Chapter 5

"The fixing of a line on the west of the Mississippi, north of which Slavery should not be tolerated,had always been withhim a favorite policy, and he hoped the day was not distant, when, upon principles offair compromise, it might constitutionally be effected."[44]

The present attempt, however, he regarded as premature. After opposing the restriction on Missouri, he concluded by declaring:—

"At the same time, I do not mean to abandon the policy to which I alluded in the commencement of my remarks. I think it but fair that both sections of the Union should be accommodated on this subject, with regard to which so much feeling has been manifested. The same great motives of policy which reconciled and harmonized the jarring and discordant elements of our system originally, and which enabled the framers of our happy Constitution to compromise the different interests which then prevailed upon this and other subjects, if properly cherished by us, will enable us to achieve similar objects. If we meet upon principles of reciprocity, we cannot fail to do justice to all.It has already been avowed by gentlemen on this floor, from the South and the West, that they will agree upon a line which shall divide the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding States. It is this proposition I am anxious to effect; but I wish to effect it by someCOMPACTwhich shall be binding upon all parties and all subsequent Legislatures,—which cannot be changed, and will not fluctuate with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to which this empire, in its march, must be destined. There is a vast and immense tract of country west of the Mississippi yet to be settled, and intimately connected with the northern section of the Union,upon which this compromise can be effected."[45]

The suggestions of Compromise were at this time vain: each party was determined. The North, by theprevailing voice of its Representatives, claimed all for Freedom; the South, by its potential command of the Senate, claimed all for Slavery.

The report of this debate aroused the country. For the first time in our history, Freedom, after animated struggle, hand to hand, was kept in check by Slavery. The original policy of our fathers in the restriction of Slavery was suspended, and this giant wrong threatened to stalk into all the broad national domain. Men at the North were humbled and amazed. The imperious demands of Slavery seemed incredible. Meanwhile the whole subject was adjourned from Congress to the people. Through the press and at public meetings, an earnest voice was raised against the admission of Missouri into the Union without the restriction of Slavery. Judges left the bench, and clergymen the pulpit, to swell the indignant protest which went up from good men without distinction of party or pursuit.

The movement was not confined to a few persons, nor to a few States. A public meeting at Trenton, in New Jersey, was followed by others in New York and Philadelphia, and finally at Worcester, Salem, and Boston, where committees were organized to rally the country. The citizens of Baltimore, in public meeting at the court-house, with the mayor in the chair, resolved "that the future admission of slaves into the States which may hereafter be formed west of the Mississippi ought to be prohibited by Congress." Villages, towns, and cities, by memorial, petition, and prayer, called upon Congress to maintain the great principle of the Prohibition of Slavery. The same principle was also commended by the resolutions of State Legislatures; and Pennsylvania, inspired by the teachings of Franklin and the convictionsof the respectable denomination of Friends, unanimously asserted at once the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit Slavery west of the Mississippi, solemnly calling upon her sister States "to refuse to covenant with crime." New Jersey and Delaware followed. Ohio asserted the same principle: so did Indiana. The latter State, not content with providing for the future, severely censured one of its Senators for his vote to organize Arkansas without the prohibition of Slavery. The resolutions of New York were reinforced by the recommendation of De Witt Clinton.[46]

Amidst these excitements Congress came together in December, 1819, taking possession of these Halls of the Capitol for the first time since their desolation by the British. On the day after the receipt of the President's Message two several Committees of the House were constituted, one to consider the application of Maine, and the other of Missouri, to enter the Union as separate and independent States. With only the delay of a single day, the bill for the admission of Missouri was reported to the House without the restriction of Slavery; but, as if shrinking from the immediate discussion of the great question it involved, afterwards, on motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, modified by Mr. Mercer, of Virginia, its consideration was postponed for several weeks: all which, be it observed, is in open contrast with the manner in which the present discussion has been precipitated upon Congress. Meanwhile the Maine Bill, when reported to the House, was promptly acted upon, and sent to the Senate.

In the interval between the report of the Missouri Bill and its consideration by the House, a Committeewas constituted, on motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, to inquire into the expediency of prohibiting the introduction of Slavery into the Territories west of the Mississippi. This Committee, at the end of a fortnight, was discharged from further consideration of the subject, which, it was understood, would enter into the postponed debate on the Missouri Bill.

This early effort to interdict Slavery in the Territories by special law is worthy of notice on account of expressions of opinion it drew forth. In the course of his remarks, Mr. Taylor declared that "he presumed there was no member—he knew of none—who doubted the constitutional power of Congress to impose such a restriction on the Territories."[47]

A generous voice from Virginia recognized at once the right and duty of Congress. This was from Charles Fenton Mercer, who declared, that, "when the question proposed should come fairly before the House, he should support the proposition.... He should record his vote against suffering the dark cloud of calamity which now darkened his country from rolling on beyond the peaceful shores of the Mississippi."[48]

At length, on the 25th of January, 1820, the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole on the Missouri Bill, and proceeded with its discussion, day by day, till the 28th of February, when it was reported back with an amendment excluding Slavery from the proposed State. At the opening of the debate an amendment was offered with a view to Compromise, when Mr. Smith, of Maryland, for many years an eminent Senator of that State, but at this time a Representative, while opposing the restriction of Missouri,vindicated the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.

"He said that he rose principally with a view to state his understanding of the proposed amendment, namely: That it retained the boundaries of Missouri as delineated in the bill; that it prohibited the admission of slaves west of the west line of Missouri, and north of the north line; that it did not interfere with the Territory of Arkansas, or the uninhabited land west thereof.He thought the proposition not exceptionable, but doubted the propriety of its forming a part of the bill. He considered the power of Congress over the Territory as supreme, unlimited, before its admission; that Congress could impose on its Territories any restriction it thought proper; and the people, when they settled therein, did so under a full knowledge of the restriction. If citizens go into the Territory thus restricted, they cannot carry with them slaves. They will be without slaves, and will be educated with prejudices and habits such as will exclude all desire on their part to admit Slavery, when they shall become sufficiently numerous to be admitted as a State. And this is the advantage proposed by the amendment."[49]

Meanwhile the same question was presented to the Senate, where a conclusion was reached earlier than in the House. A clause for the admission of Missouri was moved by way of tack to the Maine Bill. To this an amendment was moved by Mr. Roberts, of Pennsylvania, prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery into the State, which, after a fortnight's debate, was defeated by twenty-seven nays to sixteen yeas.

The debate in the Senate was of unusual interest and splendor. It was especially illustrated by an effort of eminent power from that great lawyer and orator, William Pinkney. Recently returned froma succession of missions to foreign courts, and at this time the acknowledged chief of the American bar, particularly skilled in questions of Constitutional Law, his course as a Senator from Maryland was calculated to produce a profound impression. A speech from him, which for two days[50]drew to this Chamber an admiring throng, and at the time was fondly compared with the best examples of Greece and Rome, is without any record; but another, made shortly afterwards, remains to us, and here we find the first authoritative proposition and statement of what has been since known as the Missouri Compromise. This latter effort was mainly directed against the restriction upon Missouri, but it began and ended with the idea of Compromise. "Notwithstanding," he says, "occasional appearances of rather an unfavorable description, I have long since persuaded myself that theMissouri question, as it is called, might be laid to rest with innocence and safety by someconciliatory compromiseat least, by which, as is our duty, we might reconcile the extremes of conflicting views and feelings, without any sacrifice of constitutional principle." And he closed with the hope that the restriction on Missouri would not be pressed, but that the whole question "might be disposed of in a manner satisfactory to all,by a prospective prohibition of Slavery in the territory to the north and west of Missouri."[51]Here let me remark, that, in the nomenclature of the time, the term "restriction" was applied to the requirement of Freedom proposed for the State of Missouri, while the term "prohibition" was applied to the outlying territory north of a certain line.

The compromise proposed was abandonment of the "restriction," with recognition of the "prohibition."

This authoritative proposition of Compromise from the most powerful advocate of the unconditional admission of Missouri, was made in the Senate on the 15th of February. From various indications, it seems to have found prompt favor in that body. On the 16th of February, the union of Maine and Missouri in one bill prevailed there by twenty-three yeas to twenty-one nays. The next day, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, who had always voted with the South against any restriction upon Missouri, introduced the famous clause prohibiting Slavery in territory north of 36° 30´ outside this State, which constitutes the eighth section of the Missouri Act. An effort was made to include within the prohibition "the whole country west of the Mississippi, except Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri"; but the South united against such extension of the area of Freedom, and it was defeated by twenty-four nays to twenty yeas. The prohibition, as moved by Mr. Thomas, then prevailed by thirty-four yeas to only ten nays. Among those in the affirmative were both the Senators from each of the Slave States, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware, Maryland, and Alabama, and also one of the Senators from each of the Slave States, Mississippi and North Carolina, including in the honorable list the familiar names of William Pinkney, James Brown, and William Rufus King.

This bill, thus amended, is the first legislative embodiment of the Missouri Compact or Compromise, the essential conditions of which were the admission of Missouri as a State without any restriction of Slavery, and the prohibition of Slavery in all the remaining territory of Louisiana north of 36° 30´.[52]Janus-faced, with one front towards Freedom and another towards Slavery, this must not be confounded with the simpler proposition of Mr. Taylor, at the preceding session, to prohibit Slavery in all the territory north of 36° 30´, including Missouri. The compromise now brought forward, following the early lead of Mr. McLane, both recognized and prohibited Slavery north of 36° 30´. Here, for the first time, these two opposite principles commingled in one legislative channel; and it is immediately subsequent to this junction that we discern the precise responsibility assumed by different parties. And now observe the indubitable and decisive fact. This bill, thus composed, containing these two elements, this double measure, finally passed the Senate by a test vote of twenty-four yeas to twenty nays. The yeas embraced every Southern Senator except Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina, and William Smith, of South Carolina.

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina (interrupting), Mr. Gaillard, of South Carolina, voted with Mr. Smith.

Mr. Sumner.No, Sir: the Journal, which I now hold in my hand, shows that he voted for the bill with the Compromise. I repeat, that the yeas on this vital question embraced every Southern Senator except Mr. Macon and Mr. Smith. The nays embraced every Northern Senator, except the two Senators from Illinois, one Senator from Rhode Island, and one from New Hampshire. And this, Sir, is the record of the first stage in theadoption of the Missouri Compromise. First openly announced and vindicated on the floor of the Senate by a distinguished Southern statesman, it was forced on the North by an almost unanimous Southern vote.

While things had thus culminated in the Senate, discussion was still proceeding in the House on the original Missouri Bill. This was for a moment arrested by the reception from the Senate of the Maine Bill, amended by tacking to it a bill for the admission of Missouri, embodying the Compromise. Upon this the debate was brief and the decision prompt. The House was not disposed to abandon the substantial restriction of Slavery in Missouri for what seemed its unsubstantial prohibition in an unsettled territory. The Senate's amendments to the Maine Bill were all rejected, and the bill left in its original condition. This was done by large votes. Even the Prohibition of Slavery was thrown out, by one hundred and fifty-nine yeas to eighteen nays, both North and South uniting against it,—though, in this small, but persistent minority, we find two Southern statesmen, Samuel Smith and Charles Fenton Mercer. The Senate, on receiving the bill back from the House, insisted on their amendments. The House in turn insisted on their disagreement. According to parliamentary usage, a Committee of Conference between the two Houses was now appointed. Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, Mr. Pinkney, of Maryland, and Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia, composed this important Committee on the part of the Senate; and Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, from the District of Maine, Mr. Taylor, of New York, Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Kinsey, of New Jersey, on the part of the House.

Meanwhile the House voted on the original Missouri Bill. An amendment peremptorily interdicting all Slavery in the new State was adopted by ninety-four yeas to eighty-six nays; and thus the bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate on the 1st of March. So, after an exasperated and protracted discussion, the two Houses were at a dead-lock. The double-headed Missouri Compromise was the ultimatum of the Senate. The restriction of Slavery in Missouri, involving, of course, its prohibition in all the unorganized territories, was the ultimatum of the House.

At this stage, on the 2d of March, the Committee of Conference made their report, which was urged at once upon the House by Mr. Lowndes, the distinguished representative from South Carolina, and one of her most cherished sons. And here, Sir, at the mention of this name, still so fragrant among us, let me for one moment stop this current of history, to express the honest admiration with which he inspires me. Mr. Lowndes died before my memory of political events, but he is still endeared by the self-abnegation of a single utterance,—that the Presidency is an office not to be sought or declined,—a sentiment which by its beauty, in one part at least, shames the vileness of aspiration in our day. Such a man, on any occasion, would be a host; but he now threw his great soul into the work. He even objected to a motion to print the Report, on the ground "that it would imply a determination in the House to delay a decision of the subject to-day, which he had hoped the House was fully prepared for." The question then followed on striking out the restriction in the Missouri Bill. The report in the "National Intelligencer"[53]says:—

"Mr. Lowndes spoke briefly in support of the Compromise recommended by the Committee of Conference, and urged with great earnestness the propriety of a decision which would restore tranquillity to the country, which was demanded by every consideration of discretion, of moderation, of wisdom, and of virtue.""Mr. Mercer [of Virginia] followed on the same side with great earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when he was compelled by indisposition to resume his seat."

"Mr. Mercer [of Virginia] followed on the same side with great earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when he was compelled by indisposition to resume his seat."

Such efforts, pressed with Southern ardor, were not unavailing. In conformity with the report of the Committee, the whole question was forthwith put at rest. Maine and Missouri were admitted into the Union as independent States. The restriction of Slavery in Missouri was abandoned by a vote in the House of ninety yeas to eighty-seven nays; and the prohibition of Slavery in territories north of 36° 30´, exclusive of Missouri, was substituted by a vote of one hundred and thirty-four yeas to forty-two nays. Among the distinguished Southern names in the affirmative are Louis McLane, of Delaware, Samuel Smith, of Maryland, William Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. The title of the Missouri Bill was amended in conformity with this prohibition, by adding the words, "and to prohibit Slavery in certain Territories."The bills then passed both Houses without a division; and on the morning of the 3d of March, 1820, the "National Intelligencer" contained an exulting article, entitled "The Question Settled."

Another paper, published in Baltimore, immediately after the passage of the Compromise, vindicated it as a perpetual compact, which could not be disturbed. The language is so clear and strong that I will read it, although it has been already quoted by my able and excellent friend from Ohio [Mr.Chase].

"It is true, the Compromise is supported only by the letter of a law repealable by the authority which enacted it; but the circumstances of the case give to this law aMORAL FORCEequal to that of a positive provision of the Constitution; and we do not hazard anything by saying that the Constitution exists in its observance.Both parties have sacrificed much to conciliation.We wish to see theCOMPACTkept in good faith, and trust that a kind Providence will open the way to relieve us of an evil which every good citizen deprecates as the supreme curse of this country."[54]

Sir, the distinguished leaders in this settlement were all from the South. As early as February, 1819, Louis McLane, of Delaware, urged it upon Congress, in the form of a "compact binding upon all subsequent Legislatures." It was in 1820 brought forward and upheld in the Senate by William Pinkney, of Maryland, and passed in that body by the vote of every Southern Senator except two, against the vote of every Northern Senator except four. In the House it was welcomed at once by Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and Charles Fenton Mercer, of Virginia. The Committee of Conference, through which it finally prevailed, was filled, on the part of the Senate, with inflexible partisans of the South, such as might fitly represent the sentiments of its President, John Gaillard, a Senator from South Carolina; on the part of the House, it was nominated by Henry Clay, the Speaker, a Representative from Kentucky. This Committee, thus constituted, drawing its double life from the South, was unanimous in favor of the Compromise, with but one dissenting voice, and that from the North,—John W. Taylor, of New York. A private letter from Mr. Pinkney, written at the time, and preserved by his distinguished biographer, shows that the report made by the Committee came from him.

"The bill for the admission of Missouri into the Union (withoutrestriction as to Slavery) may be considered as passed. That bill was sent back again this morning from the House,with the restriction as to Slavery. The Senate voted to amend it by striking out the restriction (twenty-seven to fifteen), and proposed, as another amendment,what I have all along been the advocate of, a restriction upon the vacant territory to the north and west, as to Slavery. To-night the House of Representatives have agreed tobothof these amendments, in opposition to their former votes, and this affair is settled. To-morrow we shall (of course) recede from our amendments as to Maine (our object being effected), and both States will be admitted.This happy result has been accomplished by the Conference, of which I was a member on the part of the Senate, and of which I proposed the report which has been made."[55]

Thus again the Compromise takes its life from the South. Proposed in the Committee by Mr. Pinkney, it was urged on the House of Representatives, with great earnestness, by Mr. Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Mr. Mercer, of Virginia: and here again is the most persuasive voice of the South. When passed by Congress, it next came before the President, James Monroe, of Virginia, for his approval, who did not sign it till after theunanimousopinion, in writing, of his Cabinet, composed of John Quincy Adams, William H. Crawford, John C. Calhoun, Smith Thompson, and William Wirt,—a majority of whom were Southern men,—that the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories was constitutional.Thus yet again the Compromise takes its life from the South.

As the Compromise took its life from the South, so, in the judgment of its own statesmen at the time, and according to unquestionable facts, the South was the conquering party. It gained forthwith its darling desire, the first and essential stage in the admission of Missouri as a Slave State, successfully consummated at the next session,—and subsequently the admission of Arkansas, also as a Slave State. From the crushed and humbled North it received more than the full consideration stipulated in its favor. On the side of the North the contract has been more than executed. And now the South refuses to perform the part which it originally proposed and assumed in this transaction. With the consideration in its pocket, it repudiates the bargain which it forced upon the country. This, Sir, is a simple statement of the present question.

A subtile German has declared that he could find heresies in the Lord's Prayer; and I believe it is only in this spirit that any flaw can be found in the existing obligations of this compact. As late as 1848, in the discussions of this body, the Senator from Virginia [Mr.Mason], who usually sits behind me, but who is not now in his seat, while condemning it in many aspects, says:—

"Yet, as it was agreed to, as a Compromise, by theSouth, for the sake of the Union,I would be the last to disturb it."[56]

Even this determined Senator recognized it as an obligation which he would not disturb. And, though disbelieving the original constitutionality of the arrangement, he was clearly right. I know, Sir, that it is inform simply a Legislative Act; but as the Act of Settlement in England, declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the Crown, has become a permanent part of the British Constitution, irrepealable by any common legislation, so this Act, under all the circumstances attending its passage, also by long acquiescence, and the complete performance of its conditions by one party, has become part of our fundamental law, irrepealable by any common legislation. As well might Congress at this moment undertake to overhaul the original purchase of Louisiana as unconstitutional, and now, on this account, thrust away that magnificent heritage, with all its cities, States, and Territories, teeming with civilization. The Missouri Compact, in its unperformed obligations to Freedom, stands at this day as impregnable as the Louisiana purchase.

I appeal to Senators about me not to disturb it. I appeal to the Senators from Virginia to keep inviolate the compact made in their behalf by James Barbour and Charles Fenton Mercer. I appeal to the Senators from South Carolina to guard the work of John Gaillard and William Lowndes. I appeal to the Senators from Maryland to uphold the Compromise which elicited the constant support of Samuel Smith, and was first triumphantly pressed by the unsurpassed eloquence of Pinkney. I appeal to the Senators from Delaware to maintain the landmark of Freedom in the Territory of Louisiana early proposed by Louis McLane. I appeal to the Senators from Kentucky not to repudiate the pledges of Henry Clay. I appeal to the Senators from Alabama not to break the agreement sanctioned by the earliest votes in the Senate of their late most honored fellow-citizen, William Rufus King. Sir, I have heardof honor that felt a stain like a wound. If there be any such in this Chamber,—and surely there is,—it will hesitate to take upon itself the stain of this transaction.

Sir, Congress may now set aside this obligation, repudiate this plighted faith, annul this compact; and some of you, forgetful of themajesty of honest dealing, in order to support Slavery, may consider it advantageous to use this power. To all such let me commend a familiar story. An eminent leader in Antiquity, Themistocles, once announced to the Athenian Assembly, that he had a scheme in contemplation, highly beneficial to the State, but which could not be made public. He was thereupon directed to communicate it to Aristides, surnamed the Just, and, if approved by him, to put it in execution. The brief and memorable judgment of Aristides was, that, while nothing could be more advantageous to Athens, nothing could be more unjust; and the Assembly, responding at once, commanded that the project should be abandoned. It appears that it was proposed to burn the combined Greek fleet, then enjoying the security of peace in a neighboring sea, and thus confirm the naval supremacy of Athens.[57]A similar proposition is now brought before the American Senate. You are asked to destroy a safeguard of Freedom, consecrated by solemn compact, under which the country is reposing in the security of peace, and thus confirm the supremacy of Slavery. To this institution and its partisans the proposition may seem advantageous; but nothing can be more unjust. Let the judgment of the Athenian democracy be yours.

This is what I have to say upon this head. I now pass to the second branch of the argument.

II.

Mr. President,—It is not only as an infraction of solemn compact, embodied in ancient law, that I oppose this bill; I arraign it as a flagrant and extravagant departure from the original policy of our fathers, consecrated by their lives, opinions, and acts.

[Here Mr. Sumner proceeded to set forth the Antislavery policy at the foundation of the Government,—less fully than in the earlier speech,Freedom National, Slavery Sectional, but substantially in the same vein. After alluding to the memorial of Franklin, addressed to the first Congress under the Constitution, he proceeded as follows.]

The memorial of Franklin, with other memorials of a similar character, was referred to a Committee, and much debated in the House, which finally sanctioned the following resolution, and directed the same to be entered upon its Journals, namely:—

"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of the States:it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require."[58]

This resolution, declaring the principle of non-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States, was adopted by the same Congress which had solemnly affirmed the Prohibition of Slavery in all the existing territory of the Union; so that one may be regarded as the complement of the other. And it is on these double acts, at the first organization of the Government, and the recorded sentiments of the founders, that I take my stand, and challenge all question.

In the country, at this time, there was strictly nodividing line between Antislavery and Proslavery. The Antislavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad and general, pervading alike all parts of the Union, and uprising from the common heart of the entire people. The Proslavery interest was strictly personal and pecuniary, and had its source simply in the self-interest of individual slaveholders. It contemplated Slavery only as a domestic institution, not as a political element, and merely stipulated for its security where it actually existed within the States.

Sir, the original policy of the country, begun under the Confederation, and recognized at the initiation of the new Government, is clear and unmistakable. Compendiously expressed, it wasnon-intervention by Congress with Slavery in the States, and its prohibition in all the national domain. In this way discordant feelings on this subject were reconciled. Slave-masters were left at home in their respective States, under the protection of local laws, to hug Slavery without interference from Congress, while all opposed to it were exempted from any responsibility therefor in the national domain. This, Sir, is the common ground on which our political fabric was reared; and I do not hesitate to say that it is the only ground on which it can stand in permanent peace.

Our Republic has swollen in population and power, but it has shrunk in character. It is not now what it was in the beginning, a Republic merely permitting, while it regretted Slavery,—tolerating it only where it could not be removed, and interdicting it where it did not exist,—but a mighty Propagandist, openly favoring and vindicating it,—visiting, also, with displeasure all who oppose it.

Sir, our country early reached heights which it could not keep. Its fall was gentle, but complete. At the session of Congress immediately following the ratification of the Prohibition of Slavery in the national domain, a transfer of the territory now constituting Tennessee was accepted from North Carolina (2d April, 1790), loaded with the express proviso, "that no regulations made or to be made by Congress shall tend to emancipate slaves": a formal provision, which, while admitting the power of Congress over Slavery in the Territories, waived the prevailing policy of executing it. This was followed, in 1798, by the transfer from Georgia of the region between her present western limit and the Mississippi, under a similar condition. In both these cases apology may be found in the very terms of the transfer, and in the fact that the region constituted part of two States where Slavery actually existed,—though it will be confessed that even here there was a descent from that summit of Freedom on which the Nation had so proudly rested.

Without tracing this downward course through its successive stages, let me refer to facts which too palpably reveal the abyss that has been reached. Early in our history no man was disqualified for public office by reason of his opinions on this subject; and this condition continued for a long period. As late as 1820, John W. Taylor, Representative from New York, who pressed with so much energy, not merely the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, but its restriction in the State of Missouri, was elected to the chair of Henry Clay, as Speaker of the other House. It is needless to add, that no determined supporter of the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories at this day could expect that eminenttrust.... To such lowest deep has our Government descended!

These things prepare us to comprehend the true character of the change with regard to the Territories. In 1787 all existing national domain was promptly and unanimously dedicated to Freedom, without opposition or criticism. The interdict of Slavery then covered every inch of soil belonging to the National Government. Louisiana, an immense region beyond the bounds of the original States, was subsequently acquired, and in 1820, after a vehement struggle which shook the whole land, discomfited Freedom was compelled, by a dividing line, to a partition with Slavery. This arrangement, which, in its very terms, was exclusively applicable to a particular territory purchased from France, has been accepted as final down to the present session of Congress; but now, Sir, here in 1854, Freedom is suddenly summoned to surrender even her hard-won moiety. Here are the three stages: at the first, all consecrated to Freedom; at the second, only half; at the third, all grasped by Slavery. The original policy of the Government is absolutely reversed. Slavery, which at the beginning was a sectional institution, with no foothold anywhere on the National Territory, is now exalted as national, and all our broad domain is threatened by its blighting shadow.

Thus much for what I have to say, at this time, of the original policy, consecrated by the lives, opinions, and acts of our fathers. Certain reasons are adduced for the proposed departure from their great example, which, though of little validity, I would not pass in silence.

The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is assailed, as beyond the power of Congress, and an infringement of local sovereignty. On this account, at this late day, it is pronounced unconstitutional. Now, without considering minutely the sources from which the power of Congress over the national domain is derived,—whether from express grant in the Constitution to make rules and regulations for the government of the Territory, or from power, necessarily implied, to govern territory acquired by conquest or purchase,—it seems to me impossible to deny its existence, without invalidating a large portion of the legislation of the country, from the adoption of the Constitution down to the present day. This power was asserted before the Constitution. It was not denied or prohibited by the Constitution itself. Exercised from the first existence of the Government, it has been recognized by the three departments, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Precedents of every kind are thick in its support. Indeed, the very bill now before us assumes a control of the Territory clearly inconsistent with those principles of sovereignty which are said to be violated by Congressional prohibition of Slavery.

Here are provisions determining the main features of the Government, the distribution of powers in the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial departments, and the manner in which they shall be respectively constituted,—securing to the President, with the consent of the Senate, the appointment of Governor, Secretary, and Judges, and to the people only the election of the Legislature,—and even ordaining the qualifications of voters, the salaries of the public officers, and the daily compensation of the members of the Legislature. Surely, if Congress may establish these provisions, without interference with the rights of territorial sovereignty, it is absurd to say that it may not also prohibit Slavery.

In this very bill there is an express prohibition on the Territory, borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787, and repeated in every Act organizing a Territory, or even a new State, down to the present time, where it is expressly declared that "no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the United States." Now here is a clear and unquestionable restriction upon the Territories and States. The public lands of the United States, situated within an organized Territory or State, cannot be regarded as theinstrumentsandmeansnecessary and proper to execute the sovereign powers of the nation, like fortifications, arsenals, and navy-yards. They are strictly in the nature ofprivate propertyof the nation, and as such, unless exempted by the foregoing prohibition, would clearly be within the scope of local taxation, liable, like the lands of other proprietors, to all customary burdens and incidents. Mr. Justice Woodbury has declared, in a well-considered judgment, that, "where the United States own land situated within the limits of particular States, and over which they have no cession of jurisdiction, for objects either special or general, little doubt exists that the rights and remedies in relation to it are usually such as apply to other land-owners within the State."[59]I assume, then, that without this prohibition these lands would be liable to taxation. Does any one question this? Nobody. The conclusion, then, follows, that by this prohibition you propose to deprive the present Territory, as you have deprived other Territories,—ay, and States,—of an essential portion of its sovereignty.

And these, Sir, are not vain words. The Supreme Court of the United States has given great prominence to the sovereign right of taxation in the States. In the case ofProvidence Bankv.Billings and Pittman, 4 Peters, 561, they declare,—

"That the taxing power is of vital importance;that it is essential to the existence of Government; that the relinquishment of such a power is never to be assumed."

And again, in the case ofDobbinsv.Commissioners of Erie County, 16 Peters, 447, they say:—

"Taxation is a sacred right,essential to the existence of Government, an incident of sovereignty. The right of legislation is coëxtensive with the incident, to attach it upon all persons and property within the jurisdiction of a State."

Now I call upon Senators to remark, that this sacred right, reputed so essential to the very existence of Government, is abridged in the bill before us.

For myself, I do not doubt the power of Congress to fasten this restriction upon the Territory, and afterwards upon the State, as is always done; but I am at a loss to see on what grounds this restriction can be placed, which will not also support the Prohibition of Slavery. The former is an unquestionable infringement of sovereignty, as declared by our Supreme Court, far more than can be asserted of the latter.

I am unwilling to admit, Sir, that the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is in any just sense an infringement of local sovereignty. Slavery is an infraction of the immutable Law of Nature, and as such cannot be considered a natural incident to any sovereignty, especially in a country which has solemnly declared, in its Declaration of Independence, the unalienable right ofall men to life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In an age of civilization, and in a land of rights, Slavery may still be toleratedin fact; but its prohibition within a municipal jurisdiction by the government thereof—as by one of the States of the Union,—cannot be considered an infraction of natural rights; nor can its prohibition by Congress in the Territories be regarded as an infringement of local sovereignty, founded, as it must be, on natural rights.

Then comes another argument, most fallacious in its character. It is asserted, that, inasmuch as the Territories were acquired by the common treasure, they are the common property of the whole Union, and therefore no citizen can be prevented from carrying into them his slaves, without infringement of the equal rights and privileges which belong to him as a citizen of the United States. But it is admitted that the people of this very Territory, when organized as a State, may exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an asserted right, founded on the common property in the Territory. Now, if this can be done by the few thousand settlers who constitute the State Government, the whole argument founded on the acquisition of the Territories by a common treasure is futile and evanescent.

But this argument proceeds on an assumption which cannot stand. It assumes that Slavery is a National Institution, and that property in slaves is recognized by the Constitution of the United States. Nothing can be more false. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, and also by the principles of the Common Law, Slavery is a local municipal institution, deriving its support exclusively from local municipal laws, and beyond the sphere of these laws it ceases to exist,except so far as it may be preserved by the uncertain clause for the rendition of fugitives from service. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there can be property in men; and I rejoice to believe that no such idea can be found there. The Constitution regards slaves always as "persons," with the rights of "persons,"—never as property. When it is said, therefore, that every citizen may enter the national domain with his property, it does not follow, by any rule of logic or of law, that he may carry his slaves. On the contrary, he can carry only that property which is admitted such by the universal Law of Nature, written by God's own finger on the heart of man. In vain do you speak of "rights" in the Territories,—as if this august word could be profaned to characterize such a claim.

The relation of master and slave is sometimes classed with the "domestic relations." Now, while it is unquestionably among the powers of any State, within its own jurisdiction, to change the existing relation of husband and wife, and to establish polygamy, I presume no person would contend that a polygamous husband, resident in one of the States, would be entitled to enter the National Territory with his harem,—his property, if you please,—and there claim immunity. Clearly, when he passes the bounds of that local jurisdiction which sanctions polygamy, the peculiar domestic relation would cease: and it is precisely the same with Slavery.

Sir, I dismiss these considerations. The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territory of Kansas and Nebraska stands on foundations of living rock, upheld by the early policy of the Fathers, by constant precedent, and time-honored compact. It is now in your power to overturn it; you may remove the sacred landmark, and open the whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is committed this high prerogative. Our fathers, on the eve of the Revolution, set forth in burning words, among their grievances, that George the Third, "determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, had prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."[60]Sir, like the English monarch, you may now prostitute your power to this same purpose. But you cannot escape the judgment of the world, nor the doom of history.

It will be in vain, that, while doing this thing, you plead in apology the principle ofself-government, which you profess to recognize in the Territories. Sir, this very principle, when truly administered, secures equal rights to all, without distinction of race or color, and makes Slavery impossible. By no rule of justice, and by no subtilty of political metaphysics, can the right to hold a fellow-man in bondage be regarded as essential to self-government. The inconsistency is too flagrant. It is apparent on the bare statement. It is like sayingtwoandtwomakethree. In the name of Liberty you open the door to Slavery. With professions of Equal Rights on the lips, you trample on the rights of Human Nature. With a kiss upon the brow of that fair Territory, you betray it to wretchedness and shame. Well did the patriot soul exclaim, in bitter words, wrung out by bitter experience, "O Liberty, what crimes are committed in thy name!"[61]

In vain, Sir, you will plead that this measure proceeds from the North, as has been suggested by the Senator from Kentucky [Mr.Dixon]. Even if this were true, it would be no apology. But, precipitated upon the Senate, as this bill has been, at a moment of general calm, and in the absence of any controlling exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of the public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot justly be called the offspring of any popular sentiment. In this respect it differs widely from the Missouri Prohibition, which was adopted only after solemn debate, extending through two sessions of Congress, and ample discussion before the people. As yet, there is no evidence that this attempt, though espoused by Northern politicians, proceeds from that Northern sentiment which throbs and glows, strong and fresh, in the schools, the churches, and the homes of the people.Populi omnesAD AQUILONEMpositi Libertatem quandam spirant.[62]And could the abomination which you seek to perpetrate be now submitted to the awakened millions whose souls are truly ripened under Northern skies, it would be flouted at once, with indignant and undying scorn.

But the race of men, "white slaves of the North," described and despised by a Southern statesman, is not yet extinct there, Sir. It is one of the melancholy tokens of the power of Slavery, under our political system, and especially through the operations of the National Government, that it loosens and destroys the character of Northern men, exerting its subtle influence even at a distance,—like the black magnetic mountain in the Arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction, the iron bolts which held together the strong timbers of a stately ship, floating securely on the distant wave, weredrawn out, till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Alas! too often those principles which give consistency, individuality, and form to the Northern character, which render it stanch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are sucked out, one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fated vessel, and from the miserable loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly,a Northern man with Southern principles. Sir, no such man can speak for the North.

Back to Index Next