitioii ? Are you not the first people to kave commenced the barbarous traffic in slaves ? Are you not the last to surrender it? Have you not received a price to abandon it, and do you not at this time add perfidy to cruelty, by pursuing it to the utmost extent of which you are capa- ble ? Should the gentleman extend his tour to England, and there meet with the same accusation — feeling as he ought, and speaking as he felt, woul J he not indignantly denounce the insolence of the slanderer, by telhng him, to take the beam from his own eye before he attempted to remove the mote from his neighbor's ? Might he not ask, to whom are we indebted for slavery at all; is it not to England ? Have you not been engaged for centuries in ihis horrible traffic, and against the remonstrance of the people whom you now abuse ? Did not Virginia, of all the civilized world, first lift up her voice against this trade ? But she lifted it in vain. Gain was your object ; you weighed that against the peace and happiness of both hemispheres, and accepted it as an equivalent. Nor was ijt yielding to a momentary impulse of cupidity, or ignor- ance of its moral consequences. Kut you pursued it for centuries : and, altiiougK you were warned, by the glowing eloquence of your Wilberforce and your Clark- son, who thundered in your ears the sighs and lamenta- tions of the suffering victims of your wickedness,' and spoke, like angels trumpet-tongued, the deep damnation of your cf imes, you turned a deaf ear, deaf as an adder, and found your indemnity for all this in dollars and cents. Tis but yesterday you ceased ; and to-day you assume the moral chair, and pronounce homilies against the una- voidable effects of your crimes. For, what have the Ame- rican people not done ? Have they not, whenever any regard to their own peace would permit, emancipated the slave ? And where that was impracticable, have not the masters, by their kindness and affection, deprived slavery itself of its horrors? Cease, then, your defama- tion. Turn your eye to every region of the earth, where you bear sway, and, when you shall have relieved the wretched and oppressed, then, and not till then, pre- sume to preach reformation to others. With such mate- rials as these, delineated by his masterly hand, the blush he dreaded on his own account might be transferred to ills accuser. But both the gentlemen from Pennsylvania and New Hampshire have called to their aid the Declaration of In- dependence, and the sacred principles it consecrates. What has that to do with this question? Who were the parties— the slaves? No. Did slavery not exist in every state of the Union at the moment of its promulga- tion ? Did it enter into any human mind that it had the 15 ieust reference to this species of population ? Is there not at the present moment slaves in the very states from which we hear these novel doctrines ? How has ic happened, that tiiese doctrines have slept till this moment? Where were they at the adoption of ihe constitution, in which slavery is recog-nized, 8c the proper- ty guaranteed by an express clause ? And shall we, the mere creatures of that instrument, presume to question its authority ? To every other sanction imposed by our situation, is the solemn oath that we will support it. ""\Vhere are the consciences of gentlemer. who hold this lang'uag'e? But, they assure us, th^ttliey do not mean to touch this property in the old states. What, this eternal, and, as they say, immutable principle, consecrated by this fa- mous instrument, and in support of which we have ap- pealed to God, is to have no obligatory force on the very ])arties who made it ; but attaclits instantly yovi crOiS ihe Mississippi! What kind of ethics is this, that is bound- ed by latitude and Iontritudc~-wluch is irjoperatire on the left, but is omnipotent on the right b\nkof a river? Such doctrines are well calculated to excite our solicitude ; for, although the gentlemen, who now hold it,are sincere in their declarations, and mean to content themselves with a triumph in this controversy, what security have we, that others will not apply it to the south generally ? This,sir,is no longer matter of speculation; you have heard the doctrine contended for already, not at cross roads, or in the city taverns, but in the legislative hall of a state. When it shall be resorted to by faction, who can pretend to prescribe its limits! Every page of history is full of melancholy proofs of the feebleness of that security, which reposes upon the moderation of the ambitious and designing. The means are always made to yield to the end. I, tlierefore, heard the doctrine with unmixed regret. I fear it is the beginning of new counsels, whose disas- trous effects no one can foresee. Sir, there is one view of this subject, which I wish to present to the Senate ; if you have the pretended pow- er, why not exercise it in the ordinary and only legitimate mode, by making it the subjectof legislative enactment ? Why seek, by compact with Missouri, to bolster your au- thority ? If you have the power, is her consent neces- sary ? If you have it not, can that consent give it you ? What should we think of any man, when the bankrupt law was under consideration, if he were to propose, be- fore he acted, to obtain the consent of one or more of the states ? And yet it would be as rational as in the pre- sent case, supposing you have the authority, to require the consent of Missouri to give it effect. But the piinclpal feature in a legislative act is, that it 16 % in the power of our successors to change it ; here, oi. the contrary, you seek to make the regulation immortal. The constitution itself contains a principle of alteration, so as to adapt itself to the progress of human affairs, and yet you place a legislative act beyond all human pow- er of change or modification. I will forbear any further remarks on this branch of the subject, and proceed in tlie order I proposed. I will now enquire, whether, by treaty, we are not restrained from restricting Missouri .' By the third clause of the treaty, by which we acquired this country, the inhabitants are to be incorporated, &c. I consider it not of moment to enquire, whether their admission, according to the principles of the federal con- stitution, relates to the time or the terms of such admis- sion, because they are, when admitted, to enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities, of American citizens. An attempt has been made to discriminate between fe- deral and state rights, in a celebrated tract denominated, « the substance of two speeches," &c. For my part, I have been utterly unable to comprehend the meaning of the author. Does he mean to assert that there may be one or more citizens entitled to federal privileges, and not to state privileges? On the converse, to me it has al- ways appeared as not admitting of a question, that these were indissokibly united in an American citizen. A citi- zen of the United States must be a citiaen of some one of the states, and, as such, entitled to every right or privi- lege secured by the federal or state government. If there be any right pertaining to citizens of the United States, it is that of fashioning their government accor- ding to their own will and pleasure. This right was, therefore, secured by compact to the inhabitants of the territory in question, and any attempt to impair or a- brige it, is in violation of that treaty. In the same tract it is said, slaves ai-e not property ; the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis) frankly admits, that this is an unwarrantable assertion, and such must be the award of all mankind. Did not both the contracting parties recog- nize slaves as property? Were they not known to abound in the territory ceded, and constituting the largest proportion of the property of the people ? Is it consis- tent with reason to suppose that, when such care was taken to secure the people of the territory in the undis- turbed enjoyment of their property, the principal part was intended to be excluded ? It is mortifying to liave to contend with such a shadow. The whole terri- tory ceded was to be admitted into the union. The letter of the treaty required, that it should have been ad- mitted as a whole. You thought proper to divide it ; but you suffered theLouisiana part to come in without res. // 17 triction, in this regard. Upon what principle can you re- concile with good faith the distinction you now set up between Missouri and Louisiana ? The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Otis,) advan- ces the proposition, that,were this a conquered country, ) Congress might impose what terms they pleased — one, / instead of two Senators ; and, in short, whatever modi- / fication it pleased. As this is a question which for the | present may be said, in law language, to be coram non^ judice,, and as we have our hands full without it, I shall not discuss it. I shall dismiss it by denying its truth, and declaring that it is essential, in all cases, no matter by what method the territory may be acquired, whenever it becomes incorporated into the Union, it must be, in the language of all our precedents, on an equal footing with the original states, in all respects whatsoever. It is asked, who are the parties to the treaty, and who is there to punish its infraction ? Why propound this question ? The honor of the American people is the guaranty of its faithful execution. Our own brethren have become in- terested in its execution ; for they have mingled with the original inhabitants : they are entitled to the most liberal interpretation of the treaty, as well on the score of national law as the principles of justice and a liberal and enUghtened policy. The gentleman from Massachu- setts, in illustrating his views of the powers of Congress on this subject, has enquired, whether Congress could not exclude a religious sect from inhabiting the intended state, the principles of whose faith were unfriendly to population ; an example of which he furnished in the shaking quakers? Whatever else may be said of this view, ii will at least be entitled to the credit of candor. It, without disguise, displays the undefinable and uncon- stitutional power now asserted ; it assumes that Congress has a right to regulate their whole internal polity — for, if their religion and their connexion by matrimony are just subjects of Congressional authority, what subject of social regulation would lie beyond the reach of their control ? Lest I weary you, sir, I will now proceed to the last branch of this^interesting subject, which I proposed to discuss : Is it expedient or just ? The first objection that presents itself is its immea- surable injustice. By whom was the country acquired? By the common treasure of every part of the Union, and by the exclusive counsels of that portion which you seek to interdict by your measure. Yes, sir, I say the exclu- sive counsels. The opposition which was made to the treaty by which we acquired it, is too recent and too no- torious to require proof, Nay, sir, so inveterate is the 2* 13 opposition, that we have a portion of its leaven mingled with the present discussion. The gentleman from Rhode Island has told us that we acquired it by treaty w ith a man who has become a private gentleman, and who had no title himself. A country thus acquired, of boundless extent, is to be shut against us. Were our opponents not under the influence of an insatiable ambition, they would content themselves with the enjoyment of a large and disproportionate share of this country, to which they would exclusively succeed, independently of any legal regulation on this subject. This is too obvious to be de- nied, when we take as our guide the history of our own country, which furnishes indubitable proof that slaves, to any considerable number, are never seen beyond a given parallel of latitude. When yeu cast your eye on the map of the country in question, it is palpable that much the largest portion would never be occupied by a slave. Why are they not content with this great natural advantage ? Can you bring your minds to believe that we shall sit quietly under this act of iniquity, as insulting as it is in- jurious ? Sir, no portion of the United States has been more loyal than the South. Amid all the vicissitudes of party and the violence of faction — in peace and in war — in good and in evil report, we have respected the laws, and rallied around the constitution and the Union. To the Union we have looked, as the ark of our salvation and the resting place of our hopes. Is this your reward for our loyalty ? Sir, there is a point where submission be- comes a crime, and resistance a virtue. In despotic countries even the despot is obliged to keep some terms with his subjects : in free states you more readily arrive at the point to which I allude. Beware how you touch it, in regard to the South ! Our people are as brave as they are loyal. They can endure any thi)ig but insult. The moment you pass the Rubicon, they will redeem their much abused character ; they will throw back upon you your insolence and your aggresion. But, let us suppose they will quietly submit to the wrongs you in- iiict, what must be their feelings friendly to Union — to that harmony so essential to our common prosperity ? What is the foundation of our connection ? The Federal compact. He must, indeed, be profoundly ignorant of human nature, if he suppose the Union reposes on such a foundation. No, sir, it is a common interest, and those kind and affectionate sentiments which the preservation by a parental government of that interest generates, that form its prop and security. Withdraw these, you may preserve the form, but the vital part is gone. To what end do you encounter this great risk? To exclude slavery from Missouri ? That cannot be your object. You have 19 slaves there already. These, you say, you do not mean to touch. The principle, then, is given up : the stock they have already there will multiply and fill the land. But we are gravely told, and upon it aU the changeshavo been rung to excite the prejudices of the non-slave hold- ing states, that the political influence resulting from the slaves which will be carried to this country is the prin- cipal ground of objection to Missouri's coming in without restriction. You reduce, say they, the white man to an equality with the slave. What sophistry is this ! Will not the slave have the same influence in Georgia or Vir- ginia as in Missouri ? His removal to the latter state is in no way to increase it. But they will, we are told, multiply faster in Missouri than in the old states. Mark the dilemma in which gentlemen are placed: at one time they weep over the condition of the slave ; their tender souls are overflowing with kindness and compassion to their sufferings. To ameliorate their condition is their professed object. What course do they pursue to ac- complish it ? To pen them up, as my honorable friend from North Carolina has justly remarked, and cut them off" from those benefits which await tliem in a new and fertile country ; the enjoyment of which produces that increase they so much affect to dread. Let us hear no more of humanity ; it is profaning the term. Their ob- ject is power. They assume the mask of humanity for the purpose of seducing tender consciences, and they, as far as their policy can effect it, devote the very beings whose welfare they pretend to urge as a reason for the measure of which we so justly complain. Yes • human- ity is their motto. The interest, the peace, the happi- ness of the whites, form with them the dust of the ba- lance ; their affections are alive only to the condition of the slave. They speak of their measures with great de- liberation, and invite us to be calm. They are afar off while this new drama is performing. Turn out comedy or tragedy, they are equally unaffected. On the contra- ry, we are to be involved in the catastrophe. It is not left to us to stand aloof as mere spectators. We shall have to act a part. We may lese, but cannot gain. We furnish the stakes ; and they are nothing less than the vital interests of our country. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Otis) has been edifying in his sug- gestions as to what we are to fear from St. Domingo, unless we adopt his counsels. The mention of St. Do- mingo calls up a train of unpleasant recollections. Its history is replete with instructive lessons upon this sub- ject. Let us alone, and we have nothing to fear. It is your pretended solicitude for our welfare that constitutes our dang-er. It is the doctor, and not the disease, we £0 dread. Yes, sir, the pseudo friends of humanity, in Frauce, far beyond the reach of the effects of their own poUcy, in the spirit of fanaticism issued the celebrated decree that involved the fate of that devoted island. Its caption was " liberty and equality." It no sooner reached its object than the bands of society were dissolved. MoMsters stalked over the face of this wretched country, and their footsteps were every where traced by confla- g-ratioR, and rapine, and murder, and lust, and all the unutterable horrors which the most ferocious passions, coupled with unbridled power, could inflict. The few wretched survivors, who fled before the fury of the storm, carried to every part of Christendom their tale of suffering" and of woe, which, by its irresistible pathos, drew tears of pity from every eye. But, where or when has it been known that fanaticism has paused to reflect on consequences? Experience, the lessons of prudence and of caution, are presented to it in vain. But, sir, let us analyze this argument of the gentleman from Massa. chusetts, if, indeed, argument it may be called. If, says he, you extend slavery to Missouri, the emissaries of St. Domingo will penetrate this interior region, and preach the doctrines of insurrection. Indeed ! If, then, ac- cording to the logic of this gentleman, the slaves be re- tained in the Atlantic states, to wliich the access is the most easy, and swell to a disproportionate number, we have nothing to apprehend; but, if removed' to the inte- rior, and so diffused as to be entirely out-numbered by the white population, then, and not till then, are we in danger. Can any thing be necessary to refute a propo- aition, when to state it is to destroy it ? But, gentlemen defend the course they pursue, on the ground of charity and benevolence to this unfortunate species of population. Charity, sir, in its just sense, is one of the first of virtues ; it bears upon its face the im- press of its celestial birth ; it prompts the man, at the expanse of his own comforts, to give food to the hungry and clothing to the naked. If his scanty means deny him this privilege, he acts the good Samaritan — hours balm in the wound, and binds up the broken heart. His re- ward is ample here and hereafter. Here, in the uplifted and thankful eye of wretchedness relieved; there, it is a ministering angel at the throne of eternal justice. But that charity which seeks to gratify itself at the expense of another ; which subjects the actor to no sacrifice, to no danger, is mere hypocrisy— 'tis the reluctant homage which vice pays to virtue. In which predicament my op- ponents stand ! It is my property they seek to take ; it is my peace, my sNfety, my happiness, that are put to hazard. I exempt the gentleman from Massachusetts 21 {Mr. Otis) from any part of these allusions : he has frank- ly told us that he is actuated by no benevolent consider- ation ; he justifies his course on the score of policy. We are «ontiaually reproached with having on our side every advantage from the union ; that we have con- trived to gain an unjust portion of power through our slaves, and have given in return no equivalent. Let us analyze this charge, and test its justness. According to the principles of those who hold all men equal, it is we who have made the sacrifice, rather than gained an ad- vantage, in the ratio of representation, as it regards our slaves. In submitting to the deduction of two-fifths of this species of population, we have surrendered precisely that proportion of our just claims. Independent sove- reignties, entering into federal association, agree that their voice in the union shall depend on their relative numbers. What right has one of the parties to enquire into the condition of any portion of the inhabitants of another ? That is an affair exclusively belonging to the contracting sovereign. In the spirit of compromise, hown ever, the sacrifice was submitted to. Gentlemen say they do not mean to disturb it. Why harp continually upon it ? Is it to instil incurable hostilities into the body politic ; to array one portion of the United States against another? The parties heretofore existing in the United States, formidable as they were, especially at one time, lost all capacity for mischief by being broken up in frag- ments, Each state, each neighborhood, was more or less divided ; and thereby the force and effect of their violence was rendered comparatively harmless. Such will not be the case when you divide by latitudes. In their collisions, the Union will shake to its foundations. The gentleman from New Jersey, on another subject, expressed a partiality for parties ; their existence he sup- poses essential to the health of the political body. Be- ing myself fond of calm, I am willing to dispense with them altogether. His views might possibly be correct, could you regulate its extent as does the doctor his means by drachms and scruples. But I fear, sir, if I am not greatly deceived by the signs of the times, that this gen- tleman will have to acknowledge, by melancholy expe- rience, that his remedy has of itself become a dreadful disease. But, sir, I have wandered from the point, which is — that we have an advantage for which we have given no equivalent. No. Take it foi' granted, however, that it is a favor, (our ratio of representation,) and not a sa- crifice. Do we not pay in soUd bullion for it ? Is not taxation directly in proportion to our representation?- But is this all ? What have we not done for the navi- gating interest, and for the manufactures of our eastern .32 brethren ? Three years »ast, at the suggestion of tlie latter, did we not unanimously pass a law, in conformity to tlieir wishes, which interdicted the intercourse be- jtween this country and the British West India Islands in .«|ritisli ships, with a view to the encouragement of the sliipping interest of the East ? Have we not also passed a navigation act, at their instance ; and, in short, have we not done whatever we have been requested to do which could lead to their advantage in this regard P Had the South been influenced only by the sordid consideration of their own interest, they would have been content to employ the cheapest carriers, whether alien or domestic. They were influenced by a more ns^gnanimous policy. We held our brothers of the East as ourselves, and, in « promoting their pardcular interest, at our immediate sacrifice, we looked at the subject in a national point of view only. And, although a continual clamor has been ;'/ kept up against us upon the subject of manufactures, yet \ the laws which have been passed for their encourage- ment indicate the very liberal fdehngsof the South upon this subject, not to say an extravagant partiality. In the opposition w-hich has taken place to the unreasonable demands (or, at least, so esteemed by many) made by the manufacturing interest, no hostility to the North or East mingles therewith j it results from a conviction tliat a system, which can be sustained only by taxing extrava- gantly the productive labor of the country, cannot be founded in a proper regard to the suggestions of true political economy. We are asked, v/hy has Virginia changed her policy relative to slavery ? That the sentiments of our most dis- tinguished men thirty years past entirely corresponded with the course which the friends of restriction now ad- vocate ; that Mr. Jefferson has delineated a gloomy pic- ture of the baneful effects of slavery;* and that the Vir- ginia delegation, one of whom was the late President of the United States, voted for the restriction on the north- western territory. When it is recollected that the Notes of Mr. Jelferson were written during the progress of the Revolution, the mind operated upoH by its incidents, as novel as stupendous, it is no matter of surprise that the writer, who was performing so distinguished a part, should have imbibed a large portion of that enthusiasm which such an occasion was so well calculated to produce. With the eye of benevolence, surveying the condition of mankind, and a holy zeal for the amelioration of their condition, he gave vent to his feeUngs in the effusion to * Mr. King, in a speech subsequently delivered, stated that Mr. Jeflei-sou fii-st suggested the restrictiuu. 23 which our attention has been called. It is palpable these are the illusions of fancy. Sad reality has since taught him, as his example shows, that the evil, over vv^hich he wept, is incurable by human means. By which will you be influenced, the undisciplined effusions of a benevolent heart, or the sober suggestions of cool dehberations, and ripened judgment ? As to the consent of the Virginia dele- gation to the restriction in question — whetherthe result of a disposition to restrain the slave trade indirectly,or thein- fluence of that enthusiasm to which I have just alluded ; or, as is said by some, a political measure to counteract certain schemes then going on,whose object was, accord- ing to the rumor of the day, a severance of the Union, it is now not important to decide. We have witnessed its eflTects. What might have been speculation before, is now matter of experience. The Uberality of Virginia, or, as the result may prove, her folly, which submitted to, or, if you will, proposed this measure, has eventuated 5n effects which speak a mon\tory lesson. How is the representation from this quarter, on the present question? Virginia is constrained to cry out. And you, too, my chil- dren ! 1 ppeal to the Senators from that quarter— to their filial affection, and conjure them, by the kindness we have shown them, to arrest the unfeeUng injustice meditated against us. Did we not give you the land which now constitutes your home, and which you liken, in your own language, to a Paradise ? Did we not pro- tect you in your infancy ? Did we not arrest the poHcy of the east, which sought to fetter you<- mighty river, for no matter what purpose, whether disunion or to repress your growth. Did we not place you by our side in this and the other hall, and impart to you the high privileges of self government ? You have now become powerful : will you, in the first moment we have ever solicited your aid, abandon us and go over to the enemy ? Will you surrender yourselves to the seductive influence of an en- vious step-mother, who sought to strangle you in your infancy ? Dare you lift your parricidal hand against your natural parent ? [n the face of the most unpromising symptoms, I will continue to hope better things. We have heard much of the moral and political effects of slavery. Instead of the picture furnished by theorists and enthusiasts on this subject, let us consult the testi- mony of history from the first to the present a^e. In the master states of antiquity, Greece and Rome, it existed in Its worst form. A-id, yet, such was the march of the human mind, in these distinguislied republics, in all that was ennobling in morals and science, that, it continued to shme through the long eclipse of interposing dark- ness. And, in the modern world, the lamps of science 24 and of liberty were lighted up from its yet unexpired f embers. I will not pretend to retouch the picture deli- neated by the masterly hand of my distinguished friend from Maryland. His glowing and subUme eloquence, the exclusive companion of superior genius, lifted the cur- tain which separates us from past ages, and caused to pass in review the heroes of Marathon, Salamis and Thermopylze — splendid achievements, that lose nothing in comparison with all that has since intervened. If you descend to modern times, the result of experience in our own country is no less opposed to the suggestions of theory. I will not enter into the invidious task of con- trasting the south with the north. How disastrous must be that question, whose discussion permits a member of this bodyjin recounting the splendid monuments of Ame- rican skill and bravery, to content himself with naming Bunker's Hill, Bennington and Saratoga ! Could not the gentleman from New-H'impshire permit his national feel- ing to survive so long, as to have recounted the Cowpens — King's Mountain, Guilford, Eutaw, Yorlc, and finally the victory of New-Orleans, whose memory will live co- extensively with the flood on whose margin it was a- chieved ? Why this invidious distinction .' Does the ho- norable gentleman imagine, 1 take a less interest in in- dulging my pltasing recollection of the prowess of my country in the first, than m the last ? No, they were my countrymen — the fame they acquired was a common stock ; my portion of the inheritage I will not surrender. Let it not however be supposed, that in the abstract I 2iD advocating slavery ? Like all other human tilings, it is mixed with good and evil — the latter, no doubt, prepon- derating. The gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Mellen) tells us, he is legislating for after ages. His v ew disdains the limited horizon of the present. Poor arrogant man, not content to act well his part in the little span assigned him by his creator, he builds his mole-hill, and challenges immortaUty for his labors ! A few revolving years, they are erased with the same facility, as are the characters by the flood, on whose sandy margin they have been in- scribed. Tell me at what pure fountain of knowledge, have you drank in the holy inspiration, which enables you to penetrate the dark cloud which hangs en the fu- ture,and to adapt your counsels to the endless vicissitudes of human affairs ? Satisfy me on this, before I surrender present happiness. I fear you have commenced this dis- tant voyage under the most unhallowed auspices. You violate tlie constitution ; you trample under feet the plighted faith of the nation; you do an immeasurable act of injustice to one half the nation ; you lay the founda- 25 tion of incurable hatred ; and all this, for consequences which none can see, but that Providence in whose hands is the destiny of nations. Sir, reflections of this kind call up a fearful subject of contemplation. Your govern- ment, upon its present scale, is, as yet, but an experiment. While the people are virtuous, it may equal all our fond hopes and anticipations : but, when it shall reach from ocean to ocean, become populated to excess, and poverty and vice shall have shed their baneful influence ; when materials of this kind shall be subjected to the intrigues of the wicked and ambitious ; who, judging even from the present time, is sanguine enough to hope that we a- lone are to be exempt from the calamities, to which man has been born heir. Who can pretend to predict, that the present order of things will be able to ride out the storm? And if, conforming to all human things, we too, shall experience adversity : if this last hope of afllicted humanity shall, as the precursor of its final doom, be rent in twain ; what then will be the fruits of your pohcy ? On this side the Mississippi, a black population: on the other, a white. The latter, you tell us, is feeble, inadequate to its own defence, we present only a temp- tation to conquest. Instead of presenting a rampart, you have surrendered us, by your policy,an unresisting prey to our now hostile neighbors. It may perhaps be consistent with retributive justice,that, our country overrun, you in turn may severely feel the terrible eff'ects of your pre- sent injustice. Let me conjure the gentleman to return from his distant voyage, and unite with us in consulting the happiness of the present generation. Whether sla- very was ordained by God himself, in a particular reve- lation to his chosen people, or whether it be merely per- mitted as a part of that moral evil, which seems to be the inevitable portion of man, are questions I will not ap- proach: I leave them to the casuists and the divines. It is sufficient for us, as statesmen, to know that it has ex- isted from the earhest ages of the world, and, that to us has been assigned such a portion, as, in reference to their number and the various considerations resuking from a changeof their condition, no remedy, even plausible, has been suggested ; though wisdom and benevolence unit- ed have unceasingly brooded over the subject. However dark and inscrutable may be the ways of Hea- ven, who is he that arrogantly presumes to arraign them ? The same mighty power that planted the greater and the lesser luminary in the IIeavcn3,permits on earth the bonds- man and the free. To tliat Providence, as men and chris- tians, let us bow. If it be consistent M'ith His will, in tlie fullness of time, to break the fetter of the slave, he will raise up some Moses to be their deliverer. To hira S 26 commission will be given to lead them up out of the land of bondage. At his approach, seas will subside, and moun- tains disappear. When this revelation shall be made, & the jubilee of emancipation be proclaimed, philanthro- py will hft its voice to swell the joyful note, which, sweep- ing the continent and the isles of the new world, and resounding through the old, shall cause the oppressor to let go his prey, the dungeon to surrender its victim, and give emancipation to the slave. Till then, let us draw consolation from the reflection that, however incompre- hensible this dispensation may be to us, it is a link in that great concatenation which is permitted by Omnipotent power and goodness, and must issue in universal good. I will not weary the patience of the Senate by detaining them any longer on this subject. It is the speaker, and not the theme, that is exhausted. However threatening the political horizon may now appear, I will not suffer myself easily to be cast down. No, sir, when I reflect upon our ancestors, who, flying oppression, braved a waste of waters, bringing with them nothing but tlieir household gods and an unextinguishable thirst for free- dom, taking root on a barbarous shore, growing up with a rapidity unexampled in the annals of mankind — uniting against the attempts of tyranny, and consummatmg the glorious Revolution : when I reflect on the spirit of con- cession and brotherly love in the formation of the con- stitution ; and when I finally contemplate the glory and happiness it has produced, I will not now distrust that Providence which has been pleased to dispense to us so many & such distinguished blessings.I will not permit my- seL^" to beUeve that this mighty scheme of political salva- tion, in which all nations are interested, will pass away like the grass of the field. 1 will rather continue to in- dulge the hope, that we shall remain united and free ; that we shall advance to that height of prosperity when all nations shall resort to us, whence to draw the oracles of politicAl wisdom and the sublime truths of civil and religious liberty. That such may be oui-fate is the prayer 1 will unceasingly address to the Great Difipo? iolation, of that provision of the constitu- tion, which makes it our duty to guaranty to every state 11 in the Union, a republican form of government. A re- publican government, is one derived from the people to he governed by it, liable to be altered, reformed, or abol- ished by themselves. Yet we, whose sv/orn duty it is to guaranty to the people of Missouri, a government formed by themselves, are now about to declare, that in one im- portant particular, their constitution shall not be such as they desire, shall not be alterable according to their own will, but shall, in the first instance, be such as we choose it to be, and shall not afterwards be altered without our consent. Sir, the plain meaning of the constitution is this — its provisions were intended, not only for the states, which then existed, but for s ich as should thereafter ex- ist. As far as they then existed, they at once became parties to it ; and no man can doubt but that the new states since formed, had they then been in being, would have been received as parties to that family compact, and consequently upon the terms therein contained ; but those states, which did not then exist, could not become parties ; the original states, therefore, left this constitu- tion as a perpetual power of attorney, empowering us, as their agents, to receive new states into the Union; and the various provisions of that instrument, perpetually ac- company it, as the prescribed terms of such admission. If it were otherwise, if we were at liberty to impose what conditions we please upon the new states, our govern- ment would present this monstrous anomaly, that the ori- ginal states had provided a permanent constitution, as it respected themselves, alterable only by themselves, but as it respects new states, had in effect given to Congress, the power of making a constitution for them. Sir, there is a plain process of reasoning, which, it seems to me, will put to rest all difficulty about the rela- tion, in which new states stand to tlie old; and perhaps it is because it is plain that it is not observed. It will con- sist in propounding to the committee a series of ques- tions, all of which, 1 undertake to affirm, that every mem- ber must answer in the affirmative, and yet gentlemen will find themselves reduced to the dilemma, of answer- ing them negatively, or of giving up the proposed re- striction. It might perhaps be sufficient, to put one ge- neral question only: Do the various provisions of the constitution apply to the nerv, as well as to the old states? But the committee will pardon me for pursuing tliem in detail, because by that mode I think we shall arrive at such palpable conclusions that tlie mind cannot withhold its assent. I will now commence the catechetical mode of argument which I have just indicated: — Are the new states entitled t^O a representation in this house, and, if they be, is it in proportion to their federal numbers ? IS. Are they entitled to a representation in the Senate, and, if so, is it an equal representation ? Are they entitled to electors of President and Vice President, and, if so, is the number to be in the compound ratio of their Senators and Representatives ? Are they subject to the legisla- tive powers of Congress, such as that of layhig- taxes, &c. ? Are they entitled to the benefit of the exemptions in the constitution, such as the protection agamst a duty on exports? Are they subject to the various pro- hibitions in the 10th section of the 1st article, such as that no state shall coin money, &e. ? Are they entitled to the benefit of the provision, that the citizens of each State, shall be entitled to all the privil^g-tsand immunities of citizens in the sevt^ral states? Finally, do the 9th and lOi h articles of the amendments exttnd to them, espe- cially the 10th, which puts into tlie sl\ape of a constitu- tional declaration, what would have beei; a necessary rule of construciloa; namely. That the powers not delegated to the United Slates, nor prohibited to the slates, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people ? There is oot, surely, a member of this committee who would venture to answer one of these questions negative- ly ; and yet, from an affirmative answer totiiem all, there results an inevitable conclusion, that this restriction can- not be imposed. I have assumed that it is impossible to say nay, to any one of these questions^ but,to make certain- ty more certain, let me exemplify in one, or two instances, corresponding to tliese questions. Can you give a new state three Senators, or can you pare them down to one? Can you release them from their iiabilit\ , to your legis- lative power, by stipulating, for example, that they should not be included, in the imposition of a direct tax ? ihese two cases, present examples, the first of a ri^ht acquired, the second of an obligatioii contracted, by coming" into the federal Union. Let me now put a case, in relation to the prohibitions, on the exercise of state sovereignty ; Can you authorize a new state, to coin money, or grant letters of marque and reprisal ? If every member of the committee must agree that you cannot do,any one of these thing-s, wliat, permit me to ask, is the reason ? Can the mind of man, conceive any other, but this great and obvi- ous principle, growing out of the constitution — that, com- ing into an association of states, bound to each other, by a mutual compact, the terms (jf that compact, necessarily apply to them, and consequently impart to them the same rights, and impose upon them, the same obligations which pertained to the elder members of the confederacy ? If this be not the reason, 1 demand of gentlemen to tell me what it is; but, whatever may be the principle, it is entirely sufficient for all the purposes of my argumejit, 13 that all agree, that the several prorisions of the constitu- tion, which I have before quoted, do, in poait of fact, ap- ply to, and operate upon the nexv, as much as upon the okl states. If this be tlie case, the federal rights and obligations, of the new states and their citizens, are as much fixed by the constitution, as those of the original states; the grants of municipal power made by the new states, and the reservation of the remainder to them, are as much fixed by the constitution, as are those of the ori- ginal states. But what is settled by the constitution, can- not be altered by law. If the proposed amendment, then, embrace a provision, which alters the powers or rights of the new states, or their citizens, in any degree, either by enlarging or diminishing them, then it is void, as being in conflict with the constitution, which, I have jiist shewn, has settled those rights and powers, and which is paramount to the law. I will now endeavor to show, beyond all question, that the effect of the proposed amendment is to diminish the rights and powers, of the citizens and state of Missouri. "When this amendment shall be passed, a citizen of Mis- souri cannot carry into that state, slaves from any portion of the United States; a citizen of Virginia, will have the right to carry them into his state. I ask you, sir, if these two citizens be equal ? And yet one of the clauses of the constitution, which I have referred to, and which, I have shewn, applies to the new states, declares, that " the citizens of each state, shall enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states." It is said, however, that a citizen of Pennsylvania cannot carry a slave into that state, and that therefore the citizen of Missouri, stands on an equal footing with him. I utterly deny the position. Gentlemen here reason from fact to principle, Although such is the law of Pennsylvania, it is an act of their own legislature, which they were free to enact or not, and to repeal at their will : not so with Missouri ; for, in tlie first place, we in effect decree it for them, and then declare it to be irrepealable without our consent. Let us leave all the citizens of the United States at liberty, by their own legislation, either to re- tain or abolish slavery, and then they are all upon an equal footing in point of right, as by the constitution they are declared to be : and if they shall exercise that riglit in different ways, in the several states, and thus piit themselves in different situations in point oifact, it it is an act of thtrir own will, with which we have nothing to do. It is said, however, in a memorial presented to us, that this principle would lead to monstrous consequences ; that if there were but a single state in the Union, which 9 14 tolerated slavery, this principle would not only enable the citizens of that state, to carry slaves to a state whose laws fo: bade it, but would even enable citizens of the latter state to hold them, contrary to their own laws. These consequences, if they could follow, would indeed be monstrous ; but I think I shall be able to shew, that the fallacy of reasoning which leads to them, is still more so. Our principle does not claim for the citizens of one state, greater privileges than citizens of the other states enjoy, but the same only Now it is obvious, that, if a citizen of Virginia could hold slaves in Pennsylvania, he would enjoy greater privileges than a citizen of that state. This obviates the first part of the objection; the second part is as easily obviated. I have already shewn you that the citizens of two states are perfectly equal in point of right, when they are left at liberty to retain or abolish slavery. If the one retain, and the other abolish it, it is the exercise of their own will, expressed by their ow n representatives, which produces the difference in their situations. The true principle is this : As in Virginia slavery is tolerated, a Pennsylvanian is equally with a Virginian entitled to hold a slave there ; as in Pennsyl- vania slavery is not tolerated, the citizens of neither state can hold a slave there : but it it competent for either state to vary its legislative provisions in this respect, at its own will. Let us now see, whether the proposed amendment does not diminish the powers of Missouri as a state. The ^standard by which to ascertain the powers of a state, is furnished, first, by the grant of legislative power to Con- gress; secondly, by the prohibitions upon the powers of the states. All other powers, not included in this grant, or in these prohibitions, remain with tlie states. Such is the explicit declaration of the 10th article ofthe amend- ments, already quoted. Now, sir, no man has pretended that the power is granted to the Federal government to abolish slavery, or that it is prohibited to the states to re- tain it. According to tiie positive provision of the 10th amendment, therefore, it is retained ; and yet gentlemen r amendment; the states have not entrusted to any body of men on earlh, a power wiiich might en;ible them to disturb the poUtical balance, which is adjusted with S',) mucli care in the constitution ; they have not left it to Congress, to make the new states either greater or II SI smaller than themselves, but have made their own poli- tical dimensions, as marked out in the constitution, the precise standard for the formation of those states, which should come into their family by adoption. I come now to speak of the influence of the treaty of 1803 upon this quescion. The third article provides, " that the inliahitaTits of the ceded territory shall be in- corporated in the Union of the United States, and admit- ted as soon as possible, according- to the principles of the tederal constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rig-i.ts, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of tJie United States; and, m the mean time, they shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, pro- perty, and the religion which they profess." An atiempt ftas been made to assail the validity of this article, upon the ground, that it was an interference, on tJie part of the treaty-making- department of our government, with the power oi Congress, to whom authority is given by the constitution to admit new states. A little examination ot this objection will shew, that it cannot be sustained • the treaty-making power, in the exercise of their con- stitutional functions, contracted to purchase of a foreign state the territory, the rights of a part of which are now in question. They stipulated, in the article which has just been quoted, that they should be incorporated in the Union, and admitted, as soon as possible, to a parti- cipation m all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States. Here, then, is a contract, by the power in our government competent to make it, tor the acquisition of people and territory, upon condi- tions, not in violation of our constitatici^, but 5" ^J^^/>h d^-Srw'^ ^'f ^^- ^' '' ^^""' ^'^' ^'^^^' according t^oWe distribution of power among.st the respective depart- ments of our government, the stipulations in favor of the ceded country, ai-e to be actually performed by Congress; l?;i TT''''* ^^^ "'°"^>^ ^° ^^ P'-^^^' ^s tJ^e consider, tvle }u . ^^^^^°"' "i"st be appropriated by Con- nltZ' r ^^^^^^» "« ^"^^ foreign powers, there is no organ by which a contract can be made, whatever may be the subject matter of it, but that department, which reSJlr^^'^K? "^^^^treaties. If the treaty, whei made fhe nruA'; -^'"rn^'"'^' by the constitutio^, falls within the jurisdiction of Congress, it results, from the nature thot r" ^""''^'"""^"^ ""'^ ''^^ distribution of its powers, rn^!. ^^'!'' ''''T°> '^'^^°'^^ t^^eir own assent, by the ^^^^^.^P^^-^'^on of the treaty, be bound to execute its provisions. But when that assent is given, more espe- a'c'acT u7'r' "• '" ''f 'f ^^ ^'^^""^by the ac'ptai^ce thenfrpf '^\^f *'^'«" of the subject matter acquired, then a refusal to comply with the conditions of the ac* 22 quisition would be in violation, not only of the moral duty imposed by the cons'itution, but also af the plight- ed faith of the nation. What are the facts in the present case ? Congress have taken possession of the territory purchased ; they have paid almost the whole considera- tion ; they have derived large sums of money from the actual sale of the laud, and, by repeated acts of legisla- tion, have in various wttys exercised authority over the people and soil. We are, then, as much bound by our own assent, in this case, as a private man, whose agent has purchased an estate for him, subject to mortgage, would be to discharge that mortgage, if, with a know- ledge of the incumbrance, he took possession of the estate, and, either by cultivation or sale, received the benefit of the purchase. Assuming it, then, to be proven, that we are under the double obligation, first, of moral duty, and, secondly, of plighted faith, to admit Missouri into the Union, and to extend to her citizens all the rights, advantages, and immunities, of citizens of the United States, the next question which presents itself is tills — What are those rights, advantages, and immunities ? And here, sir, I hcg leave to refer to the various provisions of the consti- tution, which I have already examined, as shewing what they are ; claiming for the state and citizens of Missouri the same powers and rights precisely, as by the constitu- tion are recognized as belonging to the original states, either by grant, or reservation, and, amongst others, the power in the state by its own will, to regulate its own internal concerns, and to decide for itself, whether it will lolcittw slavery'; and, if it should so will, the right in its citizens to the slaves which they now hold, to their fu- ture progeny, and to acquire and carry into that state other slaves from any portion of the United States. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (^Mr. Sergeant) ob- jected, that the terms of the treaty embraced only the in- habitants residing there at its date. What then, sir, is the condition of the children of those inhabitants, and what has it been for the 17 years which have elapsed since that period .' Will the gentleman say, that the pro- visions of the treaty do not extend to them ? As well might it be said, tliat those who are born in a country af- ter the formation of its constitution, are not entitled to share in its benefits. What, too, sir, let me ask, is the condition of citizens of the United States, who have re- moved to that country, having purchased lands from us ? They are entitled to claim the benefit, in my opinion, of the treaty and constitution both ; but, beyond all doubt, the moment the state of Missouri is admitted into the Union, the constitution, by the provision which I have so 23 often quoted, secures to them an equality, a community ofpnvileges and immunities, with their fellow citizens throughout the United States; and gives to the state, as such, equal rights and powers with the other states of the Union, the extent of which I have already shewn. The next clause from which the right to impose this restriction is derived, is that which gives us power to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory of the United States. I do not propose to go into the general question, how far our power extends over the territories, as such : that question will hereafter be distinctly presented to our consideration. Deferring, therefore, the general enquiry till that occasion, I beff leave to remmd the committee that, as it respects the now territory of Missouri, we have, by one of our own re- gulations, given it a legislative bods ; that we have ex- tended to that body the whole power of legislation, sub- ject only to the limitation that their laws shall not be in- consistent with the constitution and laws of the United States ; a limitation to which every state in the Union is equally subject; the question of slavery is one of a le- ^slative character: it, therefore, already belongs to them to decide it by our own grant. Let me ask gentle- men, can a grant of political power be revoked at the will of those who grant it ? Would it not excite some sur- prize m this ha'I, to talk of revoking a common charter of incorporation, such as that of the Bank of the United States, unless for some cause of forfeiture of that char- ter ? I do not mean now to say, what the extent of h gis- lative power is, in relation to that subject ; some modern writers of merit seem to countenance the idea, that there are strong cases, in which it would be a legitimate exer- cise of power : but of this I am sure— that this house would not undertake to revoke the most common char- ter which they had granted, unless for some act of for- teiture ; and yet it seems to be thought by many an act quite of ordinary legislation, to revoke the most exalted charter which can be created— that of the grant of legis- lative power. If you can take from a territory a power ot this kind, when once granted, what would hinder you from repealing the very act, by which you would admit che same territory into the Union ? They are both grants ot political power, differing onlv in degree. But, sir, let this question be as it may concerning the territories, all further enquu-y into wliich I shall defer till that subject comes up, it h:is no application to the present case, which is the admission of a state. Whatever is our power over the territories, it is acknowledged that it co-exists with the territorial condition, and that uiien that ceases the power over them, as such, ceases ako. It is acknowledge 24 edg-cd, that we could "not impose this condition after the state is admitted; and yet it is contended, that it may be done just before its admission, by virtue of a territorial power, which must necessarily cease to exist, at the mo- ment when the admission takes place : in a word, it is ar- gued that, by virtue of a power confessedl}^ temporary, we can impose a condition, in its character perpetual, if we so will. I cannot shew the glaring- impropriety of this position in so palpable a mode, as by likening it to a case of municipal law. Let us put the case of guardian and ward. A guardian has power to make leases of his ward's land, during his minority, and to expire with it; the moment after his ward reaches majority, he has no power over the estate ; and yet, sir, upon the principle now contended for, he might .enter into a contract the day before the minority ceased, which would bind the ward and his heirs forever. If such a proposition as this, were stated in the judicial hall, in another part of this Capitol, the gentleman would be told, that it could not even be received for discussion. The next clause in the constitution, from which the power to impose this restriction is attempted to be de- rived, is that by which it is declared that " The migra- tion or importation of such persons as any of the stutea now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- hibited prior to the year 1808.'* Under this it is con- tended, that slaves may be prevented from passing from one state to another. It has already been properly said, that if that were the correct construction, it ought, being a legislative power, to be executed by an act of Congress, having equal effect upon all the states, and not by an ir- revocable compact, operating on one only. But, sir, in - dependently of this objection, there are two other an- swers to the argument attempted to be derived from this clause, which I consider conclusive. The first is, that the word migration applies \.o Jreemen^ not slaves. The ori- gin and received acceptation of the term prove this. I think I can shew it, too, by reference to tlie probable object of the clause, anil the conflicting interests of dif- ferent sections of the country which it attempted to re- concile. Let it he recollected, that the constitution entitled the slave holding states to a representation foimded, in a cer- tain proportion, upon their slave population. Now, sir, 1 think it fair to conclude, as it was agreed that Congress should not have the power to proliibit the importation of slavespriorto 1 80"^, by which importation the representation of the slave holding states would be increased, that the jealousy of the non slave iiolding states required as an offset to this, that the migration of free persons, by Q5 which their representation would be increased, should not be prohibited till the same period. But, sir, there is an answer, arising- from the phraseoiog-y of the clause, which seems to me to put an end to the question • the woras are : « The migration or importation of such per- sons as any of the states now existing- shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited." Now this word "ad- rmt, proves incontestably that the word migration, whe- ther it relates to free persons or slaves, looks to persons commg from abroad ; for, if they were already in the states, they could not be admitted. Sir, it would be a solecism m lang-uage, to talk of admitting a man into a house, who was already in it. The last source from which gentlemen have sought the power of imposing this restriction, is the clause which authorises Congress " to regulate commerce amongst the told, that this clause meant only to enable Congress, by uniform and equal reg.ilations, to prevent one state fVom imposing injurious duties upon the commerce of others passing through its jurisdiction. This is proven, first, by IherSh'J ^'?" °^ '"^^ P^^^'^^ ^y '^^ Federalist, Where the prmciple lust mentioned is stated as the rea- IZ^ v^ f"^ ^"^ Its adoption. I will add, that a striking exemplification of the principle will be found 1^ the re- inT^f'T""''^-^^''^'"* of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey; it is proven, also, by those provisions ofthe constitution which forbid Congress from givini by any regulation of commerce, a preference to the ports vP«^?r '^7^'"^^°'^ «f another, and declaring,\hat vessels bound to or from one state, shall not be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. ^ cW as^Iotw"o^'''P' -^^ '°'^' "'.^"' ^" ^^^^^5°" t« this case S !ll ?. ^"ncermng migration, that if it touch the ratfon .k./ n K^'"'^''"^ ^^''^''' ^'^^ '^^'«t, in its ope- mhte^ th . ^ '^^ ''^^^' ^''^^- To shew to the com- W fnr^« f ''"^'""''''P.'J^'y ^^'^^^^ amendment, as rest- ing for lis support unon this clause, permit me for a mo ment to present to you the shape of a bill hTvin^an"n" propnate title, and followed by the enactm tf whkh gentlemen propose. As I have shewn to you, that he new states have all the rights of the old, indu ge me so far as to substitute Maryknd for Missouri. The aTpro^ priatc t.tle, then, as derived from the lan£rua-l oi^tlt actmeiu iTi I •'^'^'^''u ' ^'^^^^" N«^^' «'^-' ^or the en- "STtenLl!?? lu '^^^^^"^^ ^« gentlemen propose; shall m; J ? r ^y ^^^ ^^"^^^' ^^- tl^'^t hereafter no slave ^hall migme from any part of the United States, into ' ^6 Maryland ; that the children who shall be hereafter bera, of all the slaves now in that state, shall be free ; and that Maryland shall provide for this, by an act, irrevocable without the consent of Congress." Such a bill would in- deed be like the painting of Horace, with a human head, but in another part, resembling- the fish. I should like to see SHch an act, with such a title, published in the Intelli- g-encer. Risum teneatis amici P Would not Maryland na- turally enquire, why single this state out, and put it un- der your prohibition ? Sir, if you mean to regulate com* meice,then it must be amongst the several states; but ac- cording to this law, a slave may migrate to Virginia, but he cannot migrate to Maryland; it is liable, then, to the strong objection, that it is unequal and partial in its ope- ration But, sir, Maryland would press you with other objections of an unanswerable kind ; she would tell you, that commerce ex vi termmi, implies buying" and selling', an exchange of equivalents ; but your law will embrace many cases, where there is no buying and selling ; no exchange of equivalents, and consequently, no commerce to regulate. She would instance the case of slaves being derived to a citizen of Maryland, by intestacy, by devise, or by marriage. She would state the case of a citizen of another state, removing to Maryland, and carrying his own slaves with him ; in not one of these cases is there the slightest pretence of commerce, and yet your law would embrace them all. She would tell you, too, that if she were to pass any act at all, she must consult her own will, her own views of expediency ; and that what she enacted, she claimed the power to repeal, without consulting Congress. But, sir, the strongest objection lies yet behind. The law which I have supposed, upon the model of this a- mendment, emancipates the children of all the slaves now in Maryland. Is this too, a regulation of commerce ? It is a contradiction in terms, to give ii such a name. This last part of the bill, sir, is the most alarming in its conse- quences, for it goes directly to the emancipation of sla- very throughout the whole United States, after the pre- sent generation shall become extinct; that is, in the life of one man— for, whilst the candles are all burning, tho* milUons may be embraced, yet the life of the longest liver terminates the period. And have you the power to emancipate the children of acknowledged slaves ? Yes, says one gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Hemphill ;) for he asked, can a man have a vested interest in an un- born human heing ? and he answered, no. If this be the doctrine, sir, though that gentleman did not apply it, and 1 beUeve did not intend to apply it, to the old states, I 27 t«peat again, that it proclaims universal emancipation, after failure of the present generation of slaves. Sir, it is of no importance, that the present Congress do not apply it : we are but actors, who fret our busy hour upon the stage, and then pass away ; others will come to act theip parts, and these principles may then be put into practi- cal execution, in their utmost extent. I will not detain the committee to prove, that a property in the parent im- plies property in the progeny. The maxim " Partus sequitur ventrem^' is as old as the civil law ; it is founded upon the immutable principle, that wherever I have pro- perty in the capital stock, I have the same property in its products. He who owns the land, owns all the fruit whicfeit produces. If, then, j'ou admit my property in the parent, you cannot deny it in the child. If, indeed, you de- ny my right to a vested interest in an unborn human being, you may perhaps go one step further, and deny the same interest m those who row exist. The argument is as strong in one case as the other. Assume but this principle, and then you need not wait for futurity, to do this great work of emancipation. No, sir, you may say at once to every bondman in the United States, you are free. I have now sir, finished my view of this question. I be- lieve upon my conscience, that the proposed restriction, IS a violation of the constitution ; I trust I have proven it; if I have, or if there be even serious doubt, I conjure the committee to pause, before they take the ste^^ pro- posed ; sir, it was long a desideratum in politics, to devise a government like ours, which should, by the union of many sovereign states, each retaining its sovereignty for municipal purposes, combine the strength of a monarchy, with the freedom of republic. With us, it is " in the full tide of successful experiment." Let us not take any course calculated to arrest its success ; such I fear will be the unhappy tendency, of the present measure. Let it not be supposed that I come here, the apostle of disunionn; no sir, I look upon the Union of those states, as the ark of our political safety ; if that be lost, we may bid farewell, a long farewell, to all our pleasing hopes and fond antici- pations of future greatness, and glory. They will be as the illusions of a deceitful dream. But, whilst I deprecate dis union as the most tremendous evil, I can- not shut my eyes, against the light of experience ; I can- not turn a deaf ear, to the warning voice of history ; from these we learn, that Harmonyy is the spirit which can alone animate and sustain a confederate republic. Whilst this spirit exists, it is displayed in acts of legislation, re- ciprocally beneficent to every member of the confeder- acy, and these become new Ugaments, to bind them to- 28 aether in the bonds of brotherhood ; this spirit is not alj at once extinguished, nor are the bonds of union, sudden- ly burst asunder: but when instead of this beneficent spirit of legislation, which I have described, a different course prevails, this spirit of Harmony gives way successively to jealousy, distrust, and, finally, discord ; let but this last, spring up amongst us, you may consider the days of the republic as numbered, and that it is fast hastening to its dissolution. When that sad catastroplie shall befal us, this noble confederacy, which, in its undivided state, could stand against a world in arms, will be broken, if not into its constituent parts, into some minor confederacies, the vic- tims of foreign intrigue and of their own border hatred. Where then will be your commerce, which covers every sea? where your army and navy, the means of your de- fence, the instruments of your glory ? They will be re- membered only, to make the contrast with your then si- tuation more painful. What will become, then, of this boundless tract of western land, the subject of the pre- sent contest, which has poured, and would continue to pour, such I'ich streams of wealth into your treasury ? It may become the theatre on which the title to itself may be decided, not by congressional debate, not by construc- tion of -treaties or constitutions, but by that force which alwav.aJ)egins where constitutions end. I conjure yoa therppeware, lest, by this measure, you excite the dis- content of one half of the Union, by legislating injuri- ously to them, upon a subject in which they have so deep a stake of interest, and you have none, in point of property; take care that you do not awaken the painful reflection, that the federal arm is strong only to destroy. I hope and trust that the wisdom of our councils may be such, as to avert these evils; but he knows little of the human character, who does not fear that consequences ' like these may follow, if the hand from which the great- est good is looked for, be the one which deals out the deepest injury. God grant that, in deciding this question, we may bear in mind this excellent motto, " vmited >ve stand, divideti we fall." --5 ^- S^ f *'• 0^ oO-.^^O^ ,^^^ , ^^ .* > « m wiit^iiS im 111 It m I'M