\,^^ \<>^ '^^r .e ''*-. ^ "^ •.'.•♦ ^ ^-'^^O'-^ "^o.-'o^^^A^ ^'J^^O*-^ %-: '"''•\ ^°^:^^%°- ./V^iA co\c^.-^-o >" o^--*/*^^ ,0^ , ♦ .K^^ The CrisiK, Uh MCesponsibiiitiea ami JPeritM. / /^ ^y — -^^yTC^ f • y '^ OF THE FON. WILLIAM N. H. SMITH, • OF NORTH CAROLINA. DKLIVKRBD IN THE HOUSE OP UEPBKSENTATlVBfl," FERBL'ARY 8, 1861. The House having under consideration the report from the select committee of thirty-three — Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina, said: Mr. Speaker : I rise to address you and the members of this House, and through you and them the constituencies we represent, under circumstances of painful embarrassment and of grave, deep responsi- bility. We cannot be insensible to events which, transpiring withiji the brief interval since our assembling at the present session, have marked their indelible impress upon the history of the country. We cannot banish from view the evidences of a great and still progress- ing movement, whose effects, here as elsewhere, are constantly be- fore our eyes. Thirty of our associates have withdrawn, at the call of their re- spective States, and are no longer of our body. The expressive si- lence which responds to the roll-call of their names — these vacant seats so recently occupied — are the ever-present witnesses of the changes which have been produced in our national condition. In the presence of these facts, and while the process of disintegra- tion is thus rapidly going on — when we see State after State sepa- rating themselves, by the action of conventions within their limits, from the Confederacy, and sending delegates, as did the colonies in the Revolution, to another congress, now sitting in a distant city, to organize anew and independent form of government — I have asked myself, what have we, the Representatives of the, people, been doing? What measures of paciiieationhave we been initiating and maturing to arrest the further progress of the movement? What to restore to the dismembered brotherhood the members broken from it? The people will hold their Representatives to a just and fearful accountability for their inaction at such a crisis. Already have they commissioned another congress and charged it with the trust of com- posing dissensions which threaten the overthrow of Government, and whose adjustment has proved too formidable a work for us. Un- til a very recent period, I have felt a great and increasing despond- ence as to a pacific solution of our sectional dissensions. Yet, since Virginia suggested the movement, so generally responded to by the States still remaining in the Union, which has brought in council commissioners of peace and conciliation from so large a part of the Confederacy, I have had a reviving hope in these indications of a de- termination among the masses of the people to take their diiJicul- ties into their own hands, that they might yet be adjusted by other agencies than our own. While we, upon whom primarily the duty rests, are engaged, day after day, iu discussing the causes and ex- tent of the disruption which has taken place, instead of providing some adequate and sufficient remedy for the grievances which have produced it ; while such has been our conduct here, what has beei-a the result elsewhere ? At this moment, my own State is calliu^ a convention of her people to deliberate upon the- most momentous issue ever submitted to their determination, and in its consequences involving their entire future relations with the Federal Government. Elsewhere, in the border slaveholding States, the popular mind is occupied with the same perplexing topic, and is intently considering the question to which of the parts of a permanently dissevered Re- public their safety, duty, and interest, will impel them to form a connection. In the course of this debate it lias been frequently asked by mem- bers of the Republican party who have spoken : "Why is all this commotion ? What has produced the general distrust and alarm now pervading the southern people Y" And it is said by them, "we have elected our candidate to the Presidency of the United States in strict conformity with the requirements of the Constitu- tion, and this is the only act done or menaced to inflame resentments that are rending the Union." Undoubtedly an adverse result of a presidential cawvass, as it is manifestly an insufficient cause, cannot fairly be supposed to produce the effects upon the minds of the southern people which are ascribed to its agency. This, however, is a very imperfect statement of the case. The difficulty lies not in the issue of an election, but in the means and influences by which success has been achieved. The fact is significant mainly from its connection with others preceding and accompanying it. To be properly estimated and understood, it must be seen in its relations and dependencies. In a confederacy of States, differing so much in institutions, interests, and habits, as those which form the Union, sectional parties cannot be otherwise than dangerous to the public tranquillity, and their permanent domination will inevitably lead to the overthrow of Government, or the separation of its constituent parts. This has been the concurring opinion of wise and patriotic men from the very foundation of our present system to the present hour. In his Farewell Address to his countrymen, and in words of fervid entreaty, graven upon every American heart, Washington remon- strated earnestly against the formation of geographical parties. In an address delivered by Alillard Fillmore at Albany, in the year 1856, immediately after the organization of the Republican party, in view of the consequences of its possible success, he spoke as follows : '• We see a political party presenting candidates' for the Presidency and Vice Presi- dency Kclocted for the first time from the free States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candidate?; by suffrages of one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. Can it be possible tiiat those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected upon the consequences which must inevitably follow, in case of success? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our southern breth- .'■en would submit to he governed by such a Chief Magistrate?" Ami then revGi\siu<2f the case, tor the piirpOHe of illustration, he proceeds : "Sappo30 that the South, having a mujoritv of thr; electoral votei«, should declare that, they would only have slavoholdt>rs for I'residout and Vice President, and should elect such by their exclusive sullVago.Uo rule over u.s at tliu North : do you think we would submit to it 7 No ; not for a moment. And do you believe that your southern brethren are less sensitive on this sui)ject than you are, or less jealous of their rights 7 If you do, let me tell you that you are mistaken. And therefore you must see, that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads inevitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeatiied to us as a priceless inherit"- aace.' Ida not cite this testimony to justify the act of national disrup- tion, as I am sure such was not the purpose of the patriot and statesman who uttered it, but as prophetic of the irritating effect of a sectional ascendancy upon the southern mind, and the conse- quences to which it would lead. Let me refer again to a similar warning given by the nominee for the Vice Presidency of the constitutional Union party in his letter of acceptance, of the 29th day of .May last. Mr. Everett writes : " I suppose it to be the almost universal impression — it is certainly mine — that the existing state of affairs is extremely critical. Our political controversies hare substan- tially assumed an almost purely sectional character — that of a fearful struggle between the North and the South. It would not be difficult to show at length the perilous nature and tendency of this struggle ; but I can only say on this occasion that, in my opinion, it cannot be much longer kept up without rending the Union.'" And again : "Can such a state of things long continue, especially with the ever-present risk of new causes of exasperation? I own it seems to me impossible, unless some healing course is adopted, that the catastrophe which the mass of good citizens deprecate, should be much longer delayed. A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into action throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up." In a letter written by Mr. Bell on the 6th of December last, he uses the following strong and emphatic language in reference to the Republican party and its recent triumph: " I have often ex[)res.sed the opinion that the success of a purely sectional party, or- ganized upon any principle, sentimeut, or policy, in strong antagonism to the interest-* and sentiments of the opposing and defeated sections, would deeply imperil the Union : nor did I believe, until the result of the October elections became known, that a majority of the northern people would ever so far disregard the counsels and warnings of W.ish- ington as to elect the candidate of such a party to the Presidency. The election of Mr. Lincoln, by a sectional party, organized and sustained upon the distinctive j^rinoiple of opposition to slavery, as it exists in the southern States, and avowing the policy ol" its repression and final extinction, (by prohibiting its extension into the Territories,) w.i.s a bold experiment upon the temper and forbearance of the South, and upon the strength of their loyalty to the Union. This experiment, if not conceived in a spirit of disunion, was made with a reckless disregard of consequences. No greater strain upon the ligaments which bind the two great sections of the country together could be devised, than the attempt to establish or inaugurate a permanent Government policy upon such principles. The late Harrison Gray Otis, of Boston, one of the most distinguished and able of the New England statesmen, when called upon, In 1835, to give the weight of his name and influence in checking the further progress of a rabid abolition spirit, then beginning to diffuse itself over Massachusetts and other States of the East and North, in a speech delivered in Faneuil Hall, did not hesitate to express the opinion that the plans and de- signs of the abolition societies, or, as they were then called, anti-.^lavery associations, contemplated such an interference with the domestic policy and institutions of the South as -would be a violation both of the spirit and letter of the Constitution, and were in fact revolutionary In their character and tendency." And agaiu : " 1 am not ftble to discriminate betwer^en the character, spirit, aud tendency of the anti-slavery principle and the slavery-repression policy of the Republican party, consid- ered in connection with the torrent of inflammatory publications aud invectives against the domestic institutions and social relations of the South, which is daily poured forth by Republican journals and orators, and the character, tendency, and designs of the abo- lition societies, and the incendiary publications which find their way to the public under their auspices. The only essential difference I can perceive between the spirit and the tendency of the doctrines and avowed policy of the Republican party, and those of the doctrines and avowed policy of the abolition societies, is in the extent and degree of the mischiefs which may be inflicted upon the South, by one or the other, and the deliberate intention to inflict them by the abolition societies, which it would be unfair and unjust to impute to the whole body of the Republican party. But both are obnoxious to the charge of pursuing a policy which is in violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of the Constitution, and revolutionary in its tendency. The policy of both tends strongly to stir up internal strife in the southern States, to excite dissensions and insurrections among the slaves, to produce alarm and a sense of insecurity, both as to life and prop- erty, among the white population of every southern State, and finally, to influence the whole South to revolt against the Government. The degree and extent of the mischief which the Republican party may be able to inflict by its anti-slavery policy, for reasons which I need not state, it will be readily acknowledged will be tenfold greater than any which the abolition society have it in their power to inflict. "That 1 do not unjustly charge the Republican party with having adopted a policy which, in its character, tendency, and practical operation, is in conflict with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution, can be made manifest in a very few words. One of the most important objects to be accomplished by the adoption of the Constitution, as declared in the preamble, was to ''insure domestic tranquillity;" and the power was expressly given to the Federal Government, by that instrument, to " .suppress insurrec- tions." The simple announcement to the public that a great party at the North, op- posed to slavery, has succeeded in electing its candidate for the Presidency, disguise it as we may, is well calculated to raise expectations among the slaves, and might lead to servile insurrection in the southern Stales. If such an event, which is more than pos- sible, should really happen, it might become the duty of Mr. Lincoln to restore the tranquillity which "the policy of his party had disturbed, and to suppress an insurrection which the same policy had excited." I reproduce these opinions from eminent men of unquestioned fidelity to the Constitution and Union, not with the purpose of en- couraging hasty and precipitate action for the dissolution of the Government, but to show the grounds of those apprehensions, al- most universally felt in the South, for the safety of their institu- tions, under an Administration controlled by the influences and principles which have brought this into power. With such testimony to the dangerous character of the political party now advancing to the possession of the executive department of the Government, and, by the withdrawal of the Senators and Representatives from so many States, to the control of the Congress of the United States, with what propriety are we called upon to point out the special acts of provocation for the deep and pervading excitement which has driven some and may force other States to seek escape from impending danger in the fearful experiment of another Declaration of Independence ? Those who confine their attention to particular infractions of the Constitution, whether con- sisting in positive wrong or disregarded duty, and as such, seek to palliate or defend them, very imperfectly comprehend the nature and extent of the grievances under which the people of the South labor. While it is true we charge repeated violations of the Con- stitution, committed not only by individuals and unrecognized bod- ies of men, but by State legislation, the extent of the injury is not to be measured merely by the amount of practical inconvenience which they occasion, but by the value of the constitutional safeguards for State and individual rights which they subvert. The cause of existing disturbances lies far deeper than thie. The southern people see" the fruit of thirty years of anti-slavery agi- tation. They realize in the present condition of things, the obvi- ous results of an excitement increasing through many years, which has rent asunder communions and associations, and now become an element of political strength, has culminated in a sectional triumph. They see in the enactment of personal liberty laws, and other kin- dred measures calculated and intended to obstruct the execution of a law to carry into effect a plain mandate of the Constitution for the renditiou'to the owner of fugitive slaves, the manifestation of a spirit reckless of its obligations and rebellious to its authority. They discover in repeated instances of refusal upon the part of State executives, upon slight and friv^olous grounds, to surrender persons charged with high crimes, when the otfense with which they were charged was in some way connected with the subject of slavery, in- dications of a disposition to disregard or evade another important constitutional duty imposed in explicit terms upon every State in the Union. And now, in the assertion and defense of a dogma which repudiates property in slaves, and denies to the citizens of nearly half the United States the equal right of removal with their labo/to the common territory, to possess and cultivate it, they find proofs of a purpose to deprive them and their property of the care and protection of a common Government. These and similar acts of aggression upon the admitted rights of the slaveholding States exhibi't the controlling sentiment of a party organization now become predominant at the North, which, in car- rying out its anti-slavery policy, has not hesitated to break through the barriers of constitutional obligation, and inspires among their people jealousy and distrust at its approaching advent to place and power. That radical differences of opinion should exist among the several States in reference to African slavery is not at all surpris- ing ; but that these differences occasion a necessary antage-uism of interest, is disproved by the general prosperity all have enjoyed in the Union under one government for more than seventy years. The Chicago platform enunciates a proposition (and it has been sustained in debate here) which has been the prolific sourcjof most of the difficulties and dissentions by which the nation is now dis- tracted and divided. It declares " that the normal condition of all the territory of the United States is that of freedom," and then de- nies the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, or of any individuals, to "give legal existence to slavery in any of the territory of the United States." And it has been insisted, in argu- ment here, that while freedom is tlwis the national statm of the country, slavery is an exceptional condition, the ipere creature of local and municipal law, and does not and cannot exist beyond the limits of their jurisdiction. This view of the domestic institutions of the States places them in confiict upon the common territory, and tends strongly to sectionalize political parties. Freedom, in the sense of the dogma referred to, is not that free- 6 dom which every American citizen claims as his birth-riglit, and belongs to every State alike ; but is applied to the African race in the United States. Let me then examine the proposition, and in- quire if it be true that freedom, and not slavery, is the normal con- dition of the race upon this continent, and especially in territory covered by the Constitution ; and to what extent property in slaves differs from other property, in being the creature of municipal law? Slavery was introduced, as history proves, into this country under the sanction of international law, by the concurring agency of all the maritime nations of Europe, at an early period of its settlement. It existed, with few exceptions, in every European colony and among the several West India Islands, not by virtue of any positive enact- ment, but by the consent of the people. Slaves were brought over from Africa, landed upon our shores, sold and bought as such, and held by the colonists, as was every other kind of property, under the universal acquiescence of the people. By this slow and silent pro- cess the institution was planted upon the continent and took root in our soil. The first laws which are found upon the statute-book recognize its legal existence only in providing for its security, and giving better protection to the rights of ownership. At the date of the Declaration of Independence, Afiicau slavery bad an admitted legal statics in every one of the thirteen colonies ; and when the Federal Constitution was formed, in twelve of the States. In fact slaves were then found even in the excepted State, (Massachusetts,) although long afterwards its courts held the sys- tem abolished by a declaratory clause in the State constitution. It came to an end wherever else it has since ceased lawfully to exist only in consequence of express acts of prohibitory legislation. The necessity of such enactments is full proof of the universal prevalence of the system in their absence. The «^a^w8 of the African — not a voluntary emigrant, but im- ported from his own to this continent under a*^ traffic sanctioned by the consent of nations — was that of slavery; and such his condition remained until changed by positive provisions of municipal and local law. The Federal Government was created for the protec- tion of the rights of person and property as found in the States that made it ; not where State authority afforded already ample guar- antee, but beyond this jurisdiction, upon the public domain, and upon the open sea, over which its flag floated. As this was its structure, and these the ends which its founders had in view, so this was the policy of those who were charged with its early ad- ministration. There is abundant evidence that slaves, like other property, have been equally objects of governmental care and defense. I will ad- duce some of it. In the provisional treaty made between the United States and Great Britain, at Paris, on the 30th day of November, 1782, it is provided that — " All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Britannic Mitjesty, with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any 7iegroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every fort, place, and harbor within the same." 4 And in the definitive treaty of peace, agreed on at J^arib, the 3d day of September. 1783, and signed by John Adams, B. Franklin, and John Jay, on the part of the United States, it ia stipulated in article seven that — ''His Britannic Majesty bIiuH, with all convenient Hpecd, and without causing any dr- struction. or carrying away any negroes vr other property (if the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies," &c. In the treaty of Ghent, concluding a peace after our second war with Cireat Britain — to which, in our behalf, are jiarties the dis- tinguished names of J. Q. Adams, J. A. Bayard, H. Clay, Jonathan Russell, and Albert Gallatin — made December 24, 1814, and rati- fied by the Senate on the 15th day of February following, it it^ agreed, in article one, that certain property captured during the war — •' Shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction, and without carryingaway any of the artillery or other public property originally captured ia the said forts or places, and which shall remain tlierein npon the exchange of ratifications of this treaty, or any slave or other private property." - Here, then, not only as slaves declared to be property, but the Government recognizes its right to protection, and aftbrda that pro- tection by distinct treaty stipulations, placing it upon the same footing, in this respect, as other kinds of property. Some misunderstanding as to the construction. of this clause in the treaty of Ghent having occurred between the parties, it was agreed, by article five of the convention of 1818, to refer the dispute to some friendl}' sovereign. The Emperor of Russia having been selected a referee, made his award on the 22d of April, 1822, in favor of the claim of the United States for compensation ; and on the 30th of November, 1826, a definite sum was determined on between the two Governments, which was soon thereafter paid for the removed slaves. Again : two vessels, with slaves on board, the Comet and Enco- mium, were wrecked, or put in in distress, at Nassau, on their way to New Orleans, and the slaves were liberated by the local authorities of the island. The Federal Government made demand upon that of Great Britain for damages for the act of spoliation of private property, and compensation was made, and the money received into the Treasury and i)ai(l out to the claimants, under the act of Feb- ruary 18, 1843. Thus, the British Government, more just than a large portion of the people of some of the confederate States,, ad- mitted the right of property in slaves upon the high seas, and be- yond the jurisdiction of local law, while under the national flag, and upon the claim of the United States, paid the full value of those, lawlessly seieed and set at liberty by their own officers. A similar recognition of property in slaves, and, as such, its chiini to Federal protection, runs through many of our early Indian treaties. In the treaty with the Dclawares, made September 17, 1778, they ex- pressly contract to surrender slaves found among them. The last clause of article four is as follows : "And it is further agreed between the parties, that neither shsiU entertain or give countenance to the enemies of the other, or protect, in their respective Stiites, criminal 6 Tugitives, servauLs, or slaves: but the same to apprehend and secure, and deliver to the Stiite or States to which such enemies, criminnls, servants, ov slaves respectively belong." The same provision, in substance, and nearly in words, is con- tained in the treaty' made with the Cherokees, November 28, 1785; in that made with the Choctaws, January 3, 1786; and in that made with the Chickasaws, January 10, 1786. These historical facts, resting upon a full acknowledgement of the right of property in slaves, demonstrates a policy not hostile but protective to the institution as it existed in the several States. They might be fortified by abundant citations from the annals of American jurisprudence, I shall content myself with a few only, of undoubted authority with those who attempt to clothe the new dogma with the mantle of antiquity. In the case of the Common- wealth vs. Ames, decided in 1836, and reported in 18 Pick. Rep., 193, in which it is held that the State constitution had abolished slavery there, Chief Justice Shaw, in delivering the opinion of the court, says : " But notwithstanding these strong expressions in the acts of the colonial Government, slavery, to a certain extent, seems to have crept in, not probably by force of laiv — for hone tuck is found or known to exist — but rather, it may be presumed, from that universal cus- tom prevailing through the European colonies in the West Indies, and on the continent of America, and which was fostered and encouraged by the commercial policy of the times. Thus it was so established is shown by this : that by several proviuciffl acts passed at various times in the early part of the last century, slavery was recognized as cx- uHing in fact, and various regulations were prescribed in reference to it.'' And again, in the same opinion, he declares : ,^ij " But although slavery and the slave trade are deemed contrary to natural right, yet it is settled by the judicial decis-ions of this country and of England that it is not contrary to t/ie law of nations." A similar view of the subject is taken by the supreme court of Connecticut, in a habeas corpus case brought before it in 1837, and which is reported under the name of Jackson vs. Bullock, 12 Con. Rep., 41. In delivering the opinion of a majority of the court, with which was the chief justice, he expresses himself thus: " It is said, however, that this is not our law, because slavery exists here to a certain oxtent. It cannot be denied that, in this State, we have not been entirely free from the evil of slavery, and a small remnant still remains to remind us of the fact. So far as slavery is sanctioned by law, so far those who are to expound the law are to give it elfect, but no further. How or when it was introduced into this State we are not in- formed. We find no traces of it in our earliest; statutes. It probably crept in silently until it became sanctioned by custom or usage. Did it depend entirely upon custom or usage, perhaps it would not be too late to inquire whether a custom so utterly' repug- nant to the great principles of liberty, justice, and natural right, was that reasonable custom which would claim the sanction of law. But we find ibat, for nearly a century past, the system of slavery has been, to a certain extent, recognized by various statutes, designed to modify, to regulate, and at last to abolish it : and thus ive think it has received the im- plied sanction, at least, of the Legislature." I beg, also, to quote an extract from the dissenting opinion of two of the judges, as delivered by one of them, (Judge Bissel.) He says: " I maintain that the State of Connecticut, from time immemorial, has been, and to a certain extent, notv is, a slaveholding State. This is too clear to admit of dispute. At what time or in what manner slavery was introduced, whether by force of some statu- tory provision, or in accordance with the commonly received opinions of the day, that the institution was not opposed to the laws of God; it is not easy, nor is it important, to ascertain. But as early as 1711, a statute was enacted recognizing slavery as then ex- isting, and providing for the regulation of the reciprocal rights and duties of master and slave. It vras then enacted that all slaves set at liberty by their owners, in case tbey come to want after tbey are set at liberty, shall be relieved by such owners, their heirs, executors, and administrators. This provision has been retained in every subsequent revision of our statutes, and was re-enacted almost in terms at the revision of 1821." And in his* able discussion of the subject he adds: ^' Still, the principle ivas recognized and actfd upon, that one man might have properly in another; might command his services for life without compensation, and dispose of him as he would of any other chattel." Permit me to cite, to the same point, the very clear admission contained in the opinion of Judge McLeaji, in Prigg's ea.se, which will be found at page 660 of the 16th volume of Peter's Kcports : " At an early period in our history, slavery existed in all the colonies ; and fugitives from labor were claimed and delivered up unckr a spirit of comity or conventional law amonp the colonies. The Articles of Confederation contained no provision on the subject, and there can be no doubt that the. provision introduced into the Gonstiintion was the result of experience and manifest necessity. A matter so delicate, important, and exciting, was very properly introduced into the organic law."' Such is the unbroken current of authority to the fact of the al- most universal diffusion and recognised existence of the system of African slavery as the normal condition of the race upon this con- tinent, and in opposition to the party dogma that denounces and seeks to denationalize it. But it_ is still urged that the policy of the fathers was decisively against its extension beyond the limits of the States, and that the Republican party only intend to carry that policy out. In proof of this, the restrictive ordinance of 1787, enact- ed forthegovernnient of the Northwest Territory, is appealed to. When the Federal Constitution went into operation, it found this restrictive law in force, and it w^as only so far altered as to make its provisions conform to the change in the Government. But this enactment does not prove that such power was intended to be conferred upon the Federal Congress by a Constitution after- wards made, uor does the application of the restriction to territory lying immediately behind the States which it was well understood would soon become free, and in the direct line of their westward emigration, show that the principle was intended to be one of gen- eral policy. If such was the purpose, it is difficult to assign a rea- son for their failure to give it expression in comprehensive terms applicable to future territory acquired, or to insert it in the funda- mental law. But, whatever may be the force of the argument drawn from the fact, it stands confronted with other and opposing facts. The State of Kentucky, soon after, with the assent of Virginia, was admitted into the Union slaveholding territory. The grants from North Carolina and Georgia, of the land between their west boundaries and the Mississippi river, were upon the express condi- tion of its remaining thereafter slaveholdino^ territory; and as eucii it was accepted and held by the Federal Government. If the Northwestern Territory was reserved for settlers from the free States, it is equally true that the other cessions were kept free and open to the ingress of settlers from the slave States. Till a recent period, indeed, all our acquisitions have been of slaveholding ter- ritory. This was the condition of the territory obtained from ^pain 10 and from France. Nor, indeed, for the first half century of our national existence, was an_y successful attempt made to apply an anti-slavery restriction to them, except in the instance of the Mis- souri compromise line, in 1820, adopted as an alternative for a measure still more obnoxious, and striking directly at the equality of the States. But, Mr. Speaker, dismissing this topic, I propose to devote the remaining portion of my time to an examination of the plans of pacification which have been offered to the House. And permit me here to say that I have listened with great pleasure to the able and generous speech iraraediatel}^ preceding my own. If there were found among all the Representatives of the people the same amicable and conciliatory temper as that evinced by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. KellogCt,] even yet we might hope not only for the retention of the States now meditating the contingency of a withdrawal, but the restoration even to the Union of such as have already gone out. The SPEAKER. The hour fixed by the House for taking a re- cess has arrived. Mr. WINSLOW. I move that, by unanimous consent, my col- league be allowed to close his remarks before a recess is taken. There was no objection ; and it was so ordered. Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I cannot, Mr. Speaker, impart more force to the observations I have submitted than by incorpo- rating among them an extract from the speech made in the House the other day by the honorable gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. How- ard,] in which he recapitulates the many acts of \vrong committed in the northern States, and which have produced results upon the public mind we are here this day compelled to contemplate. He said : " Then, sir, in this case it is very evident that the northern States were the aggress- ors ; and if they really at heart desire the preservation of the Union, let them first correct the errors at home. Let them do equity before they demand equity at the hands of others. Let them come into court with clean hands and pure hearts, for they laid the foundation of the present difficulties and dangers that now beset us, by the nullifying nets of their own Legislatures. Let the northern States immediately, and without delay, repeal the obnoxious laws that now are upon their statute-books. Let them cease to obstruct the enforcement of the fugitive slave law. Let the e.-cecutivea of those States respond promptly to the legal demand of the southern States, and yield up the fleeing criminal to justice, to be tried by the laws of the States which he has violated, and not undertake to obstruct the settled comity of States by the interposition of pettifogging technicality. Let them cease their incessant abuse, vilification, and misrepresentation of their southern brethren Let thom cease to make crime honorable by holding out rewards and inducements for its commission. Let them cease to commission and send forth their emissaries to stir up the unsuspecting slave to insurrection, to murder, rape, arson, and all other crimes known and recognized by the calendar — not that they have the slightest interest in the happiness and welfare of the slave, but that thej^ may use his condition for political effect. Let them cease to entice the slave from his master, and to remove him beyond his reach and control. Let them cease to endanger the lib- erty and liappiness of twenty-si.T million people to obtain that of four. Let them not stand up in the Halls of the national Legislatui'e, and boast that they are eighteen mil- lion strong, and they are prepared in tlieir strength for their southern brethren if they do not submit to such terms as they may dictate. Let they themselves be loyal to the laws, the Constitution, and Union, before they demand and enforce loyalty at the hands of others. Let them do these things ; for everj'^ evil which I have enumerated is in ex- istence among them, and not one has, in the slightest degree, been exaggerated.'' And again, in regard to the fugitive-slave law, he proceeds : 11 "Theu, I ask, bus tliia law beeu obeyed ami enforced in the uoitherr. titnies ? Every one who is acquainted with the history of the country is ready to answer in the nega- tive. It is these act* of disobedience ui)on the part of the noriliern Stixtci- that is so rapidh' alienating the two sections from each other, and is dipj^inp nn impassable trnlf between people that should have always been one, and which demands at the handa of all loyal and law-abiding citizens an open condemnation and reproach. Twelve of the northern States have not only refused to enforce its provisions, but have actually passed laws in direct violation of its spirit and letter, and in hindrance of its execution." This is the testimony of a northern man to a series of provcjca- tionsof liis own section, which are the primary and chief causes of the dangers and difficulties in which the country is involved. I cannot say what will be the policy of the State which my col- leagues and myself have the honor to represent. I know that in all her past history North Carolina has been true and faithful to all her covenant engagements under the Federal Constitution. Although, in common with her southern sister States, she deeply feels the wrongs inflicted on her, she has patiently endured them, and is unwilling to be a party to the destruction of the fabric of Government which Washington and his compatriots formed and gave us, so long as her honor and her rights are safe within the Union. What her action will be, we shall soon know, through a convention of her people about to be called, whose voice, I may say for all, will be the rule of conduct for her own loyal citizens. There is time yet to make a peace-olfering to her. There remains an interval in which those who hold in their hands the destinies of the Republic may tender some reasonable guarantee and compro- mise, under which she ma}' remain in the Confederacy, secure still in the possession of all her just rights. Politicians within her borders have not appealed to a disloyal sentiment among her people. It has never been prudent to do so. And standing as she now does by the side of the very State which lirst moved in the great drama of revolution, she maintains calmly her own steadfast position, strong in her attachment to the Union, and firm in her purpose to maintain inviolate all her own constitu- tional rights within it, if they can be. She has already, through her Legislature, pointed out those remedial measures she deems material to arrest the progress of disunion. Early in the present session one of the few remaining statesmen of the age which has passed, yet lingering awhile in the Senate, offered, in a spirit of conciliation, a plan of adjustment for our na- tional dissensions. Later still, not discouraged at their unkind re- ception, he asks that his propositions may be submitted to the pop- ular vote, that a rc^^ponse may come, not from politicians here, but from that mighty power behind, which will ultimately dispose of this and all other issues. The propositions came from a just and patriotic heart; from one soon to retire from the public service with the honors of a long life devoted to his country's good, and the af- fections of a grateful people; and whose retirement, during his remaining years, I fervently trust may be blessed with the memory of successful efforts to preserve the peace of that country and re- store harmony to its distracted parts ! Shall there be hesitancy among us in going with him to the com- 12 mon altar, and pledging our united support to a plan so full of promise for the preservation and perpetuity of the Union ? The men of this day and generation, who put themselves in the way of the accomplishment of the patriotic object of the Senator from Ken- tucky, may have a fearful reckoning to make for results growing out of their persistent opposition. And now, what does this plan propose ? 1 shall not enter into an examination of its other parts, but coniine myself to that which disposes of the territorial question, in which lies the chief obstacle to a compromise. It must be remembered that, b}^ the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, and admitted by the President elect himself, citizens of all the States, with their slaves and other property, have the right to enter npon any part of the public domain, and purchase and possess the same, according to the laws of the land. The proposition is, that the South shall secure a recognition of this right under a common Constitution and Government, as de- clared by the court, to so much of the territory as lies south of the Missouri line, on the terms that the ingress of slavery upon terri- tory north of it shall be prohibited. It is, in substance, to make partition between contending sections, whereby the North will have more than three-fourths, and the South the residue of the en- tire territory now held b}- the General Government. To insure greater accuracy, I submit a tabular statement, fur- nished an honorable Senator from Kentucky, by the Commissioner of the General Land Oflice : Statement of the surface of each Territory in the United States, showing the part north and the imrt south of the parallel of 36° 30' north latitude. Territory. Kansas Nebraska.... Minnesota... Washington New Mexico Utah Indian Whole surface. North of par- allel 36° 30'. Sq. miles. Sq. miles. 126,283 126,283 342,438 342,438 81,960 81,960 193,071 193,071 256.309 40,629 220,196 67,020 1,287,277 220,196 16,730 1,021,397 South of par- allel 36° 30'. Sg. miles. 215,680 50,290 265,970 in this settlement we simply ask that agitation maj'' cease. We propose that an acknowledged right of emigration to the entire pub- lic domain may be conceded by all political parties to a fractional part. We do not seek to exclude any of the population of the northern States from a joint occupancy of the portion open to emi- gration from those which are slaveholding. The whole is open to the North — a very large part exclusively so. Mr. CAREY. I desire to ask the gentleman a question. I de- sire to know if, by the decision of the court, you have all you can IS expect by tlie compromise, what is the necessity of that compro- mise : Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. The gentleman will allow me to ask him one question in reply. "Will he carry that decision of the Supreme Court bona Hole into execution ? Will the Nortii do that ? Mr. CAKEY. I have no disposition to resist the decision of any constituted judicial tribunal. Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I desire to know whether the gentleman recognizes the right of the slaveholder to protection of his property according to the decisions of the court? ^Ir. CAREY. Whenever that decision is made, we shall cer- tainly acquiesce in it. Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. Now, to satisfy the gentleman, I will show that Mr. Lincoln admits that that decision has been made. Mr. CAREY. I will relieve the gentleman from the necessity of doing that. I know the decision has been claimed ; but that par- ticular [loint was not in issue, and it was never argued before the court. That was a side decision of the court. Mr. SIMMS. I would like to ask the gentleman a question. I understand that the gentleman denies that the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Dred Scott case, has decided the question that a citizen in a southern State is entitled to the protection of the Government for his slave property in the Territories of the United States, because, he says, that question was not before the court. I would ask the gentleman, if that question is made distinctly be- fore the court, and the Supreme Court shall decide that the slave- holder in the United States is entitled to go into the Territories with his slave property, and to have it protected by a law of Congress, if necessary, will he carry that decision into execution by voting for a law to protect that property ? Mr. CAREY. I deny that Congress has any power to pass a law to regulate property in any State or Territory. Mr. SICKLES. Suppose the court decides that it has? Mr. CAREY. When that decision is made, I will agree to it. Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. That there may be no misap- prehension of what the court has decided, I beg to refer to the head notes of the case to which reference is made : " Every citizen has a right to titke with liim into the territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recopfnizes as property. " The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the Federal Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more aulhoritv over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind." Again, in a spuech made in New York, February 27, 1860, by the President elect, he uses this lanffuaire : " Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed point in your fa- vor. Not quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The courts have sub- stantially said : it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there, as property ." 14 Now, I would be very glad to know from my friend from Ohio whether he is willing, in good faith, and in loyalty to that tribunal which is charged with the express duty, under the Constitution, of deciding constitutional questions, and questions arising under laws passed by the Congress of the United States, to give us the rights which such decisions secure ? Mr. CAREY. I certainly will. There is one question which I wish to be distinctly understood upon; and that is, that I never can recognize that human beings are property. If they have the right to take their slaves as property under the Constitution, there is no question but that the property must be protected by the au- thority which protects other property or rights. But I say that question has not been decided by any court of the United States that I know of. Mr. SICKLES. I would ask the gentleman if that question is not decided by the Constitution of the United States, in that clause which requires direct taxation to be imposed ? Mr. CAREY, I know that, in the Constitution, shaves are called persons ; and they are represented as persons. Mr. SICKLES. Suppose, under the Constitution, direct taxes are impos&d: would slaves be regarded as persons or property ? Mr. CAREY. I cannot answer questions put by so many per- sons. Mr. SMITH, of North Carolina. I must resume m3' argument. Mr. Speaker, the great error of gentlemen upon the other side is produced by supposing that there is an incompatibility between persons and property. Slaves may be persons, and they may be property. Our slaves are recognized as persons, when they are counted as part of the population upon which representation is based; as property when they are required to be surrendered by the States into which they escape when fleeing from the owner's ser- vice. Let me illustrate this point by a short quotation from the argument of Mr. Curtis, in the case already referred to: •• It cannot be denied that the general principles of international law are broad enough to cover this case. Slaves are looked upon in all codes in two lights, a.s persons and as property." They are, then, both persons and property. They are not mere chattels, but also moral and responsible beings, and the use of such a term in describing them, which apparently denies them such at- tributes, and has doubtlessly produced much unfounded prejudice at the jSTorth, only proves a total misunderstanding of the nature of the relations of master and slave. Slaves are punishable for the crimes they commit. The master only has such control over the person of his slaves as is necessary for the purpose of securing the full enjoyment of his services. They are regarded as persons with- in the protection of the laws which are thrown as safeguards around human life. But they are at the same time in subjection to others to whom their labor belongs. There is no incompatibility between the two. Obedience and protection are their correlative duties and rights. I have already eaid that the Crittenden proposition only offers us lo a part of the public territory — less than one fourth of the whole — upon the conditions and terms on which we are now at liberty to occupy and enjoy every acre of it. Why, then, it has been asked, do we desire limitations upon risrhts we already possess ? and why do we require any constitutional change in reference to the Terri- tories ? The answer is obvious. It is for the purpose of having^ quiet and repose ; it is that we may come to a common understand- ing of our respective rights and duties ; that liereafter slavery may cease to be, as for the first thirty years of the Republic it was not, a subject of political agitation. This is what the South secures and in securing so much, she surrenders to the exclusive occupancy and control of northern labor, more than three fourths of tlie public land. Is this an unreasonable request? Present it to any plain, fair-minded man; ask him if, as the North declares, free and slave labor cannot associate together upon common territory, without de- grading the former, there can be any injustice in making such par- tition as will appropriate to each a part ? True, it may prove a barren right. We may be unable to retain ultimatclv a single foot of slaveholding territory. But we shall have established a principle of equality of right, by which the pop- ular mind will be quieted, and a fertile cause of strife removed. We may bring to a peaceful conclusion embittered controversies which have irnpelled us to tlie brink of national dissolution, and restore among alienated States such relations of amity and good will as bound them in harmony ere the introduction of this element of sectional discord, at the admission of Missouri into the Union. A word or two more, and I am done. Remarks have been made upon this floor calculated to stir up unnatural resentments in the hearts of the people. A leader of the Republican party, the honor- able gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] declares, if we cannot adjust our difficulties, we must fight. He and others insist that the forts and other property of the United States in possession of the seceding States must be reclaimed, and that the Army and Navy, if need be, should be used for their recovery. Although couched in language most exceptionable — executing the laws and maintain- ing the Constitution — the proposition conveys a meaning which cannot be misunderstood by any one who seriously contemplates the practical and necessary consequences of the policy of coercion. It loads directly to internal, general war. It means that the people of the United States shall stand hereafter, face to face, not as now, representatively in these Halls of legislation, to deliberate upon grave matters of common concern, but in armed array, to settle elsewhere disputes that should admit of peaceful solution here. Let me warn those into whose hands the Federal authority will soon pass against forcing the issue to such extremity. Far better, if separation and division must come, and the States cannot remain in Union longer, that they part in amity and peace. I rejoice" that there are at the North gallant and true men, still willina: to stand by the constitutional rights of every section. I cannot omit mention of one, a young and gifted Senator, bruvej^on 16 other fields, but with higher moral courage od that arena of his well won fame, who earliest among the friends of conciliation lifts his voice, in words of solemn remonstrance against a rash and fatal policy, that pursued, would light throughout the land the flames of fratricidal strife. May his eloquent appeal, ere it be too late, meet an answering echo from his couti^men, which shall rescue the na- tion from the only greater calamity than disunion — civil war, with its train of unutterable woes and sorrows. But, I turn to more cheering signs, whose light breaks through the over-hanging darkness. The North seems awakening to a sense of the impending peril. Deputations of her ablest and best men are bringing to our doors the collected will of the people, demand- ing of their representatives the prompt settlement of the question. Two hundred and fifty thousand voices have spoken, conmianding the adoption of the Crittenden plan, or some other subtantially its equivalent. Shall we accept these tokens as evidence of a return- ing sense of what is due an injured section ? Will the North agree to that adjustment? I desire not to look beyond the failure of all attempts to compromise. The South expects, and anxiously awaits, the response to the of- fering of the Senator from Kentucky. Adopt it, and the shadows will flee from the political firmament. Again, I believe, we shall see every star blazing in its original brightness upon the nation's banner. Then, we may even hope, that prostate old oak, lying at the root of the young palmetto over our heads, may be no longer the emblem of a subverted and broken Union; and in the return- ing brotherhood of our early days, we shall find fresh assurances for the perpetuity of institutions, the birth-right of this and the in- heritance of succeeding generations. Those will have done much to deserve the regards of posterity who, by word or act, may do aught to accommodate existing difterences and reawaken those feel- ings which animated our soldiers when they stood in serried ranks upon the fields of the Revolution in defense of American liberty, and our fathers when they afterwards met in council to secure and establish it. One noble life was sacrificed for the compromises of 1850. It is embalmed in the memory of a grateful people. And what is life worth: what all the honors, emoluments, and offices which men can bestow, when contrasted with the high and noble service of sav- ing the liberties, the rights, and interests of a whole nation of free- men, and of preserving and perpetuating the only form of free gov- ernment that nowMuspires the hopes and gladdens the hearts of op- pressed humanity throughout the world. God speed its consum- mation. W. H. Moore, Printerj Penn. Avenue, corner of 1 1th street. 54 W \^ .. -^ •" ^° ^ "^ <^ -^^ ''^'. "w" A'v "^Z .'^\ x^yg ■"""vVtRf"" H a)"V BOOKBINDINC ■ • Cille Pi ■ j^ ^'^.r. <■ k. ' * Marcf »P'> ;98<