F. L?
A   ( -v
SPEECH
JOHN HUITCHINS, OF OHIO.
lielivered in th,o U. S. House of Representativee, May 2, 180O.
0
right or which is wrong.  I propose  therefore,
briefly to examine that question, and address
myself to that inquiry.
'The advocates of  slavery upon this  floor have
frankly and ably presented     the question for
our consideration;  and  I propose   to meet it.
If  the s ys tem     of free labor, as i t exists  in the
free States of this Union, is wrong, we ouaht,
as honest men, to abandon it, and adopt that
higher type of civiktioa as it is claimed,
which exists in the slave rStat es.  If the system of slave lsbor, as it exists in the  slave
States, is right, we ought, under the Constitution of the United States, to extend to it that
protection which its advocates claim for it. I
maintain thatslavery, as it exists in the slaveholding States, is wrong in every aspect in
which it can be viewed; wron~ to  the 1la~ve
wrong to the slaveholder; an injury to the material, industrial, political, social, educational,
mora, and religious prosperity of any people
who encourage or tolerate it; and, like all
other sins which afflict society, the sum total of
its results is evil, atnd only evil. Slavery originated in motives of selfishness, of avarice, and
of ambition; in an age when, by the teachings
of those motives, might was a synonym for
right-when the weak and unfortunate, and the
conquered, had no rights which the strong were
bound to respect. It is sustained at the pres.
ent day, in and out of this Hall, by the same
logic, and by the same motives.
When the colonists of this country were ex.
periencing the oppressive effects of the tyrannical measures of the Parliament and  King of
England, tending to reduce them to political
slavery, they naturally began to irquire into
the inherent rights of man, as a subject of civil
government; and that inquiry, with the discussion incident to it, in the light of the learning which the progress of society up to that
time had developed, resulted in the adoption
of "a platformh" o f pliatical principles in  ar.
mony with the- Divine l awr which was  incorpo. -,,
Mr. CHArR-M~: When the distinguished
Snator from NewYork, [WILLAM EH. SEWAD,]
in his Rochester speech in 1858, defined the
antagonism between free and slave labor to be
an irrepressible conflict, he announced a truth
inherent in the two systems, and coeval with
slavery.  The same idea has been frequently
expressed in different forms by the opponents
and advocates of slavery, in their discussions of
the subject.  If Mr. SEWAR.D, in the statement
of this truth, is entitled to the claim of originality, it is in the use of words expressive of
the idea. He has been represented as originating
the antagonism, instead of defining it.  He in
apt words clearly defined what is patent to a
student of history and to a careful observer of
passing events, namely: that there is an irreconcilable antagonism  between freedom and
slavery.  It is being demonstrated, if it n         ever
were before, by the logic of events now transpiring.  The words freedom and slavery are
expressive of opposite ideas; and wherever the
two systems come in contact, there must necessarily be conflict and antagonism.  A line of
policy which would encourage free labor would
discourage slave labor; hence the conflict as
to measures in the legislation of Congress, affecting the two systems of labor.  When, in
fixing a tariff of duties upon imports, with a
view to make the annual revenues of the Government equal its annual expenditures, a dis-,
crimination is made upon such articles as free
labor produces, so as to afford incidental pro —
tection, then we find the advocates of free labor
and the advocates of slave labor in antagonism
on this floor. When it is proposed to encourage
free labor by inviting it to occupy and improve
our unoccupied public domain, by the passage
of a homestead law, then we encounter the same
antagonism.  And so it is with every measure
proposed, having the leart relation to either
system of labor.  The establishment of the fact
of a conflict between freedom and slavery does
not, as a logical sequence, determine which is
V. SAV
IFRIEEDO
,    C,-,        t I -'
,.1,
or
11
-4 
2
rated into the Dociaration of Indepenidence.
The language is familiar to all, and I will not
quote it.  It is a clear and concise statement
of the natural equality of all nmen to protection
from Government, and to the enjoyment of
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It is erroneously asserted and unfairly con tended that the broad application, which the
opponents of slavery make of this language,
secures to all classes and conditions of people
equality of sooial relations and of political
rights.  Social relations are prompted by natu ral affinities, and it is not the appropriate  ob ject of Government to interfere with. them.
Political rights emanate from  Government,
and the extent which they are to be enjoyed
by, and applied to, particular persons, is ad dlressed to the sound discretion of the law making power.  Natural rights emanate from
the Creator, and Government cannot therefore
improperly interfere with them; and this is the
sense in which the Declaration of Independ ence declares all men created equal.  We do
not deny to women their equality with men as
to natural rights because we do  not allow
them the civil right to vote; and the same re mark will apply to minors and unnaturalized
foreigners.  This statement, in the Declara tion, of the natural equality of men, was the
platform  upon  which  the Revolution  was
fought.  Its inspiring sentiments were its war-.
cry.  This platform determines the wrongful ness of chattel slavery as an institution every where, for it cannot exist without a destruction
of those natural rights it declares to be inalien able.  This sentiment, anterior to July, 1776,
pervaded the discussions of the colonies, grow ing out of their relations to the mother coun try, and they clearly saw that chattel slavery
was inconsistent with it. The colonies found
it here in violation of that just and cardinal
mnaxim  of civil government, which, in 1776,
they so truthfully, clearly, and boldly, announced
to the world.  So sensible was Mr. Jefferson of
this, that in his original draft of the Declara tion, he inserted as one of the causes of complaint against the King of Great Britain, that
he had interposed his veto power to prevent
the colonies from suppressing by legislation
"this execrable commerce " in human beings.
This was his language:
'-'He has waged cruel war against human
nature itself, violating its most sacred rights
of life and liberty in the persons of a distant
' people who never offended him, captivating
'and carrying them into slavery in another
hemisphere, or to in cur miserable    de a th' in
their transporta     tion  thi th er. This piratical 
'warfare, the opprobrium of infidel Powers, is
the warfare of the Christian King of Great
'Britain. Determined to keep a market where
'men should be bought and sold, he has at
length prostituted his negative for suppresst ing any legislative attempt to prohibit and
restrain this execrable commerce.:
I need not further quote from the writings
of the prominent'men-Xwho inaugurated and
.Bust~ied forward the Revolution, to show that
this seltibt aderpt was general.  It is conced ed
by intelligent  men from the  South.   I assert,
without the fear of successful contradiction
from  an y s ource, t h a t  th  e p reponderance of
public sentiment in      a  majo rity of the States
at the close of the Revolution, and for a long
time  afterwards, was against   the policy  and
against  the right fulness o f cha ttel slave ry, a s it
then existed  in those State s.  I assert further,
as the   corollary  of that s ent iment, that it    was
the  general  expectation th at  slavery would
gradually disappear from all the States,
through the instrumentality of our republican
:form of  governml ent, and  through the hirman tarian influence of  our Christian civilization. 
The  f     ramers  of the Const itution  excluded
from  it th e  word slavery, as  a hateful term,
and' it' was left out, as  Mr. Madison said,
because they did not wish to recognise the
rightfulness of property in man. I have no
doubt  they had in view the future state  of the
country; when slavery should be abolished in
all of the States, and   ad apted    the Constitution
to that state of things.  It has been  conce ded
by Southern men, in the House and in the Sen ate, this session, that the leading men of the
slave States, before and after the adoption of
the Constitution, uttered anti-slavery senti ments; but it is contended that they really
were not opposed to slavery per se-that it was
sentimentalism merely, an abstraction, or spec ulation, and not intended as a condemnation of
the system. They clearly expressed themselves
as opposed to:it per se; and if they did not
mean what they said, then they added to the
practice of the wrong of slavery the hypocrisy
of double dealing. I do not charge them with
that, for they were honest men.
The gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. CtRRY,]
in his able speech, delivered here on the 14th
day of March last, upon this point, said:
' "Scarce a speech has been made or an es' say written, for ten years, against slavery, in
' which the opinions of the early fathers of the
'Republic are not introduced. These, how' ever, were but mere speculations, and were
'not engrafted upon the organic law; and
'actual results are a safer standard by which
'to measure  abstract principles.   Besides,
' times have changed since this Government
'was first inaugurated as an experimnent, not
' yet satisfactorily tested. Then there were but
' little over half a million slaves, and scarce a
' pound of raw cotton exported.
" African slavery is now a great fact —a po'litical, social, industrial, humanitarian fact.
' Its chief product is king, and freights North  ern vessels, drives Northern machinery, feeds
'Northern laborers, and clothes the entire pop' ~ulation. Northern, no less than Southern~
c ap~ital and labor are dependlent} in great de' gree, upon it, and these results were wholly
' unanticipated by the good men who0 are so
' industriously paraded as clouds of witnesses
' against the institution.
" Slavery has altered, and men's opinions
|  have altered."       
Senator Mez,sons of Virginia, in a debate upon
I
I 
3
the President's message, at this session, in the
Senate, said: 
"1 The opinion once entertained, certainly in
' mnm       y ow n  State, by able and distinguished men
'and patriots, that the condition of African
slavery was one more to be deplored than to be
ifo-stered, has undergone a change, and that the
' uniform-1I might almost say universal-senti'ment in my own State upon the subject of
African bondage, is that it is a blessing to
' both races, one to be encouraged, cherished,
and fostered; and to that extent, the opinion
of Virginia is different from the opinion en'tertained by those distinguished  men  who
have gone; but who, we believe-best know' ing their sentiments-if they lived at this day,
'would concur with us.  That is the present
' opinion."
In impressive contrast with this sentiment,
which, Senator MAsoN says, is "the presen t
opinion" of Virginia statesmen, I refer to the
opinion of one of her earlier but not less distinguished statesmen, George Mason, the grandfather of the present Senator, and a member of
the Convention which framed the Constitution
of the United States:
" Slavery discoura        ges arts and manufactures.
'The poor despise labor w        hen p    erform ed by
' slaves.  T hey pr even t   th   e         immig      ration of
w      h i         tes, wh       o really enrich and strengtshen a
country.  They produc       e      the mo st pernicious
' effects on manners. Every muaster of slaves
' is bor     n  a  petty tyrant.  They bring  the judg sment  of H      eave n        on a               country."'
Senator HUNTER, of Virginia, in, the same
debate, admitted the same fact  as t        o  t he state
of public opinion in the earlier days of the Re public, and                 that public opinion in the South
had undergone   a   change.  Honor able  Alexan der H.  S     tephens,  of Geo rgia, one of the; ablest
men          of the S outh, in a speech deliver ed  to his
con stitu    ents a fter his return from the last Con gress, admitted the same fact.
The  Republican party, then, has the opinion
of  the  father s          of th e Republic on its side, that
slavery is an  evil " m      or e to be dep           lored  than
to be fostered;" but the                          gentleman from Ala bama says, "these were  but mere speculation                  s
' and were Dot engrafted upon the organic laws;
and actual                re      sults are a safer standard by
'which to measure abstract principles." The
Congress of the Confederation gave practical
effect to its sentiment of hostility.to slavery, by
prohibi         ting   it in all the  terratrto the Congre ss
then had jurisdiction over, by the ordinance of
1787.   T    he first  session of  the First Congress,
in order that the provisions of the ordinance
might codinute, and have full effect, adopted it,
and enacted certain provisions to adapt it to
the Constitution of the United States.
These " were actual results engrafted upon "
the legislation of the country. Thesfathers of
the Republic, before and after the adoption of
the Constitution, by opinion and actioZn, treated
slavery as contraband wherever they could,
without violation of existing relations and ar  rangements. At the secondd session of the First
Congress, an act was passed for the government
of the territory of the United States south of
the Ohio river. This act was passed Mlay 26,
1790, and extended over this territory the ordinance of 1787, "except so far as is otherwise
provided, in the conditions expressed in an act
of Congress" of that session, "accepting a cession of the claims of the State of North Caroolina to that territory."  The conditions of that
act, so far as the same related to slaves, were
as follows:
" Provided, always, That no regulations made,
'or to be made, by Congress, shall tend to
emancipate slaves."
I refer to these acts for two purposes: first,
to show that Congress, in extending over this
Southern territory the ordinance of 1787, except the anti-slavery proviso, would probably
have extended the entire ordinance, had it niot
been for the proviso in the act of cession of
North Carolina; and, second, t o  show that the
Legislature of North Carolina supposed  Congress had the power, under  the Constitution, to
prohibit slavery  in the Territory.  Th is act o f
cession was passed in December, 1790. The
first session of-the First Congress commenced
MTarch 4, 1789; so that the  Constit ution was in
full force  when this act of   cession was  passed
and the State of North Carolina had but re cently ratified it, and her statesmen who com posed her Legislature in 1790 were presumed
to know  something about the provisions  of  the
Con stitution; a nd i f the y had not   supposed
that Congress possessed the power to abolish
slavery in a Territory, they would not have in serted this proviso.
Following up the abstractions of the fathers,
that slavery was an evil, " more to be deplored
than to be fostered," and to show, by " actual
results," that they intended to prohibit and re strict it wherever they legally could, I refer to
the act of Mlarch 22, 1794. The object of this
law wa,'- to prohibit any citizen or resident
'of the United States from equipping vessel"
' within the United States, carrying on trade or
traffic in slaves to any foreign country." (1
Wash. C. C. R., 522.) The next act to the
same purport was passed May 10, 1800. This
act extends the prohibitions of the act of 1794
to citizens of the United States in any mau~:,::r
concerned in~this kind-of traffic, either by per sonal service on board of American or, foreign
vessels, wherever equipped, or to the owners of
such vessels, citizens of the United States.
Next in the order of time was the act of Feb ruary 28, 1803. The object of this act was to
prohibit the importation of negroes, mulattoes,
or other persons of color, into any State which
by law had prohibited or should prohibit the
admission or importation of such persons of
color. The object of Congress seemed to be to
aid the States in getting rid of the evil of sla very.           
The next action of Congress bearing upon
the subject was -the act providing for-the tem-t
porary government of the Louisiana Territory,
ceded by France to the United States, passed:
March 26, 1804. I infinte special examination
of the tenth section of this act. The firstt clause
I
I
I
I
I 
4
of this section prohibits the importation or
bringing into the Territory, from any port or
place within the limits of the United States,
any slaves.  The second clause prohibits the
importation or bringing into the  Territory,
from any port or place within the limits of the
United States, any slaves which shall have been
imported since the 1st of May, 1798, into any
port or place within the United States, or which
may hereafter be so imported.  The third clause
prohibits the introduction of slaves into the Ter ritory, except by a citizen removing into the
Territory for actual settlement, and being, at
the time of removal, the bonafide owner of the
slaves.  This section was an unmistakable re striction to the introduction of slavery into that
Territory.  It had respect to existing relations,
and did not interfere with citizens in the Ter ritory bonafide owning slaves, and citizens re moving therein bna-afide owning slaves.  The
treaty stipulations with France compelled Con gress to respect the right of property of the cit. izens of the T'erritory; and as slaves existed
there by the laws of France, to that extent slavery was permitted there by Congress, and in
other respects it was discouraged.  Congress
could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the
migration or importation of such persons as any
of the States, existing at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, should think proper to
admit; but, by a reference to the acts above
stated, it will be seen that it prohibited the
traffic in slaves, foreign and domestic, wherever
it constitutionally could, thus stigmatizing     sla.
very as an evil to be discouraged and prohibited.  On the 2d day of March, 1807, Congress
passed the act to prohibit the foreign slave
trade as to all the States, after the year 1808,
the first moment  they could so prohibit it.
April 20, 1818, Congress amended this law,
making its provisions more effectual; and in
1819, a more stringent law was passed.  On
the 15th of March, 1820, the last act on the subject of the slave trade was passed, making it
piracy, and punishing a conviction of being
engaged in it with death.  These acts, severally
and jointly, show that the early fathers of the
Republic regarded slavery as an evil and a
crime, and, acting upon that conviction, they
were eager to punish it as a crime, where they
supposed they had a right to do so.
The advocates of slavery are not satisfied
with the opinions and practices of the fathers; 
and the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. CUR itY]
adopts the saying,  " that it is necessary for each
'generation to discuss anew the great problems
of human speculation, which continually come
'back, after certain intervals, for re-examina'tion." Suppose we accept this philosophy, and
meet the question on its merits, untrammelled
by the opinions and teachings of the fathers;
if they were wrong in opinion or action, we are
not bound to follow them.  They were honest
men, but they may have made mistakes.  From
our stand-point, it would seem to me that it
would have been better if a provision had been
inserted in the Constitution for the gradual abolition of slavery in all the States;~ and I think~ had
the  framers of  the Constitution foreseen what we
now see, they would  have so provided. The  w ords
of Pitt, on the  East India bill, quoted a pproving
ly by the gentleman from Alabama, were wise:
"Good principles might sleep, but bad ones
never.  It is the curse of society, that when a
'bad principle is once established, bad men
will always be found to give it its full effect."
The spread and increase of slavery in this
country, against the wish and against the ex pectation of the early fathers of the Republic,
verify the truth of the remark.
Now, Mr. Chairman, to the question, were
our fathers wrong, has the sentiment of Chris tendom been wrong, and is the Republican
party wrong, in regarding slavery as an evil to
be deplored and a crime to be prohibited? I
cannot take time to define slavery, except that
it reduces persons to chattels to all intents,
purposes, and constructions whatever; ignores
their rights to family, wife, or children, except
for the interest of others, and does not recog nise the marriage relation among slaves. There
are no laws in slave States regulating or legal izing such relation  among slaves.  I under stood the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr.
SiMMs] to say, in the debate on the polygamy
bill, he did not admit the legality of any such
relation among colored people. This is, neces sarily, the law of chattel slavery; for the legal ization of that relation interferes with the
property character of slaves, obstructs their
unlimited transfer and sale, and concedes to
the slave rights inconsistent with the rights of
the master.  Now, to undertake to prove that
such an entire disregard, upon any pretext, of
the rights of any class in society is right, is
like arguing that two and two are four, or undertaking to demonstrate a self-evident proposition. I understood the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. LAtMAR] to admit, in his learned
argument in defence of slavery, that the enslavement of Anglo-Saxons would be wrong, for they
are entitled to freedom because they are capable of governing themselves. But Africans are
incapable of self government, and therefore a
superior race may rightfully enslave them.
It is not within the range of what I propose
to say to reply to tbis diabolism. My friend,
Mr. LovEJoY, made some remarks upon
that, which are worthy of consideration. But I
would like to ask the learned gentleman a
question upon his governmental philosophy.
It is an admitted fact that there is in the slave
States " a visible admixture " of Anglo-Saxon
with African blood, and quite likely there is as
much Anglo-Saxon as African blood enslaved
there. What must be the proportion of admix.
ture to mnake slavery right?
The advocates of slavery discard theories}
speculations, and abstractions; they prefer actual results. I am-glad of an opportunity to test
slavery by the standard which its advocates set
up. Let slavery and freedom be judged by
their fruits. I will institute a comparison we~
twreen freedom and slavery from statistics —from
official documents —about which there is no
dispute. The statistics which I shall present
.1
I
c 
ment of the American people of all sectfo
that it is owing solely to the cause that
ginia, against the opinion of her early star
men, has encouraged and fostered the curse
human slavery; while New York, in acco
ance with that opinion, and in the spirit of
Revolution, has abolished it.
For the purpose of showing that, in comps
son withi freedom, slavery affects injuriously t
prosperity of a State, I will institute a comp~
son between fourteen free States and fourte
slave States, namely: free States-Connectic
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachuse
Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, N
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, a
Vermont; slave States-Alabama, Arkans
Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Ma
land, Missouri,  Mississt.ppi, North  Caroli
South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and ~
ginia. These free States have au area
402,693 square miles, and the slave St
have 849,328.
In soil, climate, and natural advantag
these fourteen slave States are equal to
fourteen free States named, and I think,
some respects, better.
In 1850, the population of -the free Sta
named was 13,036,934; and-f the slave Sta
9,521,237.
The value of real estate in the free Sts
was $2,408,30-9987; in the slave Sta
$1 416,102,421. The moral, socal, and e
cational condition of the same States comp
as  follows: value of churches  in the X
States,  $66,972,525; in the  slave  Sta
$21,234,226. Public schools in the free Sta
61,008, with 2,711,035 pupils; public schc
in the slave States, 18,313, with 572,891 pu~
The annual income of public schools in
free States, $6,663,603; in the slave Sta
$2,676,173. The white population at the A8
period was: in the free States, 12,842,279
the slave States, 6,113,308. The numbel
scholars in collees, academies, and  pu
schools, was: In the free States, $2,878,2
and in the slave States only 687,891.'
number of free white persons, over the age
twenty-one, at this period, who could not I
or write, was: in the free States, 411,036
the slave States, 508,-546.
The Postmaster General's report of
year, to which I have before referred, sh
the following facts: total annual transports
of mails in these free States, 38,773,154 m
at an annual cost of $3,127,060; in tl
slave States, 37,017,511, at an annual cos
$4,745,329-being carried in the free St
1,765,643 miles further, at a cost of $1,618
less than ill the slave States.
The postal expenditures for the 8
period were as follows: in the free St~
$6,513,169.68; ail in the slave St:
$5,942,092.65; and receipts as follows:
the free States, $5,052,958.14; in the s
:States, $1,908,037.98 —the expenditures in
' slave States being $428,932.97 more tha!
*the free States, and the receipts -$3,144i92
are from the Compendiulm  of the Census of
1850, by J. D. B. De Bow, and from the Postmaster General's report accompanying  the
President's annual message, made at the commencement of this Congress.  These statistics
will show the "actual results" of freedom and
slavery, respectively, upon the prosperity of the
States; their material growth, their educational
and moral condition.  I challenge gentlemen
to show a single fact incorrectly taken from the
documents  alluded to.  I will first take the
States of New York and Virginia. The former
adopted the " theories and abstractions" of the
"able and distinguished men and patriots" of
Virginia, and treated slavery, as they regarded
it," more to be deplored than to be fostered," and
consequently got rid of it; while the latter repudiated these teachings, and regarded African
bondage "a blessing to both races; one to be
encouraged, cherished, and fostered;" and,
consequently, has continued it to the present
time, and now defends it as a wise and beneficent institution; and one of her Representa- 
tives [Mr. PaYOe] upon this floor, at this se s.
sion, declared it to be "the highest type of
civilization." 
New York contains an area of 47,000 square
miles, and Virginia 61,352 square miles.  In
soil, climate, and natural advantages, Virginia
is equal, if not superior, to New York.  At the
taking of the first census, 1770, the popula-.
tion of these States was as follows: VirgiLia,
748,308; New York, 340,320. In the year 1850
the population  was  as  follows:  Virginia,- 
1,421,661; New York, 3,097,394. The value of l
real estate in those  States, in 1850, was:!
ia Virginia,  $252,105,824; in  New  York,
$564,649,649. The value of personal and real           es.
tate was: in Virginia, $391,64G,438; in N. York,
$1,080,309,2.6.  The value of church property
was: in Virginia, $2,902,220; in New York,;
$21.539,561. Virginia had 2,930 public schools,
with 67,353 pupils; New York has 11,580 public
schools, with 675,221 pupils.  The annual in come of the school fund, in Virginia, wa s
$314,625; in New York, $1,472,657. The post
office statistics of any country afford good evi dence of its business activity, intelligence, and
educational progress.  Total annual transport ation of mails for the year ending June 30,
1859, in Virginia, 4,006,725 miles, at an annual
cost of $378,872; and in New York, 6,686,488
miles, at an annual cost of $462,806.  The
Government expended, for the year ending
June 30, 1859, for postal service in Virginia,
$510,801.03; and received during the same
period, $255,075.70; being an excess of ex penditures over receipts of $255,725.33.  The
Government expended, during the same pe riod, and for the same purpose, in the State
of New  York,  $1,107,886.79, and received
$1,553,680.34; being an excess of receipts over
expenditures of $445,793.55.  Will the Repre sentatives of Virginia explain the cause of the
difference between that State and New York
upon any other basis than the superiority of
free over slave labor?  I submit to the judg
I-    -U        G
5
I
,1
*.1 
system, the Constitution gives it a legal guaranty. This is mere assumption, and has no
foundation in fact.  I deny that the Constitution, upon any fair construction, regards slaves
as property;  but, on the contrary, it treats
them as persons; allows them to be counted
as a basis of representation.  The article relating to fugitives from labor is sometimes referred to as recognising the property character
of slaves; but here again they are regarded as
persons, and not property.  It is admitted that
this clause relates to minors and apprentices,
as well as slaves; and will any one claim that
children and apprentices are treated as property, and are declared to be property?  They are,
as much as slaves are by this clause. The Constitution: found slavery existing in the States
by force of -the law-vs thereof, and there it left
it; giving to no department of the General
Governmeut direct control over it; and there
the Republican party, as a political question,
are willing to leave it- It is admitted by alliht least I have not heard it denied-that a
State can abolish slavery whenever it may desire to do so; but if the Constitution of the
United States recognises slaves as property,
how could a State legally abolish slavery? The
Constitution would be superior to the State
law; antdas there seems to be no end to the
assumptions of slavery,-this may be the next
plank to be spiked on to a Democratic platform.
According to the gentleman from Alabama,
slavery is superior to the Constitution or law,,
and not dependent upon  either.  His position
is, "Slavery exists in the  State where the
'owner dwells; exists out of the State - ex —
ists in the Territories; exists everywhere, until
'  it comes within  the limits of sovereignty,
' which prohibits it."  Slavery, then, according
to this new dogma, like our atmosphere, occupies all the  unoccupie d  space on the globe  and
fully possesses the att r ibute of ubi quity.
The gentleman gives us no authority but his
assertion, which I suppose is the result of his
re-examination  of the question. E: I quote
against it the records of the decisions of every
court of respectability in Christendom since
courts of law have bee represented as holding
the scales of justice.  I quote against it the
opinions of every elementary law wMiter and
every ethical writer of note, from the' dawn of
civilization to the present time.: And there I
am willing to leave this modern postulate of
human bondage, except so far as it forms the
predicate of the Territorial policy of the Democratic party.
The Republican party proposes, to the extent
of its constitutional power, to limit and restrict
slavery, and thereby return to the policy of the
fathers, which made freedom the rule and slavery the exception.  The dictates of humanity
and the policy of enlightened statesmanship
alike urge the party forward. We have seen
that the controlling element of the unexampled
prosperity of our country has been free labor,
and we have prospered in- spi~: of slavery, and
less. The table which I have prepared will
show the result in each State, and a comparison can be instituted, severally    or in the aggrefgate, and         the  result will be             about the  same.
I      f       the system  of            slavery, as it  exists in the
fourteen slave States I have named, is rightbest for the m       aste r an d    slave, and one to be
fost      ered and encouraged upon  the principles of
humanity and  true political economy-cWuiy is it
that these  slave        States   comp          are so unfavorably,
severally  and        in          the      aggregate, wi   th the free
States I have named? I think it would be well
for some of the mercurial-tempered a     dv    o cates of
slavery upon this floor to           answer           this question,
and others  of a similar import  which might be
put to   t hem, relative to the effect of slavery upton
the prosperity of the slave States, instead   of' a pp lying toTus, who oppose         th    e system, allpthe unpax. imentary billingsga te which ta b      ad t   aste
and a worse temper can suggest. The disparity between freedom and, slavery is too uniform
to be accidental. I have only given a few of
"the actual results" of slavery, which might
be-"-iudustriQusiy  paraded as Clouds of -wit-'
iiesses against the institution."  The census
statistics now being collected will show more
unfavorably against slavery than those of 1850,
and every Fryuing decade will widen the gap
between freedom and slavery. The reason is
too obvious to need arument to show it. Slave
labor is fdrqed and mere hand labor, and has
none of the motives of reward which stimnulate
free labor; and- the consequence is, that slave
labor does not originate, and cannot bring to
its aid, the number-less labor-saving inventions
which lave contributed so much to the industrial enterprise and prosperity of the free
States.
I refer the gentleman from Alabama []Mr.
CIRRly] to the Patent Office for "clou's of
witnesses against the institution."  Slavery is
a war of -one class of the community against
the other, and slaveholding States are constantly in a state of War, and are, in fact, under the
terrors of martial law. Their means are wasted
in patrol surveillance and overseeism. The
history of the free and slave States in this country shows to my mind, conclusively, what ethical writersihave contended to be true, that just
dealing, for States as well as for individuals,
is the best policy in the end. It is time the
American people and politicians were begin-ning to understand, what Dr. Davy long since
asserted to' -be true, "that injuring one class
for the immediate benefit oftanother, is ulti mately injurious to that other; and that, to se  cure prosperity to a community, all- interests
' must be consulted." Upon this point I therefore conclude, upon a re'exramination of the
opinions and speculations of the early fathers
of the Republic, and:"from actual results,"
they were right in pronouncin~g slavery an evil
to be deplored; and to be got rid of as soon as
p~racticable. The advocates-of slavery, with a
view to shield their system from attack, and to
add sanction to it in the popular mind, assume
~ for'it a constitutional recognition; that, as a
6
0
0 
7
shall be enacted by the law-making power for
the government of the Territories.  The slave   holding power expect to convert the national
domain into slave Territories by the decree of
a court, instituted to determine the rights of
individuals properly before them.  Neither Con   gress nor the people of a Territory are here   after to have any say or responsibility upon
the question of slavery.  The slave power is
unwilling to trust the popular will, as reflected
through Congress or the people of a Territory,
who are more immediately interested with this
question.
Mr. Chairman, it is not the first time we have
h eard of an effort of despotism to shield itself
behind technicalities and courts for protection;
and I point gentlemen to a noted case in Eng  lish history, where Charles I contended, uncon  stitutionally, that he had a right to exact ship  money from English subjects without the au  thority of an act of Parliament.  He undertook
to do it; and the question was submittcd to the
Court of Exchequer.  John Hampden tested
the matter; and he and his lawyers argued it
for twelve days with the lawyers of the Crown.
The  King got his decision from a perhaps
venal, at all events a willing, judiciary.  The
judges stood eight to four-about the same
majority as there  was  in the  Dred Scott
case.
But did he succeed in collecting his ship money?  He did not; and an indignant public
opinion compelled a reversal of the judgment;
and this will be the result of the Dred Scott
ruling.  The people have the lawful power to
reorganize the Judiciary, if necessary,giving all
the people a fair representation on the bench;
and the inevitable course of events will vacate
the seats now filled by the presentjudges, and
other men will occupy their places, and then
we shall see how long the Democratic party
and the slave power will sing hosannas to the
judgment of the Supreme Court.  The slave
powerwill then repudiate it, as the Democratic
party did when it decided a bank constitutional.
While I admit that a decision made  by that
c ourt, in a case properly before it, is binding
upon the parties, I fully concur with the able
argument submitted to his House a few days
since, by the gentleman from New York, [Mr.
CONKLING,] that it is not binding upon Congress.  We are bound to support the Constitution-as we understand it. The gentleman from
Virginia [Mr. MILLSON] very pleasantly told
us yesterday, and I have no doubt sincerely,
for his candor and ability command the respect
of this side of the House, that the Republicans
were about as powerless as if struck with lightning, on account of that decision.  If that court
is not struck with something worse than light.
ning, then I am mistaken in the effect of popular thunder.  The free people of this country
will not submit to have their Territories converted into slave States, at the dictation of the
Supreme Court of the United States.
* *',
not in consequencte of it.  If the predicates of
slavery and the Democratic party    be tr ue;           if
the C     onstitution, aprorio vigore, extends slave   ry into the Territories, as claimed in the Dred
Scott case; if slavery exists in Kansas and
othe Territories by the same rule that it does
in the slave States, as asserted by President
Buchanan, then slavery is the rule and freedom
the exception in this Government, and there is
nothing to prevent its domination and control
everywhere in the Republic.
These positions, and the policy which it log  ically leads to, would reverse the motivc power
of our civilization and progress, and run our
institutions rapidly back into the dark ages.
The leading politicians of the Democratic
party have so far reversed the principles and
policy of that party, by incorporating into its
platform the increasing demands of slavery, that
theyhave run the party as far back as Charleston;
and there, if our telegrams are to be relied upon,
they have run it off the track, and a break-up
is the result. This event, which may be re  garded as a calamity by some, by the inscruta  ble dispensations of HIim who can make the
wrath of man to praise him, may result in
saving much of the valuable material of which
the Democratic party is composed from further
destruction. It will at least teach men the
folly of attempting to jump on to the platform of
a train having a backward motion. It is diffi cult for us here, among the confused rumors
which reach us, to determine what the Charles ton Convention has done or will do.   The
Democrats North will, I have no doubt, as
heretofore, yield substantially to the demands
of the slave power; and the party will incor porate into its platform the protection of slave.
ry in the Territories. The contest is now
mainly between those who maintain the posi.
tion that slavery exists in the Territories by
virtue of its property character, under the Con stitutio!i, and those who deny the predicate and
the conclusion. There is, or has been, a mid dle ground of policy, (for I cannot-discover any
principle in it,) of which Senator DOUGLAS is
the expounder, if not the originator, which I
cannot at this moment better characterize than
to call it the Priest and Levite policy; passing
by on the other side of slaves in the Territories,
and allowing them to perish, as persons or
property, as the case may be, among the thieves
of Jericho, who may first happen to squat upon
the public dom-ain, a not caring whether slavery
is voted up or down."  This position, and its
artful author and advocate, wilf soon be, if they
are not already, politically ground to powder
between the controlling forces of the upper
mrillstone of freedom and the nether millstone
of slavery.1
Mr. Chairman, slavery has sought refuge, as
a last hiding place, under the protection of thej
Supreme Court; and if the present policy of[
the Democratic party is to prevailI that trilbunal]
is hereafter to control and determine what lawsJ
i'd,
I11 I - I
i OW. -',
.1
I 
FREE STATES.
Annual;No. scholars. wi
Areaii opulation,.Value ofrl  No.  of          in colege   rs,
Npublic 8.  of    income of          WVoite    academtes,
pupils.  public   population.  and poblin
clol.schools.
1,656     71,269     $231,220       363,099       79,003
4,052   125,725       349,712       846,034       130,411
4,822    161,500      316,955       977,154       168,754
740     29,556        51,492       191,881       30,767
4,042    192,815      315,436       581,813       199,745
3,679    176,475    1,006,795       985,450       190,924
12,714    110,455      167,806     395,071        112,382
2,381     75,643       166,944      317,456        81,237
1,473    77,930       216,672      465,509        88,244
11,580   675,221    1,47i,657    3,048,325        727,222
11,661    484,153      743,074      1,955,050     502,826
9,O061   413,706    1,348,249      2,258,160     440,977
2,731     93,457       176,111      313,402       100,785
416     23,130       100,480       143,875       25,014
,~~~~~~~~~
61,008  2,711,035   $6,663,603   12,842,279      2,878,291
SLAVE STATES.
1,152     28,380     $315,602       426,514       37,237
353       8,493       43,763       162,189        11,050
69      1,878        22,886       47,203          3,129
1,251     32,705       182,231      521,572        43,299
2,234     71,429       211,852      761,413        85,914
664     25,046       349,679       255,491       31,003
898      33,1 11     218,836      417,943        45,025
782     18,746       254,159       295,718       26,26
1,570     51,754       160,770      592,004        61,529
2,657    104,095       158,564      553,02-8      112,430
724      17,838'200,600      274,563        26,02
2,680   104,117        1.98,518      756,836      115,750
349      7,946        44,088       154,034       11,50
2,930     67,3-3       314,625      894,800        77,764
18,313   572,891   $2,676,173    6,113,308         687,891
I
I
'__.____:_
Value of real
estate.
:..._.
Area lin  lltltoi
rFq are       11850.
iniles.
4,674       370,792
55,405       851,470
33,809       988,41.6
50,914        192,214
31,766        583,169
7,800       994,51't
56,243       397,654
9,~80       317,976
8,320        489,;)55
47,000      3,097,394
39,964     1,980,329
46,000      2,311,786
10,'212      314,120
1,306       147,545
402,693    13,036,934
No. wlhitC
persons ovel
21 who can
not read an,
write.
4,739
40,054
70,540
8,120
6,147
27,539
7,912
2,957
14,248
91;293
61,030
66,928
6,189
3,340
411,036
$96,412,947
81,5'24,835
11-2,947,740
15,672,332
64,336,119
349,129,93]
25,580,3.1
67,83'3,108
153,151,619
564,649,649
337,521,075
427,865,660
57,320,369
54,358,231
$2,408,309,987
Connecticut......
Illinois..........
Indiana..........
Iowa............
Alainie...........
.MIassachusetts...
MIicll lgan........
New  IHampshire.
New Jcrsey.....
Ncwv York.......
Ohlio............
Pcnns ylvania....
Vermont.........
Rhodle Island....
33,757
16,819
3,859
41,200
66,687
21,2'21
20,815
13,405
36,281
73,566
15,684
77,522
10,525
77,,005
1.508,34fi
A I.-l)abna........
Ar-kansas........
Florida..........
Gcorg ia.........
Kentucky.......
Louisiana.......
MNaryland........
Mlississippi.......
Mlissouri.........
North Carolinia..
South Carolina..
Tenniessee.......
'exas...........
Virginia.........
- $8,870,718
17,37'2,524
7,92.i,588
121,619,739
177,013,4074
176,623,654
139,026,610
65,171,43S
66,802,223
71,702,740
105,737,49'2
107,981,7,93
-    28,149,671
25,2,105,8.4
$1,416,102,4'21
50,722
52,198
59,'268
58,000
37,680
41,255
11,124
47,156
67,380
50,704
29,385
45,600
237,504
61,352
849,328
7-    71,623
209,897
87,445
906,185
982,405
517,762
583,034
606,326
682,044
869,039
668,507
1,002,717
1,4-2-I,661
9,:5,21,237
I
I