ページの画像
PDF
ePub

power? Why, sir, I have heard it said in this | sir,-according to this hypothesis,-what audebate, that the treaty gives not only rights thority had we to divide this great territory? to those who inhabited the territory, but also why not admit in all as one State? They will to our own citizens who may have migrated say it was too large for a single State. True, thither since the cession. The doctrine thus but the constitution has not ascertained the size asserted, appears even more objectionable than of a State, nor has it even been settled in practhat I have alluded to; but it is only worse in tice, for we have States of all sizes, from 70,500 appearance, for in both cases it supposes an ap- square miles, (Virginia,) to 1,548 square miles, peal to a foreign power, from our own citizens, (Rhode Island.) The truth is, and it is vain to against the government. attempt to disguise it, that the common understanding of all parties has long ago fixed the interpretation of the treaty upon a footing not now to be disturbed. This territory, like every other territory of the United States, is subject to the power of the government, to be opened for sale, to be settled, divided, and subdivided, and regulated, according to its policy, and finally to be formed into States, and admitted when it may be deemed expedient.

What are the "rights, advantages, and privileges" of a citizen of the United States, which are guaranteed to the inhabitants of Louisiana? They are the same throughout the United States. They are, therefore, independent of local rights, or those which depend upon residence in a particular place. An inhabitant of a State has certain privileges arising from his inhabitancy of the State. An inhabitant of a territory, too, has certain privileges, which arise from his living in a territory. A citizen of the United States, who resides neither in a State or territory, but is out of the limits of the Union, enjoys neither the privileges of a State or a territory, but he possesses the rights, privileges, and immunities of a citizen of the United States, which are common to all the three descriptions of persons. When an inhabitant of Louisiana is made a citizen of the United States, he becomes entitled to the "rights, advantages, and immunities" of a citizen. He carries them with him wherever he goes; if he is in a State he may add to them State privileges; if he is in a territory he may enjoy the rights of an inhabitant of a territory-in either, or beyond the limits of both, he is still a citizen of the United States, and upon an equal footing with any other citizen.

While I am upon this subject of the treaty, I wish to examine it with a different view, and at the same time to show the enormous extent of the doctrine contended for, which will, I think, afford a strong argument in favor of the right of Congress to impose the restriction. Whence did the treaty-making power derive its authority to purchase lands, and freemen, and slaves? From any express words of the constitution? No. It must then be implied from what? Either from the possession of sovereign authority to which it is an incidentor from the broad terms of the grant, which is to make treaties upon the ground that treaties may stipulate for a purchase of territory. It is then a sort of implied power. And what is next implied? That the territory thus acquired is to be upon a different footing from any other territory of the United States; and that Congress must form States of it, and must admit them. There, sir, the implication all at once stops short. No conditions are to be imposed; no terms offered; no stipulations entered into, however salutary or even indispensably necessary for the welfare of the Union. No, you are not even to require them to have their legislative and judicial proceedings in intelligible language. The whole policy of the na tion is to yield to the views and interests of the inhabitants of the territory, who are, notwithstanding, to become an integral part of the Union, and have a full voice in your delib

It has been argued indeed, that they are to be incorporated into the Union, and that this cannot be done without forming them into a State or States. Should we admit this argument to its full extent, it would leave us exactly where it found us, for as they are to be incorporated (by the express terms of the treaty) "according to the principles of the Federal Constitution," we should still be obliged to return to the constitution, to inquire upon what terms States are to be admitted. And certainly the plain answer would be, that they are to be admitted upon the same terms as other territories in the United States. But the fallacy of the argu-erations. ment lies, in applying to the territory (which was ceded in full sovereignty) what was intended only for the inhabitants. Nothing more is necessary, to enable us to detect the fallacy, Try this principle by any practical test, and than to trace it to some of its consequences. see where it will lead us. The United States What right upon the construction contended have no power (it is contended) to prevent or for, had we to postpone the admission for a sin- limit slavery, and they have no power to stop gle day? Why, gentlemen will say the ter- migration. You have purchased a territory, ritory had not the requisite number of inhabi- nearly equal in extent to all the original States. tants. But no number of inhabitants is neces- A single plantation may inoculate the whole sary, except by the practice under the constitu- with this odious disease. The 50,000 slaves in tion, and that same practice gives us certain | Louisiana may blacken the country from the other powers which need not now be mention- Mississippi to the Pacific. What becomes of ed, including the very one in question. Again, the free States then? For every five slaves

What is your treaty-making power then? Paramount to all the authorities of the nation; paramount to the constitution itself; paramount even to the people.

before them. But it seems to me that the concession with respect to slavery, modified as it is in appearance, is quite as broad as the unlimited admission of every one else who has spoken. It is an evil to the slave; it is an evil founded in wrong, and its injustice is not the less, because it is advantageous to some one else. Every injury, from the least to the greatest, might find the same sort of mitigation. It is a very great evil to him who suffers, but it is no evil to him who inflicts it. The same gentleman, however, has himself made the most unqualified concession; for he said he would recommend to the people of Missouri to abolish slavery, and that

there are three votes, and the time may come
when the voice of the slaves, in the councils of
the nation, will be louder than that of the free-
men. Heaven forbid! For if it should, what
will be the condition of those who live in the
free States? There is something humiliating in
labor—in the labor of getting a living-and it
is scarcely to be expected that the master of an
hundred slaves should have any feeling in com-
mon with him, who earns his bread by his daily
work. What becomes of the compact of the
constitution itself, settled, as it was, upon the
basis of the existing States, and of the States to
be formed out of the North-west Territory,
whose condition, as respects slavery, was irre-in
vocally fixed? The sense of that compact is
entirely changed. Its form may remain, but
the substance the life of it, is gone for ever.
The same principle, too, (for it is indefinite in
its capacity,) may be applied to future acquisi-
tions. War or negotiation, conquest or treaty,
might bring the island of Cuba within the limits
of the Union. But, I am satisfied, and I hope
the committee are satisfied, that the treaty has
nothing to do with the question. I discard it
altogether.

I will now, with the leave of the committee, proceed to the remaining branch of this very interesting subject, or what is called the question of expediency.

It is decreed that slavery shall be a very great evil; and (as has been already remarked) one of its incidents is, that where it exists, it can never be fairly or freely discussed. It must be taken up at a certain point, which admits every thing that goes before, and among the rest, (in a qualified sense,) the lawfulness of its origin and existence. I will not disturb this arrangement, but I must be permitted to say, that slavery is a great moral and political evil. If it be not, let it take its course. If it be a good, let it be encouraged. If it be an evil, I am opposed to its further extension. This is plain, simple, clear, intelligible ground.

to use.

his own State he would favor a general emancipation, as soon as it should be practicable, which he surely would not do if it were not an evil.

I beg leave further to say, that I do not consider this as a question of humanity, or a question of policy, or interest, or profit, or ease-it is (disguise or argue it as you will) a question of the extension of slavery. It is a question, too, not for the present only, but for future ages; and the glorious example of our ancestors admonishes to make the sacrifice, (if sacrifice it be,) as we would have the blessings or the curses of posterity. Why should we spread an acknowledged evil? Is there any other moral or physical evil that we should think it wise or expedient to treat in this way? Would you extend the ravages of an infectious disease? Would you cultivate the growth and enlarge the noxious influence of a poisonous weed? Would any father so treat his offspring, even in this very instance? If he were surrounded with slaves, whom he believed to be an injury and a curse to him, would he require his son at setting out in life, to relieve him, by taking upon himself a part of the odious burden?

Besides, it is an evil founded in wrong, and originating in our own choice. The extension of it, therefore, is not to be justified, but by the most urgent and instant necessity, so evident, that every man will at once agree to submit Most of those, who have opposed the amend- to its imperious dictates. I reject all specument, have agreed with us in characterizing lative, or probable, or modified, or remote slavery as an evil and a curse, in language necessity that which resolves itself at last, stronger than we should perhaps be at liberty when fairly analyzed, into matter of profit, of One of them only, the member from convenience, or comparative political power. Kentucky, who last addressed the committee, If there be doubt, it is decisive-even though (Mr. Clay,) rather reproves his friends for this there were considerable weight of probability in unqualified admission. He says it is a very favor of the argument, I would decide against great evil indeed to the slave; but it is not an it. Has any one seriously considered the scope evil to the master; and he challenges us to deny of this doctrine? It leads directly to the estabthat our fellow-citizens of the south are as hos-lishment of slavery throughout the world. The pitable, as generous, as patriotic, as public-spirited as their brethren of the north or east. Sir, they are all this, and even more. For some of the virtues enumerated, they are eminently and peculiarly distinguished; and I believe they are deficient in none of them. It has long ago been remarked, that the masters of slaves have the keenest relish for their own liberty, and the proudest sense of their own independence. It is natural that it should be so; the feeling is quickened by the degrading contrast continually

same reasoning that will justify the extension of slavery into one region, or country, will equally justify its extension to another. It leads, too, directly to the re-establishment of the foreign slave trade, for it has a tendency to break down that great moral feeling which has been gradually making its way into the world, and to which alone, supported and encouraged as it has been by the untiring exertions of humane and benevolent men, we are indebted for the abolition of that detestable traffic, so long

the disgrace of Christendom. To look upon with statements of the importance of the traffic slavery with indifference; to witness its exten- to the navigation and trade, and revenue and sion without emotion; to permit one's self even colonies, and all the other great interests of the to calculate its advantages sir, the next step, kingdom. Yes, sir; and they undertook to and a very short one it is, may be readily im- strengthen their argument by gravely asserting agined. There are parts of this country now, that the African slave was really rescued from at this very moment, where the laws against the much greater misery, by putting him on board importation of slaves, with all their heavy de-a slave ship, and carrying him in irons, (if he nunciations, are continually violated. It is no-happened to survive,) to the place destined for torious, that in spite of the utmost vigilance his perpetual imprisonment. These things are that can be employed, African negroes are clan- familiar to every body, and they are now treated destinely brought in and sold as slaves. This as they deserve to be. could not happen if there were a universal sentiment against the trade; the existence of the illicit traffic, to any extent, however small, affords the fullest proof, that in those parts of the Union where it continues to be carried on, it meets encouragement from the feelings and the interests of some part of the community. Far be it from me to impute these feelings to any State, or to any considerable part of a State. But the sordid appetite exists, or such inhuman means would not be employed to gratify it.

We are told, however, that it is not extension, it is only diffusion, that is to be the effect.

one.

I confess that I do not well understand the distinction. The diffusion of slaves, is an extension of the system of slavery, with all its odious features; and if it were true, (as it certainly is not,) that their numbers would not be increased by it, still, it would be at least impolitic. But for what purpose is this diffusion to be encouraged? To disperse and weaken, and dilute the morbid and dangerous matter says To better the condition of the slaves, by spreading them over a large surface, says another. A third tells us, that we cannot justly refuse to permit a man to remove with his family. A fourth comes directly to the question of interest, and his reason is, that land in the State of Missouri has been bought by individuals upon the faith of its being a slave State, and if we prohibit slavery there, these lands will fall in value. And in the rear of all these, comes an appeal to the public interest, in the shape of a suggestion, that slavery must be permitted in order to maintain the price of the public lands. I would ask gentlemen seriously to examine their hearts, and see if they are not deceiving themselves-I am sure they mean not to deceive others. Do they remember the arguments by which the slave trade was so long and so obstinately defended in England? The triumph of humanity there is quite recent, and the contest is a monument of the zeal and ingenuity that may be enlisted in a cause, which we all agree to have been utterly indefensible, and which no man, having a respect for himself, would now have the hardihood to attempt to defend. The arguments, then employed, I am sorry to say, have too much resemblance to those which are urged upon this question of expediency. The debates in parliament, the memorials from Bristol and Liverpool, the representations of the West India merchants, and ship owners, and owners of West India plantations, were filled

But it is only diffusion that is desired! Is this a reasonable desire? Little more than thirty years have elapsed since the constitution was adopted. Two States of this Union (South Carolina and Georgia), then insisted upon reserving, for twenty years, the privilege of supplying themselves with slaves from abroad, and refused to come into the Union unless Congress were prohibited, during that time, from preventing importation. Congress were accordingly prohibited, and scarcely ten years have elapsed since the prohibition ceased. Can they reasonably ask already to be permitted to diffuse what they were then so anxious to possess? Are they so soon overburdened? It cannot be, for the illicit trade is still carried on, and that would end at once if there were not a demand and a market.

I may be told, and told with truth, that the other slave-holding States are not exposed to the same remark. Of Virginia, especially, it gives me pleasure to be able to speak on this subject, with sincere respect. While yet a colony, she remonstrated against the introduction of slaves. One of the earliest acts of her government, after her independence, put an end to the trade. And it has always been understood to her honor, that in the convention, her voice and her most strenuous exertions were employed in favor of the immediate abolition of the traffic. Still, sir, with respect to any, or all the slaveholding States, I may be allowed to ask, is diffusion now necessary? I think it is not. Look at the present price of slaves. Does that indicate an actual increase of their numbers to such an amount as to require diffusion? I am informed by a gentleman, upon whose accuracy I place great reliance, that from the adoption of the constitution to the present time, the price has been regularly advancing. I do not mean to say that it is as high now as it was a year ago. It was then like every thing else, affected by speculation. But taking average periods, say of five or six years, there has been a regu lar and constant advance, manifesting a demand at least equal to the supply.

Take another and a larger view. Look at the extent of territory, occupied entirely by freemen, and that which is occupied by freemen and by slaves. You will find, that at the time of the last census, in 1810, four hundred and forty-four thousand and seventy square miles were inhabited by two millions, three hundred and thirty-three thousand, three hundred and

[ocr errors]

upon the means of subsistence. By enlarging the space, generally speaking, you increase the quantity of food, and of course you increase the numbers of the people. Our own illustrious Franklin, with his usual sagacity, long ago dis covered this important truth. "Was the face of the earth," he says, "vacant of other plants, it might be gradually sowed and overspread with one kind only, as for instance, with fenmight, in a few ages, be replenished with one nation only, as for instance, with Englishmen." If this does not exactly happen, it is only because in their march, they are met and resisted by other plants and by other people, struggling like themselves for the means of subsistence.

thirty-six free persons, and one million, one hundred and thirty-eight thousand, three hundred and sixty slaves; giving a total of three millions, four hundred and seventy-one thousand, six hundred and ninety-six. At the same period, three millions, six hundred and fifty thousand, one hundred and one free persons had for their portion three hundred and twelve thousand, seven hundred and thirty-six square miles. Such was then the comparative extent and pop-nel; and were it empty of other inhabitants, it ulation of the free States, and of the slave-holding States and territories; the latter with fewer inhabitants by almost two hundred thousand, posessing above one hundred and thirty thou- | sand square miles of land more than the former -a tract of country equal in size to the two largest States in the Union. The population, in the free States, we know increases with greater rapidity than in the slave-holding States. At the present time it is not to be doubted, that the disparity is greater than it was in 1810, and more unfavorable to the free inhabitants. In making the distribution of future comforts, we ought to have at least an equal eye to the latter, and they, I think from this statement, are most likely soon to want room to diffuse.

By enlarging the limits for slavery, you are thus preparing the means for its indefinite increase and extension, and the result will be, to keep the present slave-holding States supplied to their wishes with this description of population, and to enable them to throw off the surplus, with all its productive power, on the West, as long as the country shall be able and willing to receive them. To what extent you will, in this way increase the slave population, it is imIf it were not dwelling too long upon this part possible to calculate; but that you will increase of the subject, I would ask gentlemen to look it there can be no doubt, and it is equally ceralso at the comparative statement of the popu-tain that the increase will be at the expense of lation to the square mile, in the free States, and in the slave-holding States. They will find it in Dr. Seybert's work, (page 45.) If I mistake not, the average of the former was twenty-seven, fifty-six, and of the latter, fifteen, thirty-six, applying the computation to the States contained in his table. These facts sufficiently answer the question, whether the diffusion of the slave population is now necessary.

I am fully convinced, however, that this idea of diffusion, (as distinguished from extension,) which is at present so great a favorite, is altogether founded in error. If the amount of the slave population were fixed, and it could not be increased, it would no doubt be correct to say, that in spreading it over a larger surface, you only diffused it. But this is certainly not the

case.

We need not recur for proof or illustration to the laws that govern population. Our own experience unhappily shows that this evil has a great capacity to increase; and its present magnitude is such as to occasion the most serious anxiety. In 1790, there were in the United States, six hundred and ninety-four thousand, two hundred and eighty slaves; in in 1800, there were eight hundred and eightynine thousand, eight hundred and eighty-one; and in 1810, one million, one hundred and sixty-five thousand, four hundred and forty-one. This is a gloomy picture. The arguments of gentlemen on the opposite side admit that an increase will take place, for they are founded upon the belief that the time must arrive when the slaves will be so multiplied as to become dangerous to their possessors. There are indeed no limits to the increase of population, black or white, slave or free, but those which depend

the free population.

The same gentleman to whom I have several times referred before, (Mr. Clay,) insists that this will not be the case. He says that the ratio of increase of slave population shows, that its activity is now at the maximum; and as this implies the existence of the most favorable circumstances, you cannot, by any change, accelerate the increase. He therefore infers, that if from twenty slaves in an old State, you take two, and transfer them to a new one, it is an actual diminution in the State from which they are taken to that amount, and putting the two States together, you simply change the place but not alter the quantity. Supposing the fact to be, as it is here assumed to be, that the activity of increase is now at its maximum, it affords a most conclusive argument against the necessity of diffusion. It proves that there is ample room, and abundant means of subsistence, within the limits that now circumscribe the slave population, and that no enlargement of those limits is necessary. But, sir, we must look a little into the future. Legislation, on this subject, is not merely for the moment we occupy. The whole scope of the argument against us, is founded upon the belief, that the time must come when the slaves will be straitened in the territory, large as it is, which now confines them. When that time shall arrive, I presume it will not be denied, that their numbers will be increased by enlarging the space for them, and then, certainly, you will have extended slavery, in every sense.

Will it be such a dispersion as the gentle man from Virginia, (Mr. Smyth,) has talked of? If, like prisoners of war, (one of the cases he

has mentioned,) they were to be detained for a limited time, and then set at liberty; or, if they were to be mixed in society, and gradually lose their distinctive character in the mixture, dispersion would be highly expedient and just. But, they are negroes and slaves-so they are to continue. Their descendants are to be negroes and slaves, to the latest generation, and for ever chained to their present condition. Nature has placed upon them an unalterable physical mark, and you have associated with it an inseparable moral degradation, either of which opposes a barrier, not to be passed, to their coalescing with the society that surrounds them. They are, and for ever must remain distinct.

gentleman, what he supposes will happen in the mean time? The diminished price of labor, and the reduced means of subsistence, are, according to this theory, first to operate upon the freemen, and then upon the slaves, and upon both by producing a considerable degree of misery. Does he suppose that they will patiently submit, and wait till the slow destruction arrives? The two great classes, kept distinct by your laws, would, in such a struggle, like two men upon a single plank in the ocean, make a desperate effort each to secure to itself existence, by destroying the life of the other. When want and misery begin to press upon them, instinct will teach them how to seek relief, and deadly violence will be its agent. And what would then be the situation of the country? I shudder even to think of it. present slave-holding States have a security in being surrounded by States that are free. But if the whole nation, or even a considerable part of it, were in the same condition, what security should we then have?

The

And now, let me ask gentlemen, where this diffusion is to end? If circumstances require it at present, will not the same circumstances demand it hereafter? Will they not, at some future time, become straitened in their new limits, however large? And what will you do then? Diffuse again; and what then? Even this diffusion will have its limits, and when they are reached, the case is without remedy Again, sir, we are told, that the amendment and without hope. For a present ease to our- in question will injure the rights of property, selves, we doom our posterity to an intermi- by depriving the owners of slaves of their unnable curse. But we seem to forget, altogether, born descendants, and by lessening the value of that while the slaves are spreading, the free their lands, bought upon the presumption that population is also increasing, and, sooner or Missouri would be a slave State. Sir, we have later, must feel the pressure, which it is sup- no right to meddle with the question of slavery posed may at some time be felt by the slaves. in the existing States. Their own laws must Where you place a slave, he occupies the regulate the subject, and they may modify it as ground that would maintain a freeman. And to them shall seem best. But as a general posiwho, in this code of speculative humanity, tion, independently of State provisions, it may making provisions for times afar off, is to have safely be averred, that no man has a property the preference, the freeman or the slave? in an unborn human being. We need not go far for the proof of this. The States that have abolished slavery, have done so by declaring, that the children to be born should be free; which would have been beyond their power, if there had been a property in the children before their birth. This principle, however, is so well established, that it need not be further insisted upon. The depreciation in the value of land, is a consequence not likely to happen. The reverse will be the case. Let any one compare the prices and the improvement of land in the free States, and in the slave-holding States, and he will be satisfied, that in this, as in every other respect, Missouri will be a great gainer by the restriction. But if it were otherwise, is the great policy of the nation in a point so vital to--are the essential interests of justice and humanity, to yield to the pecuniary interests of a few individuals? Can you always avoid doing a partial injury by your public measures? When war is declared, what is the effect upon the merchant? When peace is made, how does it fare with the manufacturer? You cannot even alter the rate of duty, without affecting some interest of the community, either to its prejudice or benefit, and at last you must come to the consideration of the great question of national concern, to which minor considerations must give way.

In this long view of remote and distant consequences, the gentleman from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) thinks he sees how slavery, when thus spread, is at last to find its end. It is to be brought about by the combined operation of the laws which regulate the price of labor, and the laws which govern population. When the country shall be filled with inhabitants, and the price of labor shall have reached a minimum, (a comparative minimum I suppose is meant,) free labor will be found cheaper than slave labor. Slaves will then be without employment, and, of course, without the means of comfortable subsistence, which will reduce their numbers, and finally extirpate them. This is the argument, as I understand it. When the period referred to will arrive, no one can pretend conjecture. Much less, would any one attempt to say, what number of slaves we shall have, (with the previous encouragement proposed to be given to them,) when this severe law shall begin to operate. But every prudent and feeling man will, I think, agree without hesitation, that he would rather see the experiment tried upon a small scale than a large one; that it would be much more easily and safely conducted, and with much less suffering, in the present slave-holding States, than if it were to embrace, in addition, the whole of the great territory beyond the Mississippi. But, let me ask that VOL. II.-34

In the variety of claims that have been

« 前へ次へ »